You have my upmost respect and admiration. Praise God

@@peter_hobbs Aww thank you and God bless!

There's not a doubt in my mind that it was the Roman Church which, apostatized from the ancient Christian Church and has strayed ever further from the ancient faith since; while it has been the Orthodox Church which has preserved the apostolic faith. Any serious inquiry into Church history and the Church fathers makes this clear and it's reaffirmed with the fact that it is only Holy Orthodoxy that continues to produces genuine saints, to this day. I'm saying all this as someone who was formerly atheist, so I had no dog in the fight when I went looking for the authentic Christianity. And I certainly don't have some deep seated fear that Catholicism makes the most sense - not by a long shot. Basing theological matters on internet laymen over the saints of the Church, is certainly not the way I would conclude which is the authentic Christianity. That said, I wish you all the best in your pursuit for authentic Christianity. God bless.

@Bethany It is true that online Orthodoxy is often scandalous and uncharitable. In many cases that’s an understatement. Your observation that it betrays an insecurity about what grounds their personal faith is also very perceptive and probably accurate. This probably always the case when someone adopts a new belief system mostly on the basis of their rejection of another one. To be fair though, I’ve noticed a similar trend in the online Roman Catholic world vis a vis Orthodoxy. The main reason I see many if not most converts to Roman Catholicism criticizing and rejecting Orthodoxy is the bad behavior of online “Orthodox”. But there is an important difference between adherents of a religion who misbehave because of their religion and those who misbehave in spite of it. If they misbehave in spite of it then it can’t be a grounds for responsibly rejecting it. It would also be hypocritical to criticize Orthodox for defining themselves primarily antagonistically towards Roman Catholicism while essentially doing the same by rejecting Orthodoxy on account of the bad behavior of a certain contingent of online “Orthodoxy”. Of course that would have the added issue of being hypocritical on top of the problem of defining oneself by what they reject. Regardless what communion one chooses in the end, it would obviously be unwise to build ones house on the sand of negativity towards others or hypocrisy or both. If someone really wants to understand Orthodoxy and they insist on doing it online, the best resources I would say would be Uncreatedlightpress YT channel, Fr. Jeremiah Vollman’s homilies on St. Paul Orthodox Church (type that in with his name) YT channel, Father Spyridon Bailey YT channel, Fr. Josiah Trenham’s talks on PatristicNectarFilms YT channel and the articles on lives of Saints and Spirituality on Orthochristian.com. The following monastic documentaries are also very spiritual edifying and representative of the heart of Orthodoxy: The Good Struggle (Hamatoura in Lebanon), Athos (the hour and a half version is better than the 60 minutes one), Step to the Skies (Valaam in Russia), Behind the Monastery Walls (Romania). The best resource though to see how Orthodoxy has truly preserved the Faith of the New Testament and of the Fathers is the lives and writings of the 20th century Saints especially: everything by St. Nikolai Velimirovic, St. Silouan, St. Porphyrios, St. Paisios, Elder Thaddeus (you can find an hour long or so interview on YT), Elder Cleopa. The truly awesome lives of the three beautiful Russian female Saints of the last 200 years is also very worthwhile: St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess and New Martyr, St. Xenia of St. Petersburg and St. Matrona of Moscow. I sincerely pray that God will strengthen you for a good struggle in this life, Bethany, and that His Holy Mother comforts you along the way

@Bethany Ann, just to be fair to yourself you could invest a couple of hours to watch Ubi Petrus's videos.

It would be amazing! I support this idea LOL

Agreed

Yesssssss!

This would be so perfect ahaha.

I would rather see Mitch Pacwa vs J. Trenham

Sadly, I have to agree (about Protestantism....I am Catholic).

Lol. Good way to put it

I said the same. lol.

The CowardJesseJoyce check out the response to this video. There are several competent Orthodox who have offered to discuss and debate Ybarra. Matt Fradd reached out and we will see if he is good on his offer.

@@helovesmankind Im aware of the offers but I can also see why Erick would be hesitant given some of the attacks and attitudes. All I hope for is a productive exchange in good faith.

@@KinoTechUSA69 I understand where you are coming from. Dig deeper and you will see that there are issues not be faced by Ybarra.

@@helovesmankind Gotchya, will do. Thanks.

@@Erick_Ybarra you have yet to reply to Ubi's video which has been out for a long time now. He has offered to discuss. Please do so with Matt as it would clarify a lot of muddy water. Thank you Mr Ybarra!

I keep seeing replies to my comment in my notifs but they get deleted?? Why? It’s really strange

I would also say Ubi seems very knowledgeable and probably the best option as well when it comes to a debate. If Matt would be willing. He’s also a nice guy I hear!

1:29:52 They say in this interview they'd like to do a debate or discussion w/ Fr T

Is he an Orthodox Christian?

@@user-vg8ez9cu6u mhm

@Philippe Labonte wouldnt the catholic brothers and sisters want to correct our paths and bring us EO into the true faith by showing the errors of Orthodoxy? Doesnt seem very Christian to not help us steer away from our path to hell. Pretty poor excuse for not having an EO on considering that his audience clearly wants to see that happen. Seem kinda scared imo

@@unam9931 for finding truth together? Pretty sure that is what its for lol

@Philippe Labonte because if youre going to be honest with yourself and your audience you should bring on ppl who share opposing viewpoints. Just because he presupposes his worldview is correct doesnt mean it is. And its not very honest to talk about the flaws of EO without ever having Orthos on to defend themselves. Just seems like an echo chamber mentality imo

@Philippe Labonte who?

