@@albertaowusu3536 and both are the product of heaping teachers upon themselves, according to their lusts. Catholics and Protestants, all following the voice of strangers. His sheep hear His voice and they know Him and He leads them out. They know not the voice of strangers, but flee from them. His sheep don't follow hirelings or stage performers, imposters, deceitful workers. As it is written, what the gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and I would not have you to fellowship with devils. Satan appears as a messenger of light and his ministers disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. When we are still in the harlot houses warming a pew we are children being tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine by the sleight of MEN and their cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. The elect are given the Spirit of Truth and need not that any man teach them. They have the anointed one, Christ IN them. They have ONE TEACHER, ONE HIGH PRIEST, ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, the man Christ Jesus, WITHIN. This is the difference between the few and the many, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares. The few are severed from the people and are separated unto God. The many stumble at the word and follow strangers and are under strong delusion, believing lies. As it is written, let God be true but every man a liar. We must come out from among them and be separate, touch not the unclean thing and the Father will receive us and we will be His sons and daughters.
@@albertaowusu3536 Before throwing bricks at others, let us admit that we often screw up as Orthodox Christians because like Catholics and Protestants and Oriental Orthodox we are human being’s. Our cry “Lord Have Mercy” isn’t vain repetition! Change it to “Lord Heal Me”, Lord Forgive Me”, “Lord I have forgotten you again, and again and again”…. I was Protestant for 47 years and I give credit to that for creating a desire in me for deep worship. (I’ve been Orthodox 23 years). Let us be imitator’s of Christ and love one another.
@@jm1733 No. I only came across Orthodox teaching in the last few years through the internet. Actually, just by trying a book on Audible. It's not the fault of all Christians in the West, it's not our fault that the Church split in 1054. Are you a greater Christian than all the non-Orthodox Christians who have been martyred in Africa and Asia in the last 100 years? No. Humble yourself and give us time. Orthodoxy will increase in the West but we've barely even experienced it in my country !
@@grahamwilliams8871 everything I wrote was scripture. I apologize if it sounded to you as if I lack humility. It just becomes obvious that all of Christianity is in Babylon once the Spirit of Truth comes. Orthodox, protestant, catholic, any other name of a sect you want to insert. It is all an act of following the traditions and doctrines of men. It is where we all are until the time appointed by the Father when He separates us unto Himself. None of us have a choice when that happens, it's all predestined. Once it happens, there is no mistaking that one will have absolutely no desire to be led by a carnal man in a temple made with hands. Once we taste of that heavenly gift, there is nothing like it and to go back to heaping teachers on myself would make me a covenant breaker, adulterer, fornicator, etc. I'm grateful for it because there is no other way to understand the scriptures or know the truth. It is the narrow path. I want all to experience it so everybody can be of one mind and have all things in common.
The Divine Eucharist is the thread that binds together The Church. It always has been. If we're not in Eucharistic communion with each other, we're not bound by that thread. The prerequisite for communion in The Church has always been: common confession of faith (creed), and proper initiation (baptism, chrismation, ordination of ministers in apostolic succession) as well as mutual acknowledgement of the above. All the ancient communions that call themselves “The Church” would agree with this, and have always thought and acted in this way. Of course each one would contend that their communion is The Church. But we all agree that only one communion can be The Church. Thank you for another great interview.
The experience of Paradise can’t wither as long as Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy continues….paradise on earth or rather Heaven touching earth. Beyond words and despite our own failures, Christ is true and paradise is with Him. How i long for people to understand what this liturgy is and Who is taking action
My intuition has always been that 1054 is like the year our parents got divorced. All the proceeding religious, political, economic, and cultural revolutions are simply the rebellion of our parent's kids.
@@st.mephisto8564 well thank you for your kind blessing but No other Gods exist but the God of Abraham . Jesus is his son and was sent to us to save us. From death and from slavery to our sins and from the world. Blessings to you .
@@waynecolburn8849 There's no God exclusive to Abraham. We don't believe that. God is one but known by many names and forms. We don't believe there's any difference.
I love what he has had to say about Christendom and how the Schism created many of the problems that we are facing in the world today. I would be interested in hearing what he thinks of the Russian-Constantinople schism which is causing some priests to leave their traditional Patriarchs in favor of Patriarchs who they want to side with.
Schisms aren’t anything new within the Orthodox Church , it happened during the first millennium and will continue to happen in the future . Only difference with Rome was that all the Orthodox Church’s excommunicated Rome. That is why it was such a huge deal.
@@franciscovasquez9417 should have held an Ecumenical Council before Florence. The bishops on both sides let christendom down and allowed the east and west drift further apart. Although, for centuries, Latins and Greeks on the local level ignored the wider schism. It's pretty much ignored in the Middle East even today. This is all just my opinion, and Christ clearly has a purpose in allowing this. I suspect He will use it for His Glory in the end. But it saddens me.
Yeah all political actors (i.e not Christians but just actors) go to Constantinople, it's close to being nothing but an NGO - being on all globalist and political agendas of CIA And what Constantinople did and have been doing often is against Orthodox cannons It is schismatic church now
@@ephesiansbrowne5982 Two big obstacles to that from 1100-1453, the Venetian monopolists and the Turks/Ottomans. Venice’s Merchant guild leaders gradually took advantage of the initial official schism to advance their trade monopoly by scaring away potential Western European investors in Greek goods on the argument that “Don’t trade with heretics!”, making them afraid and prejudiced and deliberately growing the gulf of the schism on more than just dogma, now more and more on trade and culture, widening the resentment across several dimensions. Healing a schism grows exponentially more difficult once that sort of thing starts to happen. Venice was behind pushing that one angry Byzantine Queen past all endurance leading to the “massacre of the Latins” (overwhelmingly Venetians), and the sack of Constantinople (ALSO mostly Venetian mercenaries). How this led to the Ottoman conquest should be obvious.
Can't blame priests and bishops for not wanting to commune with those recognizing the schismatic church in Ukraine (OCU). Just because the EP wants to play geopolitical games with NATO/EU/UN/NWO etc. They asked to be freed from this communing. Russia obliged. It's a way to force the issue at a synod/council so no patriarchate can make this sort of unilateral decision to recognize schismatics in the future. The EP isn't and never will be pope supreme of the East.
Austin, your friend at Cordial Catholic recently spoke with Rod Bennett. This interview with Fr. Strickland brought to mind Bennett's book, Bad Shepherds: The Dark Years in Which the Faithful Thrived While Bishops Did the Devil's Work. It would be appreciated if you could invite Bennett or someone similar who can speak to the evils the church of Rome has dealt with from a Catholic who remains in the church.
Fr. John, you are a very good presenter in audio/video format. After your Podcast on AFR and your conversation with Jonathan Pageau, this latest video is yet another confirmation of this fact. If you have the resources to do so, I suggest that you continue to seek out these kinds of conversations. Austin is a great example because, despite his own continued questionings, he represents a bridge between the Sacramental worldview and other people with misgivings about the state of culture today. Thank you!
Wishing a blessed Holy Epiphany to all Orthodox brothers and sisters... In Greece it's a holiday today all shops closed people gathering in the Churches celebrating Our Lord Jesus Christ Baptism and taking the Great Blesses Water for themselves and their houses... If you can watch later in UA-cam the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew throw the Holy Cross into the Bosphorus sea to bless the waters. And many Orthodox men fall into the cold waters to catch the Cross.... Apolytikion of Holy Epiphany Lord, when You were baptized in the Jordan, the veneration of the Trinity was revealed. For the voice of the Father gave witness to You, calling You Beloved, and the Spirit, in the guise of a dove, confirmed the certainty of His words. Glory to You, Christ our God, who appeared and enlightened the world. Kontakion of Holy Epiphany You appeared to the world today, and Your light, O Lord, has left its mark upon us. With fuller understanding we sing to You: "You came, You were made manifest, the unapproachable light."