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ldemjaeK3cCmeJ8.html

Agree 100%

Do Catholics - theologians, apologists, priests, bishops - have the same space on EO channels whenever there are EO brothers talking about Catholicism (which may be, outside of some monks, almost 100% of the channels)? So I understand your points, my friend, and I personally find it enriching to have charitable people within, but the fighting mentality and the anti-Catholicism just got off the rail from Eastern Orthodox Internet warriors, and I sense some hypocritical double-standard speaks here, since people would flood Catholic channels and act like they indeed acted with Matt and Eric (note: I was there at the chat responding, my friend, so I saw it) and they were very cruel specially to Benjamin, the moderator, that had a lot of work, but they won’t have the least preoccupation to give space to Catholics say their faith by themselves on their channels (what you people are NOW, just now elegantly asking). I am saying this may come insanely hypocritical. I am not implying you thought about it before posting, but maybe we all should make adequate reflections on how we act and who we are, myself included. Pax et bonum. Greetings from a Brazilian Catholic.

This is a business. Understand that first and everything makes sense.

Reason and Theology is a Catholic channel which has had Orthodox priests on to explain Orthodox stuff. I agree with you, if not at the same time then interview separately so we can get uninterrupted explanations, the confusing part is I hear that not all EO Churches believe in the same doctrines...or is that an error of understanding on my part?

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker they don’t. Which is another issue and why I left it. They are all different and believe and practice slightly differently. They are mostly autocephalous churches, not one. RC is one United church

He kinda does remind me of pavarotti

Does your orthodox church allow divorce?

@@Marcus-sk2xf did Jesus say," whatever sins you forgive shall be forgiven, and whatever sins you retain will be also retained in Heaven"? It seems to me that the Church has the right to deal with sin. All Sin. Till he returns.

@@MrPanchoak So… does your orthodox church allow divorce?

@@Marcus-sk2xf who knows? I don't, and I have no plans to find out. Does the Roman sect encourage promiscuity? Remove the log from......

@@MrPanchoak You didn't really answer his question on if the Orthodox church you go to allows divorce. . . And no the Catholic Church doesn't allow promiscuity.

Fradd needs to have actual, historic Protestants on. Cameron is a great guy, but he's a modern Evangelical and not an historic, Classical Protestant. Fradd needs an Anglican or a Lutheran.

@@barelyprotestant5365 I agree! I have an Anglican background so I’d enjoy seeing that as well

@@barelyprotestant5365 Yes, someone like James White who would be pleased to go on his show.

@@cheechak481 eh...

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ldemjaeK3cCmeJ8.html

You follow many Buddhist channels, sorry I got very curious about it. Are you Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant...?

@@brunot2481 raised catholic. Buddhist for a couple years through buddhism came interest in monasticism which lead me to desert fathers which lead me to orthodoxy. Not orthodox yet but attending an orthodox church. Still have a lot of respect for buddhism and Catholicism because those were my beliefs in my formative years so that's why I'm still subscribed.

Side note I personally got a little to worked up in this stream abd apologize for saying some things like the part when I criticized the Catholic conception of unity.

@@bobbyleonardo4467 I wasn’t aware of that. If you have to go to Eastern Orthodoxy to be not a Buddhist, which would qualify as a pagan traditions, I would be more than happy for you to go there without even thinking of it. But the Fathers of the Desert are a “common patrimony” to us, I think. We have even the Carmelite spirituality that is very influenced by the Fathers. God luck on your path!

@@brunot2481 thank you. I'm glad I finally came back to Christ. And yes they are pre schism, but some contemporary orthodox monastic saints like St Porphyrios and St Paisios also helped guide me back to the faith which is why I got interested in Orthodoxy

Maybe you can quote Saing Maximum the Confessor saying that there is no problem with the Filioque.

@@Xavilupe. I would but Florence rejected St. Maximus’s definition for the Filioque. So quoting him wouldn’t work to prove the case of reunion.

​@@bryankoverby It didn't, in fact, it was used while the debate.

@@Xavilupe. Right. They rejected his formula in his letter and defined against him. So we can't use him as an example except to say that the Florence definition is wrong.

​@@bryankoverby I they did not condemned or rejected Maximus formula. Neither defined against him. I'm not an expert in Florence, but if you are interested, in this blog you have an interesting debate: bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/ There is some people making your claims and others defending the opposite one. May it be interesting. Anyways, I don't see the Filioque to be a huge issue. Lots of scholars think they are compatible an I do so. People needs to understand latins dogmatic position, the Spirit has not two causes, it proceeds from the Father through the Son. It the Son has nothing to do with this, then, why the Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity? Why nof be the second? If orthodox can agree with Maximus formula, I think they can agree with catholic position. And, before anyone starts quoting things like: "here they talk about cause explicitly or something like this". I ask for precise language: what are they meaning exactly with this word. Sometimes translating some words can bring some problems, other times the words are used in a sense or in another, been used in a more general way... If anyone uses this kind of argument, that person can say tthat saint Cyril of Alexandria was an heretic because he talked about Christ "mia physis". Language can be a source of misunderstanding (and for sure, lots of time it has been). God bless you.

Who makes up the “Pentarchy” today?

@stopaskingmynamegoogle hmmm I can't find the particular video anymore, but there was a video where Michael from R&T came out and denied this 'feeding' of questions

@@tsp8855 it's a "he-said-she-said" situation. The problem is this: I was invited onto Reason and Theology a few weeks ago; however, when Lofton remembered that I did not condemn Craig Truglia for his accusation (I did not defend Truglia, even by Lofton's own admission; I literally only stated that I don't know who's lying, if anyone.), he promptly canceled the show we had scheduled. So because of that, I'm inclined to believe that Lofton and Co. are being dishonest. Again, even by Lofton's admission, I was not claiming one side or another was lying, only that I didn't know who (if anyone) was lying.

Or kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ldemjaeK3cCmeJ8.html

@@unam9931 You're getting defensive over a genuine question.

@Destynation Z So he has Ybarra on, but no learned orthodox. The only times I've seen Matt deal with Orthodoxy it is when he is uncontested. Ubi Petrus did a response to this video. I'd recommend watching it.

@@unam9931 My brother why jump to conclusions you don’t know for sure? Give him the benefit of the doubt we can’t all tell tone of voice in these comments.

@@unam9931 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ldemjaeK3cCmeJ8.html not really true...

😂

@Harley Mann that's not true actually... I know of at least one who I disagree with very much who is under Bartholomew, who is by far the worst, and he's a leading orthobro.

@Harley Mann Well thanks for editing it from "You are all..." since I'm not even Eastern Orthodox, never mind one of them. But they don't say Bartholomew isn't orthodox, they just don't like his liberalizing tendencies that are novel, just like how serious Catholics can't stand Francis, which doesn't even mean such Catholics think Francis isn't Catholic. Having a bad hierarch is as old as the hierarchy itself. This is like trying to catch smoke with a net.

@Harley Mann Amen!

@Harley Mann Cool story, bro. We can move jurisdictions. That’s the beauty of Orthodoxy. We’re not stuck with a garbage pope.

@@flisom The holiness or orthodoxy of a Pope's personal position or even outward statements are not formal teachings for the faithful. Meaning they are not binding nor are we to consider them as the teaching of the Church. Thus, that is why we have had many bad popes and the Church is still free from error. Please visit the Vatican website on The Code of Canon Law, and search Can. 747-755, this will help, and I hope after reading this you come to a greater understanding of how formal teaching is passed on and also how it is not. As far as "why would EO put themselves under Pope Francis" - well I would say because it brings stability and unity, something the EO lack, and they will be able to gain also an objective moral Truths (for example contraception), furthermore they will receive the gift of infallible teachings, a special protection given to the See of Rome from the Holy Spirit that keeps the Church from teaching in error. There are many other reasons I could give, obviously everyone won't agree with them but you asked and there are a few on the benefits of following the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church.

@@flisom We don't need a canon lawyer to interpret Christian Faith. Canon law exists to clarify matters, for example, your belief that a Pope's personal opinion is somehow binding or inhibits the faithful - which is untrue, canon law explains this so the faithful do not become confused. And ok but now you are talking about a matter of subjective feelings when it comes to your personal preference or experience at a particular Church, which is fine but I don't see how that pertains to the discussion at hand. Truth is simple as God is a simple-being, and we only need to look to nature and natural-law written on our hearts to see that Truth is real and objective. Nevertheless, how Truth is interpreted is not readily apparent, but thank God Christ left us a Church which He gave the deposit of faith to and the power to bind-and-loose. Blessings on continuing your study into the faith and the choices you make. In Christ brethren.

@@flisom In fact I would not agree that most Catholics are catechized through the Mass, as that is not how the Church formally teaches or instructs. Catechism should be a structured (but could be informal as well, i.e.: at home) learning experience where one is being taught the fundamentals of the faith. Furthermore, one's study of their faith does not end at catechesis classes but should extend to the end of one's life to be more fully involved in Truth. All of this can and should be done at the parish level, if it is not then that does not stop one from continuing their education in faith. Many faithful read canon law, and or are instructed by its contents from others - I am not suggesting that one read canon law front to back, which I would not even attempt, my suggestion is that Canon Law is available to like I said previously to help explain matters and clarify them. I think reading the Catechism or even an abridged version of the Catechism is sufficient in understanding the Faith and not falling into error as to believe for example that the Pope's personal opinions are binding to the Church. A priest or others in leadership roles at a parish level should reflect the objective and infallible teachings of the Church, if they don't then there is a proper channel to report such issues. How would one know that they are, well if they take their faith seriously then they will know how to spot false teaching etc,... How serious one takes their studies in the faith is not a matter of the Church but a personal one's desire and the fault of ignorance lies solely on the individual, not the mother Church who in all her Truth has made known her teachings. In the same manner, the Church can not make people stop sinning that is why you will find sinners and people who breathe falsities, all the CHurch can do is provide Truth. If you wish to make a better and more reverent Church then start by practicing it and holding others around you accountable, and helping to solve problems.

@@flisom I won't deny any of what you just said but I don't see how that concerns one's ability to walk in faith or the Truth as taught by the Church, as one is not limited to study by their parish. The problem here I think is the expectation of those around us, when the expectation should be of one's self. Granted if a parish is teaching or practicing counter to Church morality and or faith then like I previously said there are avenues to rectify this. I can agree that it is frustrating when the liturgy is presented badly, or if persons are presenting the faith falsely or even practicing heresy, and or active in grave sins but none of those affect the validity of the Church, Her teachings, or the Sacraments.

Boi I'd rather be burned at the stake than come home to Rome.

I’m currently going to an EO church and am flirting with being a catechumen but keep feeling called to Catholicism. I was wondering what was the deciding factor for you, I feel the EO is closer to what the church used to be but at the same time I can’t really accept their position on the pope. One of my reasons for going EO originally was a rejection of the pope but now I’m sort of thinking that was just a left over prejudice of my Protestantism. Any response would be greatly appreciated

@@michaelvigil3436 Liturgically, the EO have pretty much stayed the same. However, their doctrines and fossilization of doctrine without being capable of ever having an ecumenical council again are what turn to being Catholic, despite the Pope Francis craziness and Novus Ordo.

Can you give me an explicit teaching of diathelitism in the Apostolic Fathers? I don't think so. It is implicit in their teaching, and made explicit through further development in response to Church controversies. That is all anyone means when they say doctrinal development. I used to be against it too, because it sounds suspect, but if you understand what it means it really is an issue everyone has to deal with.

Is not evolution but development. Wich is different, we are not changing anything or removing anything. Also, every single first millenium council was, in fact, a way that the dogma developed. It's a clarification and a profundisation.

St Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century already wrote on the development of doctrines to dogmatic precision. It is so weak to say it came as an excuse (more than 13 centuries before St John Henry Newman). That’s the “accuser” default position, which is just lame: if you disagree on something, charge it with some malicious obscure intent and it pays off, because even if the explanations are thoroughly valid and demonstrable, psychological suspicion would have already made some effects. So it is pretty much the other way around: the argument became a “shortcut” to facilitate the job of the accuser. It is not a good position, both theologically and spiritually, to be in that side of the equation, I respectfully think.

Nitro beers, bro. Check them out.

@zedd tottaly agree... I like the traditional Mass, but i always feel judge there.. (sspx ppl can be very elitist) so i prefere to go somwhere i can focus in God AND His gospel

Ikr! What's up with that

@Philippe Labonte yeah. And 90 % of them are bitter ex-Catholics or ex-Protestants with some weird resentment and anger towards holy mother church.

@mysterychemistry I’m taking about the ones commenting here and other Catholic channels.

@@danim2897 or maybe it’s people who believe they are the true church, rather than the parchamam civil Union compromising west, and hold that belief strongly enough to raise their voice, rather than promoting ecumenism and heretical teachings?

@@s.larson5632 apparently you never read the Bible. Even in the old covenant there were periods when Gods people and our leaders committed great sins, or religious leaders were corrupt, weak etc. it did not mean that they ceased to be Gods people. Communists, Masons, Homosexuals etc etc have been trying hard to destroy the Church. It’s been prophesied by Saints and mystics that the church would endure a passion like our Lord in the end of days. We are living it. Viva Cristo Rey!

Back in the early 1960s, two then-young staff members of the World Council of Churches, Nikos Nissiotis and Paul Verghese - later Mar Paulos Gregorios - of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, sensed the fundamental unity of the Eastern and Oriental churches. They succeeded in winning over their respective church authorities, and in turn - at first in conjunction with meetings of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches - a series of consultations began (1964-71). In an atmosphere of mutual respect, relatively free from the cultural and political pressures that had doomed earlier attempts at reunion, leading theologians from both sides [1] were able to address the subject of Christology from a fresh perspective, concentrating not on what divides (as in older polemical literature) but rather on what unites (in this case, our common father from the early Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and his formulation “one incarnate nature of God the Word”). Already the joint statement issued by the first of these informal consultations (Aarhus 1964) could declare: “We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the church. Fifteen centuries of alienation have not led us astray from the faith of our fathers.... On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we found the same truth expressed.” The second informal consultation (Bristol 1967) extended agreement to include virtually every hitherto-disputed aspect of Christology: “Some of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the one Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature, will and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. These four adverbs” - which of course lie at the heart of the Chalcedonian definition - “belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic permanence of the Godhead and the Manhood, with all their natural properties and faculties, in the one Christ.”

​@@justinaacuriouswanderer1496 exactly, as an oriental i believe we are more closer to the eastern orthodox

Yes they do

I was a high church Lutheran and had a very similar experience as yours. Except I’m attending an Ordinariate Church, rather than TLM. If you don’t know already, the Ordinariate was ratified by Pope Benedict XVI, and consists of Anglican converts with a modified Anglican liturgy. Very traditional and beautiful :)

"I couldn't finally reject my Augustian theological and western liturgical temperament." Brother, the Orthodox listen to ALL the Church fathers, not just one. Augustine said things that no other church father would have said, which is why he was considered to be wrong on many things after careful analysis by the Church. You cannot decide these things on mere preference, you need to decide based on whether something is TRUE or not.

@@Ioannikios174 From a Catholic perspective, we would say we aren’t deciding things based on our personal preferences. The Church has determined these things. The question is, which Church is the ultimate authority from which we get answers.

I've noticed that the Roman Tradition tends to be poaching and triumphalist.

The “respect” Roman Catholic display is typically patronizing as they claim to have “the keys,” their argument of course is a fantastical romanticization of St. Peter. Many Orthodox have low regard for the Roman Church because in our age the RCC has become a sorts of a counterfeit repository of Apostolic traditions, has forms of truth but is hollow as it’s dogmas have been altered to the extent that they have deviated from the Apostolic truths, this is made manifest by their Protestant style mass and churches, and the latest Pope showing support for homosexuality. I speak as someone who was raised Catholic.

@@gabrielr4329 yawn... Typical bitterness! A convert here and all my 28 years a catholic, i have never hear negative talk by our catholic brothers against eo. Revelation are understood in a deeper and clearly over time. Just like the doctrine of trinity which we hold as truth years later after the crucifixtion. We need to apply our understanding of doctrines and revelation in light of cultural and other spheres as it development but not compromising the truth Some pope and theologian may be poor teachers but it does not mean rcc is countrrfeit. Is jesus bad because of judas. It is people like you that increase the poor image of eo.

@@marcuslow1386 Claims he's never heard of Romanists speaking poorly of Eastern Orthodox. Speaks poorly of Eastern Orthodox.

@@barelyprotestant5365 I'm not talking about traditions, I am talking about boots-on-the-ground believers and their interactions with each other. Cordiality and such. All I meant was that -- just in my anecdotal observation -- on the internet, many EO seem to have... "stronger" sentiments against the Catholic Church than Catholics do towards Eastern Orthodox churches.

Matt’s a Byzantine Catholic

How did Ybarra misrepresent the Orthodox? I didn't see any examples of this. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he misrepresented...

@@andresferrer9890 2 Catholic apologists

@@michaelak821 Do Catholics - theologians, apologists, priests, bishops - have the same space on EO channels whenever there are EO brothers talking about Catholicism (which may be, outside of some monks, almost 100% of the channels)? The answer is obvious So I understand your point, my friend, and I personally find it enriching to have charitable people within, but the fighting mentality and the anti-Catholicism just got off the rail from Eastern Orthodox Internet warriors, and I sense some hypocritical double-standard speaks here, since people would flood Catholic channels and act like they indeed acted with here with Matt and Eric (note: I was there at the chat responding, my friend, so I saw it) and they were very cruel specially to Benjamin, the moderator, that had a lot of work, but they won’t really have the least preoccupation to give ANY space to Catholics say their faith by themselves on THEIR channels. I am saying this may come insanely hypocritical. I am not implying you thought about it before posting, but maybe we all should make adequate reflections on how we act and who we are, myself included, and avoid grave and selective double-standardizing.