@@eliasn.477 watch the Holy Epiphany in Phanarion Constantinople... A young Turk baptised Orthodox Christian caught the Holy Cross in the Bosphorus.... Regarding Moscow since they have in diptych the other Orthodox Churches which commemorate EP like Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Antioch etc they are indirectly in communion also with EP..God will heal this schism too as He has done with many in the past..
At 53:02 Fr. Strickland glosses over 1st crusade, which was a response to the eastern call for aid. The history of the crusades is a time in history, as if isolated centuries ago. I would contend that we in the U S have been crusading since 9/11.
Very interesting. I am an orthodox catacuman and am very well 😀 pleased. If a person wants to know the truth and is willing to make the effort to learn, as well as make the effort to set aside one's presuppositions and pride - the Lord will lead into all Truth. Orthodoxy is inevitable. Pride and spiritual laziness keeps Protestants stuck. That's my opinion and I'm happy with it! 🤔😅👏 Good guest. One thing I love about Orthodoxy is that with 2000 Rich years of History to draw from there will be no shortage of learning for the rest of my life. Fascinating
I would say it is a myth to some extent. Some denominations are straight up not Christian, like christ consciousness and things like that. The schisms between this or that leader when they all hold to the core truth of salvation are myths. Their respective disagreements are basically pointless and don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Naman wasn't getting circumcised and keeping it kosher and going to synagogue or temple, but he was just as saved as a true believing jew who followed the laws to the letter and dot. The truth and the relationship between the person and God are what matters
@@GospelSimplicity You're awesome, man! Any luck? If you've had trouble contacting him...it may not work and I'd want you to message me your pitch...but I'm a paid subscriber to his substack page. Lol he's forced against his will to read questions. I'd be happy to either repeat your pitch, and or ask him again to do it.
Fr. Strickland is VERY well educated and well spoken. Excellent, focused questions were asked. Fr. Strickland's going through some of the history of Orthodoxy reminded me of the Orthodox Icon of the Ark of Salvation. If you are unfamiliar with this Icon, I suggest checking it out!
Praise be to God for the good news of Jesus Christ forgiveness of my sin! Amen!!!!! Please God, continue to refine me on your straight and narrow path, and please be gentle on me for my sins have been great. In Jesus Holy perfect name, Amen.
That “penitential pessimism” was very real in my experience of growing up Catholic. Being horrified by the idea of purgatory; it all felt very dark and painted a sadistic image of God for me. Luckily I discovered Lewis and Tolkien as a teen and that gave me a vision of Christianity that was beautiful.
@@mazzaferroracing I was received into Orthodoxy with my whole family on Christmas Eve. I like to think my formation by Tolkien and Lewis pre-catechized me toward an Orthodox vision of the faith.
@@confectionarysound congratulations! Many years. I’ve always heard of “Catholic guilt” before but my education in Catholicism came from Bishop Barron, so this “penitential pessimism” and “sadistic view of God” you experienced in Catholicism is foreign to me. Is your experience common? For the record Im orthodox but didn’t entertain Catholicism before I converted.
@@mazzaferroracing That's difficult to answer. My experience of Catholicism shifted in high school as I got more into Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, and even the theology of JPII (it got deeper, more cosmic, more optimistic.) But as a younger child I feel I was exposed to more of that pessimism and troubling conceptions of God (stuff from the late Middle Ages)...my education was a very traditional Catholic program. I doubt my experience in either case is the experience of "most Catholics". "Most Catholics" don't know what the church teaches about hardly anything lol. In all honesty I was probably traumatized as a child by my experiences reading about the torments of Purgatory and dreaming about statues of Mary weeping blood. It was all very morbid. I would say that long before I knew about Orthodoxy, I had sort of bracketed off the way I understood Catholicism to be something like Orthodoxy by my late teens and 20's. So then when I discovered Orthodoxy, I was like oh, here it is. The Christianity I had hoped existed. Glory to Jesus Christ.
I’m only 20 minutes in, but one thing that strikes me is the Great Schism is framed by the struggle between Rome and Constantinople. How did the three other Greek-speaking patriarchates relate to this? Isn’t it fair to say that only 1/5 of the church broke off? It seems that people look at a map and that gives the false impression that it was pretty much a 50/50 split.
I know this comment was two years ago, but the other patriarchates remained with Constantinople. And to this day all 4 remain in communion with one another. If you ask me that’s one of the starkest illustrations that this division is truly a schism-a schism of the Roman Patriarch from the other 4.
My name is Kelsey. Austin, I so appreciate your channel and the thoughtful theology discussions you have. Congrats on getting engaged! Your wedding registry link is broken.
I've been exploring the Russian Orthodox Church. I'm Catholic and have been away from the church for 20 yrs. I decided to try an Orthodox Church in my community because I like the liturgy. Let it be said I have no problems with Father Mark. He has been very gracious to me. What I have found among the congregants is a lot of Catholic bashing and a very cultish feel to the church. To my chagrin, I was on UA-cam this morning and found a post uploaded by an Orthodox that refered to Jewish people as wicked and shameful. When I read that I got a pain in my stomach. Another thing I have found in my experience is Orthodox claim to not believe in things they believe in such as purgatory, original sin, and immaculate Mary. They will twist the wording so as to say they don't believe in these doctrines but in essence they believe in these doctrines. It's something worse than protestantism. Another thing I found is evangelizing in the Orthodox Church is dead. There is no outreach to the less fortunate in the world and the church is dormant in growth. I also found that many of the congregants are stuck in the past. Brooding over 1054 and not one of them was alive during that time. There is a lack of desire to bring Christians together. I also discovered there are schisms within the schisms. The Russians aren't in union with the Greeks and so on. Whenever there's a disagreement among the churches another schism occurs. I find that to be scandalous to Christ. I also discovered that if I wanted to join the Russian church I would have to renounce all the doctrines the Orthodox say they don't believe even though they believe them. I would also have to renounce the filioque and the Pope of Rome. Well guess what, I'm not renouncing any of those things to join a church that is in constant schism and it's adherents refer to Jewish people as wicked and shameful. Instead focusing on the Westerner church that is growing by leaps and bounds even after the sex scandal, focus on the problems within Orthodoxy.
You went through a lot there, but I'll try to respond as briefly as possible. First, you say there is a lot of Catholic bashing - this is probably true of any heavy convert parish, many of which either come from protestant or Catholic upbringings. In ethnic parishes, these are hardly ever brought up at all. But it's understandable for westerners to compare Orthodoxy with their old traditions. As for your comment on Jews, Christ called them the sons of Satan, said they were of the synagogue of Satan and likened them to thieves and murderers. There are Jews in my parish, and we love them as brothers and sisters, but a quick study of jew-gentile relationship will explain why there is anamosity there. As for the seemingly minor differences between dogmas, I can assure you that while it appears that way on the surface, when one studies these issues seriously, he finds the two positions are a world apart and that these differences have impacted both faith traditions. Now for the evangelism. You speak of "less fortunate" countries as if the Orthodox world isn't coming out of the most brutal totalitarian regimes and persecution in all of human history. Context matters. The continued existence the Church is nothing short of a miracle. Most Orthodox countries are just getting back on their feet now and a reconversion of their own people is a necessary first step. If you want a further discussion on evangelism prior to to revolution, Chech out the relevant videos on Ubi Petris UA-cam channel. As for schism, we pray daily and in every liturgy for unity. But we cannot unify with false doctrines nor unify under political expediency. You might say this is scandalous, but we say it is being faithful to Christ and necessary to protect the Body of Christ from the cancer of heresy.. so yes, to be in communion with the Church you must renounce your heresies. Just as the Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, Iconoclasts etc did within the first 1000 years of the Catholic Church as well, so this is nothing new. And just as Protestants or Sede Vacantists would to unite with Rome today. And the growth of the Catholic Church is largely superficial. It's entirely in Africa and Latin America and reflects the large birth rates more than actual evangelism. Catholicism is in complete collapse within Europe and N. America where the birth rates are low.
And your claim that supposedly the Orthodox Church does not evangelise or "outreach to the less fortunate". Forgive me but this is completely a slander and a total ignorance at best, to us who are taking part in the Orthodox mission in Southeast Asia, which is flourishing, just for your information. I don't know where do you live, but the world is a big place, you know? Edited to add these links: ua-cam.com/video/_nImg9C9Xsw/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/capEyT5uiCY/v-deo.html instagram.com/exarchate.sea?
About the current Constantinople-Moscow schism. If you've studied the history behind this, about its origin, then you would've known who was the provocator of this mess: the roman church. Here's the overly simplified summary, spare the details: Back then, the roman catholic church through the unia disrupted Orthodoxy in the Slavic lands, especially in Kiev, which was under the rightful jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople then was small and had been weakened by the roman catholics, not to mention still recovering from their prior submission to the roman catholic church. It was not in any conditions nor had the strength to manage their Kiev from the vigorous advances of the roman catholics and uniates. In 1686, the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Tsar, being the only mighty Orthodox Kingdom and the only stronghold of Orthodoxy back then, offered the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to fully transfer Kiev, which is located precisely at the outskirt region (literally the meaning of "Okraina") of the Land of Rus, to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople agreed. For about 300 years since, the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been rightfully under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and this fact has always been ingrained in the consciousness of the whole Church, unanimously, a fact without any denying. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has the prerogative to bequeathe the status of Autocephaly to a local Church, only after these requirements/prerequisites are met; that the local Church in question has truly asked to be granted the status of Autocephaly, and its Mother Church has allowed it. Only after that, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, usually with the consent of all Autocephalous Primates of the Orthodox Church, can bestow the status. Now, what has been happening for quite a while is; the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not ask for nor want any Autocephaly. The ultranationalistic Russophobic schismatics (who in fact do not care nor understand anything about the Faith) was the one who, for obvious reasons (which are their zeal of ultranationalism and abhorring Russia), indeed asked for Autocephaly, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople gave them what they want and has been recognising them (these separatists who consider themselves the "orthodox church of Ukraine") This new body has been (physically) persecuting the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Church both as in the "Congregation of Faithful People" and also the "Temple/Building"). Not to mention that some of the current "clergies" and "hierarchs" of this body are controversial figures; one was a notorious deposed monk with a wife who failed to be elected as the then Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, one is a full-blown liberal modernistc ecumenist and a political strategist and another one is a dandy fashionmonger. Has just been founded, but this new body has already gotten its first schism among themselves not too long ago, when the aforementioned deposed monk could not accept the fact that he's not to be made and styled a "Patriarch", he and his followers schismed and made their own sect with the deposed monk as their "Patriarch". It is also a well-known fact that this new body, albeit named as "Autocephalous", yet it has very few and limited rights and liberties very unseemly for a true Autocephalous Church, even in comparison to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (mind you, this Church is only an Autonomous Church). In fact, some groups of people who initially joined this new body and joined in persecuting the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the heat of the moment, have repented and came back to the canonical Church, and some of the snatched-away Churches also have been returned to their rightful canonical Owner. Here are some bits of sources where you could widen and deepen your knowledge about the Ukrainian situation: 1. “Ukrainian Autocephaly: The Concealment and Misinterpretation of Documents” by Fr. Theodore Zisis. 2. "The Ecclesial Crisis in Ukraine and its Solution According to the Sacred Canons" by Metropolitan of Kykkos and Tylliria Nikiforos, Cyprus. 3. A collection of documents relating to the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate was published in Kiev, 1872: runivers.ru/bookreader/book9503/#page/1/mode/1up 4. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite's interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. 5. Metropolitan Seraphim (Mentzelopoulos) of Piraeus' explanation about the Ecumenical Patriarchate's actions. 6. orthochristian.com/123385.html The Patriarch of Alexandria and the Archbishop of Cyprus, were good friends of the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, the Patriarch of Alexandria even studied in and served in Russia, and he can speak Russian. They were defenders of the true canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church ( ua-cam.com/video/TSDRFg6w7o0/v-deo.html ) ( ua-cam.com/video/4VpU0gUPnoo/v-deo.html ), but suddenly, out of nowhere, they changed their mind thus recognised the Ukrainian schismatics (this happen very suddenly and unexpectedly after Patriarch Bartholomew met them). This greatly and deeply scandalised and hurt Ukrainian Orthodox faithfuls. It seems that the Ecumenical Patriarch, western countries and some Ukrainians who are Russophobes and want to separate Ukraine from Russia and enjoin it with western powers, share the same goal. That is why we see great supports and praises for the Ecumenical Patriarch on this decision from western countries especially from the US, and they all have been putting pressures, financially and politically, on other Orthodox Churches to accept and to recognise their decision regarding Ukraine. 7. orthochristian.com/126449.html 8. orthochristian.com/135172.html 9. orthochristian.com/142656.html The ROC did not want to do this initially, but after the Patriarch of Alexandria literally concelebrated with the schismatic, this forced the ROC to do this. And for your information, it was the African clergies who requested the ROC, not the other way around. Rest assured, this kind of jurisdictional disputes had very frequently happened in the ancient Early Church. So now, the Early Church is just experiencing another of the Early Church's jurisdictional dispute. If a church does not have the Ancient Church problem, like everything seems to be very neatly organised, I think its faithfuls should start to question whether their church is the Ancient Church or not. Even the Apostles disagreed with each other and we didn't see them reported and asked permission for everything to St. Peter, as if he was the "supreme boss".
My question then is this, Before the great schism the western church was Orthodox, how did such a large part (meaning covering a large area and many groups of people) of the Orthodox church go so wrong? I want to add that I enjoyed this interview and listened to it a second time.
Another aspect of the impact of scholasticism that sometimes gets ignored is the impact it had on moral theology which consequently rise to a general scrupulosity. Suddenly the common lay man went from a small handful of mortal sins to concern himself with to 1000s. OCD and scrupulosity begins to arise in larger swaths of people. Moreoever, infant Holy Communion is stopped as a practice in the 1200s precisely because of scrupulosity. Suddenly it was feared that communing infants was a kind of sacrilege. Clearly a significant change in mentality had occurred and due to the schism unfortunately there wasn't a counter-balance of the Greek and Syrian influence to balance out some of the Latin excesses that were forming in the high middle ages.
Father you mention there are elements of truth within protestantism and Catholicism but perhaps truths out of context is the ultimate deception like an angel of light.