Besides, my comments are deleted many times on some channels, even Catholic ones. Maybe it has to be something with KZfaq policies (number of posts, the size of it, some words, maybe people denouncing its content as abusive, etc). It does not mean that someone is deleting. Let us avoid implicit paranoia to support what we stand for. Justice is not only a model to Christians, but a quintessential part of what it is to be a Christian, and I see EO brothers and sisters are just on the opposite side of it and it has become more surprisingly disappointing than what we Catholics see on the most vicious sects, like JW or SDA. Impressively enough, that aggressiveness and the hypersensitiveness with bias and unfairness speaks out loud, which is bad for us all.

I wish Catholics would admit filoque is wrong, the Pope is not some Church-king, and revoke everything since Vatacan I. For THIS I pray.

What you're looking for is the Reason and Theology channel.

@@chrisloftson6705 I follow the Reason and Theology channel. But thank you Brother!

St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, said, "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren." can we just take his word for what it is? There were 5 ancient Patriarchates, Patriarchate of Rome, of Constantinople, Of Alexandria, of Antioch & of Jerusalem: The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority-one of the five Patriarchs or Popes claimed he held authority over the four other Greek-speaking patriarchs, which was unequivocally warned by the Saints. Now, if you don't believe that church disputes were managed through entire councils, then at least, believe the fruit of calling a mortal man infallible. three months ago, Pope Francis legally supported same sex unions in the church & EVEN among the clergy. this is heart shattering. On September 20, 2014, Francis named Archbishop Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago, replacing the strongly anti-LGBT Cardinal Francis George. Cardinal Cupich has recently been exposed for having hidden accusations against more than 500 homosexual priests.[3] Later Francis named Robert McElroy, another leading voice for LGBT equality, as Bishop of San Diego, California.[4] In 2018 Francis told a gay survivor of clergy sexual abuse: “…that you are gay does not matter. God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care.”[5] In general, one could say that if Francis does not care then there is no hope that he will condemn the massive homosexual abuse now being uncovered in the church and even in the Vatican itself. On the contrary, under his papacy, much will be covered up or justified, with little or no traditional moral or theological teaching. Benjamin Wiker, a conservative professor at Franciscan University notes that: as Christianity slowly evangelized the pagan Roman Empire, the widespread acceptance of men having sex with boys was replaced by widespread moral revulsion (and the appearance of anti-pedophilia laws that followed upon it). The same is true for homosexuality, sexual slavery, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. They became moral issues…only because of Christian evangelization.[6] Wiker sees a horrible irony. By failing to stop the recent sexual scandals in the Roman church, the very men most authoritatively charged with the evangelization of all the nations are moving full-steam ahead to bring about the devangelization of the nations: This is a massive, massive crisis in and for the [Catholic] Church because a deeply-embedded worldwide homosexual network among our priests, bishops, and cardinals is actively engaged in bringing about the full de-Christianization of the world by preying on boys between 12-18, literally recreating Greco-Roman sexual culture in our seminaries and dioceses.[7] The official Facebook page of Turkey’s pro-government daily, Sabah, was filled with praise for the destruction of the iconic Notre Dame Cathedral, leading some to think the raging fire was due to an Islamic terrorist attack[8] Ironically, the present Pope is now in league with Islam to burn down the last remains of already weakened Catholic beliefs. On February 4, 2019, just months before the world’s eyes beheld the flames on the Seine, Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, signed a document in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.”[9] The declaration, which they wrote together, opens in the name of a god who is a supposed mixture of the biblical God and Allah. But the triune God of Christians, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is thoroughly denied by Islam. The Sura concerning “authentic worship” states: “He, God, is one! God, the Eternal One! He will not generate, nor was he generated, and none is equal to him! (Koran, Sura 112: 2, 4).” Allah, being a singularity, is impersonal, so the god “worshiped” in the Abu Dhabi declaration is (like the “god” of the Masonic-inspired French revolution) the god of “human fraternity,” “which embraces all men, unites them and renders them equal.”[10] The Abu Dhabi document affirms that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.” Significantly, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb is a hereditary sheik of the Confraternity of Sufis for Upper Egypt and, in the Islamic world, Al Azhar, the university of which he is rector, is characterized for its teaching of Sufi (the New Age version of Islam) esotericism, as “an initiatory bridge” between Eastern and Western Freemasonry.[11] It is well known that Sufism “solves” the problem of Allah’s impersonality by making all humans divine. In so doing, however it loses God’s transcendence, as do all versions of Oneist spirituality. Ultimately, both Sufism and the Francis-Tayyeb document sink into forms of religious paganism. The Pope plans to lead a synod October 6-27, 2019, entitled: “Amazonia: New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology.” The preparatory work has already been done with Francis’s appointment of a number of South American archbishops deeply associated with “liberation theology,” the “theology” that denies the supernatural and espouses socialistic Marxism.[12] These new leaders are “rethinking” liberation theology, to create “regeneration theology,” a novel Latin American derivative of liberation theology, in which the church is “regenerated” by the spirits of Native American animism, who are a “source of God’s revelation.”[13] Interestingly, the shamans of these native religions were often homosexuals and human sacrifice was widespread among them. A Roman Catholic commentator admits that the document does not call for conversion, as in the past, but for the Church to “enrich herself with clearly pagan and/or pantheistic elements of belief.” After restoring (restoring?!!) them, Pope Francis apologizes that Amazon synod 'Pachamama' statues were thrown into Tiber River. and you can see these statues in the Vatican bureaucracy if you look it up. This philosophy of human unity and planetary health, of which the Pope has often spoken, fits neatly with the concerns of the United Nations and with other internationalist bodies that are intent on changing hearts, minds, and society “for the Planet.” (universalist ideology, the primary firsthand idiosyncrasy of the AntiChrist ) Putting aside all ancient teachings, let us look at simply the striking fruit, & from any catholic reading this, I need an unequivocal answer to one simple question, just a yes or no, Is this truly how the true successor of St Peter was destined to eventually become like?

Perfect. Lol

👍

He says at 1:29:50 he'd be willing to do one w/ Fr T, whom he's had on his program before

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ldemjaeK3cCmeJ8.html

Our Catholic apologists don't like to bring on guest that may shake the Catholic applecart. Ybarra comments refuted by Orthodox representative. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qLKSZqWqtb_ThX0.html&ab_channel=OrthodoxChristianTheology

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ldemjaeK3cCmeJ8.html

@@edwinberchtold3420 thanks. I will watch!

It has been tried. Lyon II (1272) and the more significant Florence (1431).

The body of Christ is United and One.

No :)

For real though, I swear I've heard Matt ask like 10 people in the past couple months to explain why they aren't Orthodox... and I feel like he should just be honest and brave and ask himself the same question...

Sorry but you criticized the Orthodox for using "economy" but later say your church uses it in terms of Catholics receiving communion in Orthodox churches......?

You’re a pelagian?

@@efulmer100 what on earth are you talking about?

You are historically illiterate

@@shayneswenson Given that the last people who tried to compromise with Rome are formally anathematized in the liturgy every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, even to this very day, I'd say the historical context is quite clear. Not many heretics earn a place in the liturgy, they hold a special place of dishonor along side the likes of Arius and Nestorius whose crimes were regarded as so grave that they must be condemned regularly by the Church in her liturgical cycle until the second coming and the final judgement.

@@costakeith9048 You are also historically illiterate. Byzantine kool aide is really good for getting them upcummies tho huh.

@@shayneswenson No, I'm not a papist apostate, but I'm guessing you are.

The Bishops of both Churches have been having theological debates/discussions for over 50 years behind closed doors. They will decide and the laity and lower clergy/religious just have to follow what is decided or move on. Partly why Russian Church schismed, their patriarch refuses to be part of reunification. I have noted opposition from Catholics and Orthodox laity/some clergy to reunification. Looks like some are going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new setup whatever that is. Some don't want to obey Christ's will that his Church be ONE, they don't want to obey the Bishops, some don't want to obey the Pope or Patriarchs. Ego rules us.

@Harley Mann No, he mentioned the 4th crusade so I thought he should’ve mentioned the Latin Massacres as well.

St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, said, "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren." can we just take his word for what it is? There were 5 ancient Patriarchates, Patriarchate of Rome, of Constantinople, Of Alexandria, of Antioch & of Jerusalem: The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority-one of the five Patriarchs or Popes claimed he held authority over the four other Greek-speaking patriarchs, which was unequivocally warned by the Saints. Now, if you don't believe that church disputes were managed through entire councils, then at least, believe the fruit of calling a mortal man infallible. three months ago, Pope Francis legally supported same sex unions in the church & EVEN among the clergy. this is heart shattering. On September 20, 2014, Francis named Archbishop Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago, replacing the strongly anti-LGBT Cardinal Francis George. Cardinal Cupich has recently been exposed for having hidden accusations against more than 500 homosexual priests.[3] Later Francis named Robert McElroy, another leading voice for LGBT equality, as Bishop of San Diego, California.[4] In 2018 Francis told a gay survivor of clergy sexual abuse: “…that you are gay does not matter. God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care.”[5] In general, one could say that if Francis does not care then there is no hope that he will condemn the massive homosexual abuse now being uncovered in the church and even in the Vatican itself. On the contrary, under his papacy, much will be covered up or justified, with little or no traditional moral or theological teaching. Benjamin Wiker, a conservative professor at Franciscan University notes that: as Christianity slowly evangelized the pagan Roman Empire, the widespread acceptance of men having sex with boys was replaced by widespread moral revulsion (and the appearance of anti-pedophilia laws that followed upon it). The same is true for homosexuality, sexual slavery, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. They became moral issues…only because of Christian evangelization.[6] Wiker sees a horrible irony. By failing to stop the recent sexual scandals in the Roman church, the very men most authoritatively charged with the evangelization of all the nations are moving full-steam ahead to bring about the devangelization of the nations: This is a massive, massive crisis in and for the [Catholic] Church because a deeply-embedded worldwide homosexual network among our priests, bishops, and cardinals is actively engaged in bringing about the full de-Christianization of the world by preying on boys between 12-18, literally recreating Greco-Roman sexual culture in our seminaries and dioceses.[7] The official Facebook page of Turkey’s pro-government daily, Sabah, was filled with praise for the destruction of the iconic Notre Dame Cathedral, leading some to think the raging fire was due to an Islamic terrorist attack[8] Ironically, the present Pope is now in league with Islam to burn down the last remains of already weakened Catholic beliefs. On February 4, 2019, just months before the world’s eyes beheld the flames on the Seine, Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, signed a document in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.”[9] The declaration, which they wrote together, opens in the name of a god who is a supposed mixture of the biblical God and Allah. But the triune God of Christians, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is thoroughly denied by Islam. The Sura concerning “authentic worship” states: “He, God, is one! God, the Eternal One! He will not generate, nor was he generated, and none is equal to him! (Koran, Sura 112: 2, 4).” Allah, being a singularity, is impersonal, so the god “worshiped” in the Abu Dhabi declaration is (like the “god” of the Masonic-inspired French revolution) the god of “human fraternity,” “which embraces all men, unites them and renders them equal.”[10] The Abu Dhabi document affirms that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.” Significantly, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb is a hereditary sheik of the Confraternity of Sufis for Upper Egypt and, in the Islamic world, Al Azhar, the university of which he is rector, is characterized for its teaching of Sufi (the New Age version of Islam) esotericism, as “an initiatory bridge” between Eastern and Western Freemasonry.[11] It is well known that Sufism “solves” the problem of Allah’s impersonality by making all humans divine. In so doing, however it loses God’s transcendence, as do all versions of Oneist spirituality. Ultimately, both Sufism and the Francis-Tayyeb document sink into forms of religious paganism. The Pope plans to lead a synod October 6-27, 2019, entitled: “Amazonia: New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology.” The preparatory work has already been done with Francis’s appointment of a number of South American archbishops deeply associated with “liberation theology,” the “theology” that denies the supernatural and espouses socialistic Marxism.[12] These new leaders are “rethinking” liberation theology, to create “regeneration theology,” a novel Latin American derivative of liberation theology, in which the church is “regenerated” by the spirits of Native American animism, who are a “source of God’s revelation.”[13] Interestingly, the shamans of these native religions were often homosexuals and human sacrifice was widespread among them. A Roman Catholic commentator admits that the document does not call for conversion, as in the past, but for the Church to “enrich herself with clearly pagan and/or pantheistic elements of belief.” After restoring (restoring?!!) them, Pope Francis apologizes that Amazon synod 'Pachamama' statues were thrown into Tiber River. and you can see these statues in the Vatican bureaucracy if you look it up. This philosophy of human unity and planetary health, of which the Pope has often spoken, fits neatly with the concerns of the United Nations and with other internationalist bodies that are intent on changing hearts, minds, and society “for the Planet.” (universalist ideology, the primary firsthand idiosyncrasy of the AntiChrist ) Putting aside all ancient teachings, let us look at simply the striking fruit, & from any catholic reading this, I need an unequivocal answer to one simple question, just a yes or no, Is this truly how the true successor of St Peter was destined to eventually become like?