Oh it’s orthodox Matt Damon again. I watched a great interview with Fr. John Strickland and Johnathon Pageau about the same topic a while ago. Looking forward to reading his book when I get the chance
1:03:45 I almost disagree with you regarding the Isenheim Altarpiece. For starters, the Gospel understates how bloody the sort of “deluxe” crucifixion Christ suffered from deliberately because that would be a needless distraction from the sacred narrative and how bad it was was common knowledge in the Roman world anyway, so why go into the obvious? By “deluxe” I mean the worst version of it, save for the unusual requirement that all three prisoners be dead before nightfall, instead of potentially being left to die slowly for days. Of course, it’s easier to last days when you not only haven’t been scourged,but not even nailed, as the simplest version was to tie someone to a tree and let them die of thirst and exposure. But you can’t say that the Isenheim Crucifix is in isolation of the Resurrection, as it’s part of three sets of triptychs. The problem is that on the second triptych, the CENTER Piece is the Nativity while the ABSOLUTELY wonderful Resurrection is off to the side! This speaks to another dividing issue, pushing the emphasis more on the nativity rather than the resurrection, that’s the major problem with the set, in my opinion, but the contrast is amazing, nonetheless.
Union with Christ, Divinization, Theosis Each one of these come from the church traditions Protestant, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. I think an emphasis on these ideas would bring more unity to the church.
We don't even agree on what "the Church" is. Most of us don't believe that Protestants are in communion with anyone except themselves, and few at that. There can't be union until we all believe the same things with no contradictions. That is why in the Apostolic Faiths we believe that our one Church is the Church of Christ. An invisible "church" isn't feasible.
@@LadyMaria The body of Christ is the Church Matthew 7:21-23 it is Christ who will judge who he knows, not you or I. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
I am Catholic and I know thing or two about schism and I'll go deeper if necessary, but my question is this, to anyone maybe is stupid or answered before but I never heard if the answer so im sorry Regardless of Fr's opinion and if papacy is true or not in his mind, we believe it is and obviously pope belived back then again regardless of doing right or wrong by excommunicating the Patriarch, he thought he can and have right and authority to do But Patriarch, if one among equal he can't or doesn't have authority, if he is one among equal as Ortodox believe, how he could excommunicate anyone if not in his parish or area of authority. God bless
Very informative and interesting interview Austin. Thank you. I'm no expert on the Great Schism or church history but from what I've read there were long-standing cultural differences as well as political rivalry between the Eastern and Western Churches before the Great Schism occurred. It was more of a culmination of all these differences and brought an official split that had been developing for centuries.
Exactly. And why the OCA isn't involved in any Western Rite Parishes is baffling to me as an outside observer considering new faiths. There are only a handful in the US and all are under the authority of the Russian and Antiochian Churches. I know it is all very complicated but one would think that the OCA would be better suited to- and have more of an interest in- the managing and promulgation of Western Rite Parishes. Rome and Constantinople have been more cooperative in the last few years, and in the modern world there is no place better for the mingling of the laity to understand each other better than in America. If the tru goal is the eventual reunification of a global Church, I think this would be the place to start, and having an increase in Western Rite parishes to appeal to the sensibilities of more traditional Catholics would be nothing but good. Plus the Orthodox could probably save many who were scandalized by the abuse scandal or have grown weary from falling away from faith altogether.
@Gospel Simplicity and @Fr John Strickland, I am getting the volume that covers 1054-Reformation time. I was heading to the Roman Catholic Church, but I definitely have some concerns. At the end of the day, we must seek to be united to Jesus the Head and His body. Hoping to have clarity. Please pray for me!
Great talk! Fr. John makes some very compelling points which I think are very relevant today, but I am not sure I agree with his greater point. The Schism was not the cause, but a symptom of a far more pernicious problem; pride and human failing. The devil has been actively tearing at the Church's frayed ends since out Blessed Lord's Passion. Satan presumed he had won by his machinations to get Jesus killed, but the moment Our Saviour gave up His Ghost, Satan's despair was realized. Then through persecution of the Holy Martyrs, the devil attempted to destroy His Church. Only, the blood of the martyrs, similar to the blood of Jesus, gave life to the Church. Then after Constantine legalized Christian worship, heresy after heresy was heaped upon the Church. The Coptic Church fell away from this briefly, and it gave rise to an even more insidious false prophet in the form of Mohammed. Then the Schism laid bare the corruption of pride within the Mystical Body Of Christ. Fr. John seems to think, and I apologize if this is a mischaraterization, that Byzantine piety was in some was superior to Latin piety, and more broadly laid. Full disclosure, I am Byzantine Catholic so I very much understand Eastern Christian theology, at a layman's level, first hand, while still also having that understanding of Western Christian sensibilities. First, We cannot divorce culture from religion. Both East and West were shaped dramatically by their different experiences over the millennia. So to make a judgements over nuances of that culture from Christian Iconography, to the bread used for consecration of The Holy Eucharist is, I feel, a way we have delved into factionalism. And this is a major stumbling block for all Christians today. The Protestant reformation was just another symptom in that line of pride. And just so I am clear, none of this was one sided. I, as a Catholic, am under no illusion that Rome played a the innocent in our shared history. In the same way, the Eastern Churches have also played a shameful role, as did Protestant reformed churches. Pride has been at the center of our disunion since the expulsion from the garden. Jesus formed ONE Holy Church. We will ALWAYS be one church no matter how much we try to hate our brother and sister. Let us not wait until our judgement to see which of us were the cancers to the Mystical Body. The Church WILL be healed, and I pray for just that daily. The Lord will use all our failings for His Glory. We should all strive to see what God sees in these divisions, both good and bad. Some examples I see are that the Protestant reformers have inadvertently given the Catholic Church much needed renewal of the appreciation of scripture. Perhaps my Orthodox brothers and sisters could see the value in the rationalism of the West, and how God's gift of intellect grants us a new and wonderful understanding of His creation around us. And perhaps my Catholic brothers and sisters could surrender some of that reason to the acceptance that God's permissive Will is sufficient for higher curiousities. We MUST let the Holy Spirit move in us, both individually and communally, or we will stifle the Graces that flow from Him.
While it’s always true that all human sin & corruption flue from the Evil One and his deceptions, nonetheless in history there are identifiable points of departure or acceleration. The OT is clear on this: the apostasies of Sinai, Peor, Kaddish & Dan are constant points of reference for the psalms & prophets. Btw, no condemnation here, but being Byz. Catholic doesn’t make one orthodox in faith. An Orthodox would never speak of “Graces flowing from God” as you have, coming, as it does, from a view of grace & energies more or less codified by the Scholastics in opposition to the Palamites, the latter having been accepted in Orthodoxy and actually formally ratified. Not an insignificant point of departure.
@@traceyedson9652 I don't disagree with the significance of the Schism, actually. It was a major departure, but the notion that the East has some kind of monopoly on Orthodoxy is nonsense. Please don't take offense, but I have observed a measure of arrogance in Eastern Orthodoxy that has tested Western charitability. And that is not to say that I think you, or other Orthodox are arrogant, but somewhere in the doctrine of the East is a rejection of theological development. And that doesn't seem to be the same everywhere. I am a member of the Ruthenian Church which is an offshoot of the Ukrainian church. The Ukrainian Catholic church and the Ukrainian Orthodox church, despite the obvious canonical differences have worked together very closely in the past. The same cannot be said about the Russian Orthodox church. The Eastern Catholic churches have theological differences between the western church, but have accepted many of the developments that western reason has come to. But what I hear often coming out of many eastern Orthodox churches is that the only way that reunion can occur is for the West to reject many of these dogmas and developments. And while an argument can be made for the reason or the timing in these dogmas, complete dismissal of them is ignoring the larger picture. The Holy Spirit moves within The Church. Not just in Constantinople, or Moscow, or Alexandria, but in Rome too. We don't all have a shared experience in Christendom, and we must be willing to accept that the Holy Spirit is working through all the Baptized. As Christians it is our duty to make sure we help our brothers and sisters understand each other, and not to anathematize each other over cultural and developmental differences. The West has statuary for the same reason the East has Iconography. Let's not misconstrue what the physical differences between them mean. Anyway, I know I am all over the place a bit, but I am just trying to offer a some random examples of silly things we all get hung up on.
@@hammerheadms You bring up way too many disparate topics to reply to. Orthodoxy does accept the development you refer to, beginning with the development in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, it’s singular focus on St Peter & Rome and all the way through it’s innovations including the dogmatic definitions on Mary & infallibility. These are ecclesiological and there pneumatological and Trinitarian. Byzantine Catholics are not exemplary as they hold Roman doctrines like created grace. As for arrogance, at the Judgment I will be held accountable for my sins, not yours, and vice versa. If you allow another’s sin to keep you from the truth, that’s a problem for you. (It may be for some Orthodox, as well, surely.) That’s not an argument, and you know it. Also, you can hardly be paying attention if you think your own apologists here & elsewhere don’t have their share! The only place I enjoy hearing of traditional Catholicism is SSPX’s own channel. But what of it?
@@traceyedson9652 Forgive me if I am coming off as inarticulate. My last comment was very stream of consciousness as I was getting ready for work. Understand that I don't expect Orthodox Christians to accept Roman canons and dogmas. That wasn't actually what I was suggesting. What I was saying was that even within our own sphere Orthodox mock us for theological developments, and they never considered the the folly of it. My overarching point is that in Christ's eyes, we are not divided. We are one, just separated by out own sin and failing. Fr. John makes very good and valid points, but he heaps many of society's problems on the Catholic church, without noticing the failings of his own church. As I said, this is not a one sided problem. This is not a CHURCH problem. It is a HUMAN problem.
@@hammerheadms except the EO Church has had no impact on the development of Western culture. Now, Russia, Greece, Ethiopia, etc., sure. But this was a discussion of the trajectory of Western civilization since it’s schism from the East. That’s the locus of concern since it’s where we live, and no amount of good-will or EO self-deprivation can change that.
Fascinating conversation! I was disappointed with Fr. John in his treatment your question about what led up to the Great Schism of 1054. He seemed to take the line that everything is Rome’s fault and all heresies come from Rome. The Great Schism of 1054 wasn’t by any means the 1st Great Schism between Rome and the New Capital. The separation of 867 was also known as the Great Schism. A full 40% of the time between 343 and 867 were spent separated because of the struggle of Constantinople with heresy. Each separation weakened the bonds of charity between them. By the 11th century, Rome and Constantinople had lost the ability to speak with one another, there were no translators left. There are many other causes of separation. This is just a few. Fortunately, we have people like you who have dedicated their time and effort to helping Christians speak with one another from the heart. Only in this way and with acts of Christian brotherly kindness can we heal the breach between us.
He was representing his understanding of history. And he said nothing about it being all Rome’s fault. But as he made clear he’s describing his understanding of the broad movement of cultural history. Clearly, patriarch & Cardinal we’re both pompous a**es.
Former cradle Roman Catholic here, Rome left the Church. By definition the Church cannot practice heresy or teach error as the Church is from God not man, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church. Naturally this means all heresy came from Rome when they separated themselves from The Church. Orthodoxy is the Church. It's blatantly obvious to historical and theological scrutiny. Branch theory is a modernist ecumenist heresy invented to deal with infinity protestant schisms. Rome has tried to apply this to the Orthodox in the last 50 years becuase when you stack up post vatican I and II rome to Orthodoxy with any honesty its very clear which is "The faith once delivered to the saints". Rome isn't really a faith as they don't profess one faith due to things like uniates who profess the creed without the filioque and venerate saints whose theology is completely at odds with Rome ergo Rome does not have catholicity. The early church was counciliar as seen in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Orthodoxy is counciliar. The early church did not have a supreme bishop ruling the church. Orthodoxy does not have a supreme bishop ruling the Church. All Roman Catholic papal dogma are based on a false foundation. St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome he was Bishop of Antioch. St. Paul first ordained St. Linus as Bishop of Rome, after St. Linus St. Peter ordained St. Clement as Bishop of Rome. Ss. Paul and Peter were likely martyred by Nero shortly after. This is in a text called the Apostolic Constitutions. It's reinforced in the Church's iconography where St. Peter is not depicted as a Bishop in the icons with St. Paul the way Ss. James or Lazarus are they were both apostolic Bishops. This explains why in Romans St. Paul does not greet St. Peter. He's not Bishop of Rome, never was and this flushes every single papal dogma down the drain as they are entirely predicated on this claim. Roman Catholicism is essentially a creation from a few key historical realities. The Roman Patriarchate being on its own in the west after the collapse of the western half of the empire, this caused synodality to eventually break down in the west. Political interference from Charglemane during his attempts to rival the Byzantine Empire seen during his opposition to the outcome of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which caused iconography to die out in the west eventually being replaced with statuary and then in the renaissance syncretic pagan art, this of course led to hardline protestant iconoclasm. Finally the key one and the main cause of the west's slide into the current atheism. The embrace of synthesising pagan hellenic philosophy with Christianity. This leads to the implosion of any meaningful trinitarian theology, which of course is what birthed unitarianism in the west. Ultimately this leads to reletavism as there is no way to discern Truth. St. Gregory Palamas predicted this would occur when he was debating against western scholastic theology in the 14th century and how prescient his warning has become. I'll leave with a neologism "The well studied Protestant becomes Catholic, the well studied Catholic becomes Orthodox." It's not "being mean" it's blunt honest truth. You want mass social atheism gone in the west embrace Orthodoxy. It's the truth and I thank God every day for His Church. 🙏🏻☦
As a Catholic, I agree with much of what Fr Strickland says. The Church has a legal structure (Canon Law) which grew immensely during the medieval period. Also it is clear that there has been a lot of focus in different places at different times, upon the fires of hell, and a conflation of those fires with the purification we call purgatory. This is a matter of emphasis - but did Saint Francis of Assisi emphasise the fires of hell? Fear of hell does have a place in Christian life. St Paul said to work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and Jesus mentioned damnation many times. If you read extracts from St Bernard of Clairvaux, St Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and just about any of them, they talk about the love of God and his mercy and so on. If you listen to the prayers prayed by the priest during the mass in English, you will hear about heaven, eternal life, the blessed state of the life to come, etc. But how would continued communion with the churches now called Orthodox have made a difference? The Eastern Christians had much less success at causing any evolution in their societies. The Emperors and their court in Constantinople often acted much like King Herod, ordering massacres here and there, blinding their rivals and their own children, deposing Churchmen as they wished. In the west, as time went on, the rulers increasingly were bound by the laws - even kings like Henry V111 had to arrange show trials and employ false witnesses to have his enemies (and wives) beheaded. A Christian society needs just laws, but Orthodoxy historically has cohabited with arbitrary autocracies, without appearing to ameliorate it at all. In Moscow there was no Patriarch from 1700 to 1917, when the communists decided to recreate the position.
Worthy & fair questions, I think, without too much call for a conclusion. My guess is that Fr. Strickland is more interested in cultural life on the ground than political structures. And “paradisiacal” isn’t to be understood as “perfected” in his usage. I think he made that clear. It had to do with the normative orientation of society. Your posting admits of a secular one, I think, in contrast with his emphasis.
"in Moscow there was no Patriarch..." and there's no problem with that, we did have the Holy Synods and Metropolitans as the primus during that period. Our ecclesiology is not exactly the same with that of the roman church.