Because the truth of God is not something to be abandoned over scandal. Do you realize that scandal is sinful both on the part of the one giving scandal AND by the one scandalized into acting the way you did?

@@chrisloftson6705 what if the scandals help point one towards what that truth actually is? Many faithful Catholics have a sense of “going back” to tradition and being serious about their faith. I respect that and I think that a lot of Catholics are hurting. That hurt can make someone be a little more open to reevaluating the claims of Rome since the schism.

@@scuzlol In that case, it's not scandal and you aren't using the term properly. However, from a Catholic perspective, it IS scandal and both those who scandalized you AND YOU yourself are guilty of grave sin. The dreaded papist St. Thomas Aquinas defines scandal: "a man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another into sin." The sin in question here is the abandonment of the Mystical Body of Christ. The reason it's a sin for you to be scandalized by liturgical/theological actions of others is that your faith wavered and fell because of other creatures. True faith is not disturbed by the sin of creatures, as it's object has nothing to do with any creature, but only God.

@@chrisloftson6705 you can beg the question of what the true faith is as much as you want, literally anyone if any denomination or faith can make the same argument you’re making. My first religious experience in life was with Islam. According to Muslims if you leave Islam they’ll just say the same things.

@@scuzlol and triscat, you misunderstand me. I'm not begging the question about the true faith. I'm making a point about the concept of scandal. From the Catholic point of view, you've committed a damnable act, and being scandalized does nothing to absolve you. From an EO point of view, there was no scandal going on with the situation you described. That's why I'm not begging the question, because in either case you're mistaken.

Masonic symbol on odyseee

So the filioque isn’t the issue, it’s that Rome did it without permission?

@@Billyjoe78517, according to the parties involved, both are issues.

@@philoalethia I’ve heard arguments that the main issue is Rome changing the creed

@@Billyjoe78517, well, yes, both are issues.

It’s because both sides actually care.

@x Florio yeah Christ was masculine and viril, a man of action, not some effeminate passive aggressive guy calling people "babies" over internet comments.

Well St John the Baptist and St Nick could be both be brutal to their lapsed brothers. The latter even got physical according to legend. I would argue Orthos are too kind considering what's at stake and history. The Devil can be very congenial, so it is not a mark of Truth. In fact he who holds the Truth should be able to take any abuse. Erick can't handle simple criticism and fears debate. Is it reasonable he holds the Truth?

Protestant converts to orthodoxy are toxic. They love to troll Catholic Chanels.

Two false generalizations (debates don’t determine truth + debate is a spectacle sport) that allow you to completely disregard the faculty of debate. That’s not good faith acting. If the truth is on your side, you have zero reason to fear a debate. Orthodox will debate and discuss with others, but some Catholics seemingly refuse to-even when discussing Orthodoxy itself. That’s why some people here are upset; it’s sketchy and devious on the part of commentators like the ones who did this video, and isn’t fair at all to both Orthodox and their own Catholic viewers. The seven ecumenical councils were all debate and discussion, and they established truth for the ages. Welcome to real world, buddy.

@@nuzzi6620 Truth and Falsehood don't debate, two imperfect humans, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect memories, imperfect and unequal communication skills debate. You psychologize the opposition thinking that the only reason to refuse a debate is "fear of not having the truth", a totally infantile idea. A council is not "a debate", silly, a council hosts a series of debates, over a long period of time and with multiple people interceding, the council of Nicea lasted an entire month, it wasn't a "debate" like the one you're demanding, which is closer to a duel than anything else.

@@josealzaibar5274 You've misread and misinterpreted my words. I never claimed "the only reason to refuse a debate is feat of not having the truth." Those are your words, not mine. I simply stated that if one's position is pure, unadulterated truth, then there is no reason at all to fear any sort of debate, discussion, opposition, question or argument against your position. You also misquote me when you imply that I defined a council as "a debate." I did not. I said the ecumenical councils were "all debate and discussion." Nowhere did I write that an entire council is merely a single debate between opposing parties. "Debate and discussion" entails pretty much what you attribute to the character of Nicaea's council. And lastly, this idea of a debate being a "spectacle sport" or a "duel" is only coming from your lips, not mine. I have not demanded anything, as you suggest; I only think it reasonable to have Orthodox present Orthodox perspectives, and Catholics present Catholic perspectives. These conversations-especially if their purpose is to discover some truth-typically takes the form of debate and/or discussion. If that comes off as either "silly" or "infantile" to you, well...