@@symphonymph3562 The Synod was governed by a lay oberprocurator as a department of the government bureaucracy. Of course there was something wrong with it.
@@traceyedson9652 Are you talking about the period before or after Patriarch St. Tikhon? Yet the Faith prevails to this day. Wasn't old rome hijacked by the Franks, and there was that whole affairs with Pepin and Charlemagne, the Great Western Schism (Three Popes), also Napoleon with Pius VII, Ultramontanism, and the political motives behind the First Vatican Council?
@@symphonymph3562 certainly, the Faith survives the worst outrages. But nonetheless, that the Church was made a department of the administration…not ok.
It would be good to admit the reasons why Cardinal Humbert walked into Hagia Sophia with the Bull of excommunication. Don't you think? The fact is Cerularius selfishly blocked the Pope's representative from seeing the emperor to ask for help on a serious matter. Both sides had issues, Father Strickland. But the biggest one was Cerularius huge ego and lack of charity to handle an important matter for the West. God bless.
Nice points, but the more we listen to Eastern Orthodox figures, the more their “ethos” strangely consolidates an accusative stance towards us and an obstinate way to talk about the Great Schism with pointing fingers and stones to throw. It gets predictable. All things - on important or even irrelevant themes - must lead them to blame the Catholic Church and to cover up for their own disciplinary, ecclesiastical, historical and doctrinal issues, troubles, guilts and faults. It seems even difficult for their scholars, who are presumably driven by the spirit of academic investigations, to break the vicious circle and still be respected among Eastern Orthodoxs and not ostracized, I guess.
Did you really think that was the biggest problem? Remember how cardinal Humbert insulted almost every eastern christian practice there is with the foulest choices of words?
@@symphonymph3562 What? Cardinal Humbert suffered perverse boycotts and direct offenses from the Patriarch of Constantinople until he did what he did. Of course it’s not noble to be infuriated and imprudent, even under unjust aggression, more so if you are strictly a legate. But Cerularius was the one that went on and made a fun list of Latin “heresies” in 1053, long before Humbert’s action in 1054, that represents an absurd list of burlesque accusations on heresy, like the format of episcopal hats and how beards must be or not be shaved. Interestingly enough, Cerularius completely missed the ‘Filioque’ but rallied over the azyme bread as the number one “heresy” of the side he cared to demonize. Byzantine Imperialism went over all good senses without even any case of direct conflict between the Pope of Rome and the Byzantine Emperor (nor much less the Patriarch of Constantinople, generally subservient to the Empire), as it happened in the time of Photius, when St Ignatius of Constantinople suffered destitution by the Emperor so as to put Photius in the patriarchal seat. So it can mostly be said to be driven by cultural hatred towards the West and the convenient narrative built to enforce that very long established despise: that orthodoxy was at risk, so they needed to break away from the deplorable barbarians of the West, as they used to name the Latins. _”After Photius, John Bekkos says there was "perfect peace" between East and West. But the peace was only on the surface. Photius's cause did not die. It remained latent in the party he left, the party that still hated the West, that was ready to break the union again at the first pretext, that remembered and was ready to revive this charge of heresy against Latins. Certainly from the time of Photius hatred and scorn of Latins was an inheritance of the mass of the Byzantine clergy. How deeply rooted and far-spread it was, is shown by the absolutely gratuitous outburst 150 years later under Michael Caerularius (1043-58). For this time there was not even the shadow of a pretext. No one had disputed Caerularius's right as patriarch; the pope had not interfered with him in any way at all. And suddenly in 1053 he sends off a declaration of war, then shuts up the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurls a string of wild accusations, and shows in every possible way that he wants a schism, apparently for the mere pleasure of not being in communion with the West. He got his wish. After a series of wanton aggressions, unparalleled in church history, after he had begun by striking the pope's name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July, 1054). But still there was no idea of a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefully provided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who was excessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city were "most pious and orthodox". They excommunicated Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents._ _This quarrel, too, need no more have produced a permanent state of schism than the excommunication of any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope's name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius's bidding. But, eventually, the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well to consider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism. We see, too, how well Photius's idea of calling Latins heretics had been learned. Caerularius had a list, a longer and even more futile one, of such accusations. His points were different from those of Photius; he had forgotten the Filioque, and had discovered a new heresy in our use of azyme bread. But the actual accusations mattered little at any time, the idea that had been found so useful was that of declaring that we are impossible because we are heretics. It was offensive and it gave the schismatical leaders the chance of assuming a most effective pose, as defenders of the true Faith”._ (Catholic Encyclopedia. Entrance: ‘Eastern Schism’).
I like how he touches on the issues of the Hellenistic influence upon the faith. I also largely agree with him. The only thing I wish would be to go back further to the first major division in the faith that being between Jewish and Gentile believers.
@@joefrescoln David Erhan has a good video series on that topic. It's complex and there is a lot of history involved as it was both theological differences and political. The historical term would be nonchalcedonian. "Oriental orthodox" is a neologism and a misnomer. Nonchalcedonians are neither oriental nor orthodox.
@@NavelOrangeGazer Of course it was complex and political, so was the "great schism". I know they aren't "oriental". Thanks, I'll check out the series.
Constantinople was a big city like London or New York and there were a number of Latin-rite churches in the city. These had been closed and that is what Cardinal Humbert came to complain about in 1054. No mention of the Massacre of the Latins in 1182. Pope Innocent III was not in command of any armies in 1204. He opposed the Sack of Constantinople and kept up almost a running commentary on events. The Filioque was introduced to England by St Theodore at the Council of Hatfield in 680. The Council of Ferrara-Florence was as good as it gets, but was rejected in the East. We can see from the 2016 Council of Crete that those who call themselves Orthodox are merely contumacious types who will never accept any authority. I note Father Strickland's reference to Catholics in Ireland and Northern England. Quite simply, the Orthodox Church is unknown in our part of the world. Our first encounter with it is likely to be some fanatic on the Internet saying why we are Filioquist heretics in between being not validly baptised. Aren't you just a variety of Protestant? You do use words like "papist" to describe Catholics like myself, and even your priests use this kind of language. It just sounds dreadful to us. Do you actually have any evangelical ambitions in Ireland or England?
Ironically the orthodox consider you people to be the first protestants.Latins or frankish latins divided the church due to their ego and then tried using force and coercion to force some kind of union .if papacy was needed and does what it claims to do then the reformation wouldn't have happened .the fact that the western church divided into 1000+ churches tells us a lot.
With all due respect, the Orthodox Church has been in the British world for well over 1000 years at this point. Certainly, we may need to be more outgoing, but there are modern saints from Britain as well as many of the old saints are Orthodox. It may be more an issue of people not being curious about what is behind what we do and why do we do it.
@@LukeStultz I suggest that you Orthodox begin by banning the use of the word "papist" in referring to Catholics. It just makes you sound like Rangers supporters. Glasgow Rangers is a football team with a reputation for being anti-Catholic, though perhaps less so in modern times.
@@LukeStultz I suggest that you Orthodox begin by banning the use of the word "papist" in referring to Catholics. It just makes you sound like Rangers supporters. Glasgow Rangers is a football team with a reputation for being anti-Catholic, though perhaps less so in modern times.
Very educational. Thank you. Listening made me think whether there has been a decline in the East considering that the 20th century saw the rise of communism especially in the East. There was a mention of “Westernism” that supposedly started by Peter the Great in Russia and could be interpreted as the root of communism in the East. Nevertheless, This would suggest that the presence of conditions in the East that had made the culture susceptible to “Westernism”. I am curious whether Father John also sees a decline of the East, and if he does I am also curious of his understanding on whether this decline can be traced to Great Schism.
The argument makes very little sense. The ironic part of the “Westernism” of the czar Peter the Great supposedly ‘causing communism’ in the East is that he himself - on religious affairs - followed the model of state-controlled synods after the structure of the National Lutheran churches in Sweden and Prussia of the 16th-17th century, which is entirely STRANGE to the Catholic West - apart from the heresy of Gallicanism intended in France and that got a sort of threatening relevance in the 19th century - but are (and has always been) extremely adaptable to the Eastern model of cesaropapism, that traces its roots back to Byzantine Emperors’ interference on religious matters and appointing/ destituting bishops and even patriarchs, which Peter the Great stretched to a conceptual level adjusted to the new Modern States and its demands. To test the argument, Bulgaria and Romania (or many other countries of the communist block) didn’t have Czars, much less they had “Westernizer” leaders as retumbant as the czar Peter the Great from the 1700s, yet they still had to face the spread of communism after the model of the stabilized Soviet Union, which made demonstrable the extreme adaptability of the communist premises on their own political and cultural conditions; if not a Bolshevist revolution on itself, the Eastern Christian countries were on the very least suited enough to receive by force the “Stalinist formula” and prove adjustability. In both Bulgaria and Romania the Catholic Church was strongly persecuted whereas the Eastern Orthodox national church made alliances with the Communist regime just like it did at least in Stalinist Russia or in Ukraine, Slovakia and other places were the Catholic Church still had (some) important representation. But in Poland and Lithuania, where the majority of Catholics went as high as 80-90% of the population, Eastern Orthodoxy was not capable to absorb the Catholic correlate, therefore the regime was much more ostensibly atheistic and strong in persecution towards religion in general than it was in finding a paradoxical use for “State religion” as in EO cohabitation alongside the atheist regime in those societies. That’s not my particular opinion but a historical fact: Poland’s social-political crisis and the active role of Pope St John Paul II from 1979 on in the communist Eastern world showed it with milimetre precision. As I’ve said in another place, the philosophical ‘discovery’ of the individual (and the self) is much more relevant as a phenom in the process of Western ‘décadence’, so are the philosophical, material and historical conditions that made the development of the Modern States possible, which in few years would be much more influential than the Church into their own societies. So Fr Strickland just took the fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc” to a new proportion so as to throw the usual stones (as Eastern Orthodoxy arguably got specialized for) onto a sort of “mythologized” Catholic West that embodies villainy and malignity. Narrative is the name of it.
On the contrary: the 20th century saw a flowering of Orthodox theology in Russia. The martyrdom of the Russian Orthodox Church under some of the Soviet leaders has resulted in a great renewal of the faith preceding the dissolution of the Soviet Union and since.
Perhaps I should watch the full video but just from the title I have to wonder, is that two separate topics or is the implication that the West started to decline immediately after the Schism in a way the East didn't/haven't? Because I would have to say that aside from the fall of the civil Roman Empire, which was bound to happen eventually, I'd say the West did alright for the next few centuries, even after the Protestant reformation. The decline seems more recent and rapid if anything. And are we really going to say that the East did so much better? Because it hasn't exactly been sunshine and rainbows in the East either. I mean they at least the West's failings that led to the Protestant Reformation led to factions that at least call themselves Christian. The East couldn't prevent the heresy of Islam from taking over the vast majority of what would have been Eastern Church members. And as much as I understand some of the criticisms the East has with modern levels of papal authority, I have to say the last century or so has not been great for unity of the East. I mean just look at the situation with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow and the situation in Ukraine. Perhaps a bit more deference to the first among equals would do them well? Edit: oh and there was also that whole Communism thing that probably single-handedly caused more bloodshed and damage to the world than any other political idology in the last 500 years. The idea came from the West but took hold in the East. How did the Eastern Church not rebuff that ideology?
Definitely watch the video. I come from a Protestant background so I, too, looked upon how "successful" the West has become as an indicator that we had God's blessing. That's not what Jesus promises us, however. He promised us tribulation. We're to take heart, because He has overcome the world, but still, the East has been persecuted for a long time. The Venician traders didn't like competing with Constantinople, and attacked them, weakening their defenses and allowing the overthrow of the city by the Muslims a century later. Islam was constantly attacking and the Golden age of Byzantium was interrupted with iconoclasm, so it wasn't easy the entire time before the Crusades. My argument is that if you look to monetary success and worldly success, it may not point you towards thel true church. Russia is a complex question, but Russian czars who were westernized (one of them made men shave their beards!) led to the downfall of Holy Russia. A relatively small group of athiests took over the country. Read Fr. Seraphim Rose's Orthodox Survival Course (or listen to it on UA-cam) to get much more detail. Blessings!
@@urusledge I said that I viewed it that way initially. You were pointing out military defeats like Islam overrunning the East and Communism taking over Russia. My thought when I initially was pondering the same question was that the West became "successful" and invented many things and seemed "blessed." I think it comes from David Barton and other Christian historians that point to the US as having some special blessing, almost like the new Israel. It really shocked me when I realized "we" were many of the bad things other nations say about us. We're the new Babylon, frankly. We're a terrible influence on the world morally.
One more thing. Islam originated in a very pagan area with a mixture of Jews and Heretical Christian groups. It wasn't like a bunch of Orthodox Christians allowed Islam to arise in it's own area. There are also good videos on UA-cam about the Catacomb Church in Russia. After I started researching this I realized how little I knew about this part of history. It's fascinating.
Austin, I liked the tone of the presentation in general and Fr Strickland seems to be a person really enjoyable to discuss with. But deep down there is still their necessity to define identities on the negative or, in other words, the positive conflictual differentiation: more than 70% of scholarly works by Eastern Orthodox theologians relate to the “why we are not in communion with Rome” theme, either in history or doctrine, explicitly or not, and the “theology of the Schism”. Things get even deeper and numbers even higher when we transition to EO apologetics, laymen or ordained clergy doing it. In the EO argument, the whole “décadence” of Western society leads to a preferential option for the Christian East (and please notice: outside of communion with Rome). I can’t help but say it sounds propagandistic and, in a sense, accusative and triumphalist. It’s not so usual to see Catholic scholars pointing fingers to others (as it is to see them doing ‘self-analysis’ both in and of the Church), but if a Catholic priest back then or nowadays preach that the Islamic definitive conquest of the Byzantine Empire, the massive loss of Christian territory and the alliance/ mutual agreement of the Islamic conqueror with the Orthodox hierarchy in the new-born Ottoman Empire, or if he defended that the communist revolution spreading and establishing in the Eastern christian countries even with cooperation and collaboration of the Orthodox church in a number of cases, or, at last, if he says that the politicization of the faith and the nationalization of the churches or the Christian “ethos” in the East happened due to social, political and religious reasons traceable to the Great Schism, then any EO audience would furiously blame it as “Latin arrogance” and Catholic propaganda. Strangely enough, the philosophical ‘discovery’ of the individual (and the self) is not as big a phenom in the process according to EO apologetics. It must be caused by the Schism, it’s all about it - and the blameful ‘conceptual’ West. In other words, Fr Strickland just took the fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc” to a new application and proportion. In synthesis the logic is: happening in the West, if bad, the thing has to be causally related with the Great Schism. The reciprocal with the East must be said to be not true. Never. So it is the simplest argument on the top of which Fr Strickland adds - fairly enough - layers of complexity to make it sound sufficiently robust. But it is a thousand years showing EO they need to come back to communion with Rome and the Catholic Church, where Truth is and can only be (fragments of truth and manifestations of grace surely can be seen outside of it, but not Truth with integrity and integrality). When Vladimir Soloviev - one of the most brilliant philosophical minds of the late 19th and early 20th century in the world -, and just few years before the Russian Revolution of 1917, wrote that their church could only recognize universality when going back to accepting the the undeniable truth of the Catholic Church in Rome and then find again the authentic Christian spirit that would prevent them from chaos, in his very _”Russia and the Universal Church”,_ he was deemed a traitor by many of the Eastern Orthodoxs. When we say the East is truly needed in the Catholic church, now more than ever, so as to recalibrate the vitality of the faith especially in the liturgy, Eastern Orthodoxs expect nothing less than the West bending knees. So let us all always remember the theology of our saints: *PRIDE,* not hate or lust, is the root of all sins; accusation is the favorite hobby of the Father of Lies, the one who divides: the Latin word “diablo” comes from the Greek word “dia-ballein”, which means the union of the radical “dia”, that means the other side, across (like in ‘diagonal’) and “ballein”, that means to shoot, to aggressively push (like in ‘ballistic’): he is the one that divides and pushes to the other side what was united under God’ reigning before. May we find the true Pax Christi! With love for all of my Christian brothers!