@@nuzzi6620 The point was that you assumed the reason to not have a debate was fear and not something else, without knowing Eric's reasons for refusing a debate, you go straight to "it's fear". About councils, there debates in councils but a council is not reducible to "debating", furthermore the debate your kind is demanding is not in the vein of a council discussion but more in line with a duel, hence all the appeals to "fear", you want a show, you want a duel, you don't want to actually get to the truth of the issue, hence all the insistence on the duel or debate itself instead of quietly doing due diligence on the issue yourself.

@@josealzaibar5274 I would respectfully ask you to reread my comments, as I never assumed the reasons behind the actions (or lack thereof) of either Matt or Eric. And of course a debate between two people won’t be the same as a council debate with hundreds of bishops; is this not rather obvious? You’re the one who is insisting to characterize debates as “shows” or “duels.” In the same way that we should not assume the intentions of Matt or Eric, I would hope that you would refrain from assuming the intentions and ideas of “my kind” or anyone else asking for a debate/discussion. And one can appreciate a good ol’ debate and personally conduct research at the same time; I’m not sure why you would draw a false dichotomy between those two things.

My father is greek melkite catholic

Please ask Fr. Trenham to reach out to Matt Fradd.

Please, please. . . PLEASE! Talk to a Catholic Priest about Catholicism.

@user-zi7gd9pn3l Are you talking to me or Matt? For a while there, he was only having Catholics talk about what Orthodox believed, and while some of the obvious points were fine and correct, a lot of the underlying assumptions were off and so there were presentations of what we believe as if from an Orthodox perspective and yet with Catholic assumptions about what those doctrines must mean to us. But since then, he has had some Orthodox people speak about Orthodoxy from our own perspective. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a Catholic channel has any obligation to talk about Orthodoxy or have Orthodox guests, and can certainly talk about Orthodoxy from a Catholic perspective all they want. But it was getting frustrating that he was talking with people who were supposedly giving the Orthodox perspective, but they weren't Orthodox and didn't have the perspective. I don't want to hear the Catholic perspective from a Protestant or ex-Catholic either, while I'm fine to hear their thoughts about it from their own perspective. And finally, sorry for the length, I did speak to a Catholic priest and deacon a few times and read or watched mostly Catholic sources while trying to discern between becoming Catholic or Orthodox back in the day. I'm sure nobody wants me to go into my thought process and what led me to my conclusions here, but I did seek answers from their source both ways.

St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, perhaps the Church should have stuck with St. Thomas and not declared the Immaculate Conception a dogma. Many of the Catholic beliefs that concern Protestants were not declared dogma until long after Aquinas. Aquinas denied the immaculate conception of Mary, and it was not declared dogma until 1854. This is a great detriment and stumbling block to unity among Christians. Even most Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary and wrong. Orthodoxy does not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a stain, there is no reason for the miraculous removal of either. Nonetheless, Orthodox tradition does hold that the Theotokos remained free of personal sin, which is no problem and is reasonable, and I think most protestants would have no objection to that. Mary now is almost seen as a goddess by some Catholics and many want the church to bring in a dogma declaring Mary to be co-redeemer and that is bad news for Christian unity. She is not part of the Godhead and should not be elevated any higher than she is now to avoid further confusion, as is taking place now even among Catholics. This is a stumbling big block to new converts. We have one Redeemer and that is Christ Jesus. We don't need a new schism in the Roman Church.

@@cheechak481 no Catholics do not consider her anywhere near a goddess or part of the God head. You are very mistaken in that assumption. She was mediatrix only because she literally mediates, she let God work through her. But that doesn't make her a God. I don't actually see how protestants make that leap. Neither does immaculate conception imply God status since it is a gift from God. No catholic is in danger of that though I see plenty of protestants easily denying Jesus' divinity. I think before you make assumptions you should actually talk to Catholics about what these terms mean. Aquinas himself discusses the difference between revereing someone and worshipping them. Catholics revere Mary as the extraordinary woman she was and as the first human to be elevated and cooperate with God in the manner he desires for us all. But again she isn't worshipped as a goddess.

From what I understand the Eastern Orthodox Christians believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception until immediately after it was dogmatized in the mid-19th Century. So they came against the Doctrine strictly as a reaction to The Catholic Church's dogmatization of it....smh🤦

@@cheechak481 St. Thomas Aquinas, like every other Father of The Church is not fallible and nobody believes that Mary is a goddess in The Catholic Church. And yes, the 5th Dogma is coming as Mary being "Mediatrix of All Graces, *Co-redemptrix* , and Advocate of All". You need to understand Catholic concepts (whether you are Catholic or not) before condemning them. Mary is not The Redeemer. She does no redeeming herself because she is not The Saviour. However, she does *participate* in our Redemption in the same way Eve *participated* in the Fall. Fyi, there will be a push for a 6th Dogma in the next few centuries:- Mary as the *quasi-incarnate* of The HolySpirit. I already invoke her as such. You can look it up....look up St. Maximilian Kolbe's Teachings on this (he coined the term) in order to gain understanding on this new Marian Concept. Understand before you condemn.

@@thekingslady1 Not condemning anything, I revere and respect Mary as the mother of Jesus....just do not believe or accept Mary as co-redeemer....nor as the incarnation of the Holy Spirit...that is heresy.

@DEUS VULT okay 'deus vult' how's that crusade going with gay frank leading the charge? last time i checked he was a UN pawn lol