The side what was wrong in the schism of course wants the other side to come back and say everything is okay, while the side that was correct still holds firm the truth and won’t deviate for any kind of compromise. It’s clear to see which side is which. The Romans have fallen too deep into the heresy of ecumenism, this is why they don’t talk against anyone else. They want everyone together.
@@diegobarragan4904 Brother, you seemed to prove the points on pride and accusation with precision. Ecumenism can be false: it relates to finding a synthesis on divergent grounds and to start a new set of middle-term beliefs without preoccupation with truth ‘in re ipsa’. It is thoroughly inadmissible. But real ecumenical dialogues are related to finding more the commonalities than the divergences among different beliefs so as to truly understand the other. If dialoguing under the commandment of charity and truly loving the neighbors, those dialogues may be fruitful; if not, they will necessarily sink. Only God can be the active principle of unity. It is exactly what the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches are doing since Vatican II. For the first time in history the Ecumenical Patriarch set his foot in Rome in the 60s. In 2016 for the first time in history the pope and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow met in person, and it happened in Cuba. Pope Francis and Metropolitan Hilarion just recently met in Moscow in December 2021 with enormous respect, already arranging for the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow to meet personally again, either in Rome or Moscow. Many, many documents are produced on fruitful dialogues. Many of the reciprocal antipathies are healing. For the first time in history post-schism the Pope was in Greece, just recently in December 2021. He was received with remarkable deference. Maybe it takes a fragile leader in the Catholic side for the Orthodox ones to recognize why they are important for the Church, since the EO leaders were always haunted by “papal greatness” after the schism, just as pre-schism they were mostly thrilled by it. If there is a particular time to notice this paradox, that time is definitely now. So again, the whole accusation on “the heresy of ecumenism” thrown at the Catholic Church on the level of doctrines, apart from some undeniable bad taste in some encounters that had happened, it is all but a narrative to ignite divisive mentality, mostly with political connotations.
@@masterchief8179 you seem to be greatly fearful of division, where Christ & St. Paul seemed to think it was necessary, certainly unavoidable. Rome’s post-VII obsession with unity at all costs seems to come through in your posting. The verbal machinations to make things legal & valid or technically orthodox (small ‘o’) so folks can be formally in communion with the Roman bishop and therefore “one” & Catholic is unattractive to most Orthodox and not a real solution.
@@traceyedson9652 I can only lament but that’s what you probably were taught by EOs apologists so as to avoid the devilish nature of division and some specific (bad) state of affairs that people want to put under the carpet. But it is entirely anti-biblical and a particular bad exegesis of the Gospel and of St Paul. Jesus wanted the unity AMONG Christians to be as perfect as the unity He has with the Father, that means the most perfect one ever conceivable, which is the indivisible oness of the very intratrinitarian life (John 17, 21). And St Paul teaches that we need to recognize “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5) because not only he conceived Christians to necessarily be one in spirit (Eph 4, 4) but also one in body (Eph 4, 3). What Our Lord indeed says about divisions is that He himself would divide those - even families, father and sons and wife and husband - on the fundamental decision that concern following Him (Matthew 10, 34-39), the definitive Word that God proclaimed over history. So double check your concepts, brother. Peace.
@@masterchief8179 As a Roman Catholic, you have a weak leg to stand on with that approach. That division is of the diabolos, yes, of course. But the answer is found in the Spirit, as St. Paul teaches, and not in the deceptive legalistic definitions of the Roman curia or the monarchical papacy.
Haven’t had time to watch, but I’m concerned with the current scism in the Orthodox Church between Russia and Constantinople. I just joined the church 12/24/21 and this is going on. It’s starting to look like Protestantism
It’s concerning, but it really doesn’t change anything (regarding the faith) and is far from the first time this has ever happened. If this squabble between patriarchs bugs you, boy, you would have a tough time with the church of the first millennium! Talk to your priest if it really concerns you; chances are he isn’t stressed, and you shouldn’t be either. Just live your life and above all, pray.
Over the History of the Church there has been these rumbles between Patriarchs before. Because NONE of our Bishops run the Church on their own (the Patriarch’s are Bishops that administer geographical areas of the Orthodox Church and not Political figures). The only way Patriarchs/Bishops can change anything is by agreement in a COUNCIL! They can get mad, complain or leave but that’s it.
As a member of GOARCH, I can still take the Eucharist at ROCOR, an Antiochian Orthodox Church, Romanian Church, etc., all the Orthodox Churches. Not a permanent split, but a spat between current Patriarchs. This spat is without doubt political, temporal. Not of the Kingdom of God. It will end at some juncture, of that I have no doubt. The analogy with Protestanism splitting off from Catholicism is off quite a bit, I think you just do not know much about the history of the Church - and that's OK, we are all learning here. There are issues and problems with each of the Orthodox Churches (because they are institutions run by imperfect man). In the end, we're One body. One blood. One cup.
Orthodox priest says that the source of all Western spirtual problems is that they aren't Orthodox. Seems like a rather arrogant take to me. If the East is so spirtually protected why were they so susceptible to communism, the most Utopian and anti-religious movement in history? I would also dispute some of these assertions. The Filioque is much earlier than the 11th century. You had the Athanasian Creed circulating in the West in the early 6th century and it explicitly states the doctrine of the Filioque.
@@traceyedson9652 no, but this is really pomo. Orthodox popular piety varied -granted- but it wasn’t always this “paradisiacal” fantasy . I come from a place where until the ‘50’s or ‘60’s if one was able to decipher the letters , the only works of piety available would have been “The Dream of the Theotokos” or “Epstle sent by ICXC from heaven “ all containing threats and graphic descriptions of the variiis tortures awaiting sinners in hell. Such was the predication-when it easy completely skipped- very moralizing and not shy of making threats about ones afterlife . But when you say it in English anything can be projected onto orthodoxy.
@@traceyedson9652 no, but this is really pomo. Orthodox popular piety varied -granted- but it wasn’t always this “paradisiacal” fantasy . I come from a place where until the ‘50’s or ‘60’s if one was able to decipher the letters , the only works of piety available would have been “The Dream of the Theotokos” or “Epstle sent by ICXC from heaven “ all containing threats and graphic descriptions of the variiis tortures awaiting sinners in hell. Such was the predication-when it easy completely skipped- very moralizing and not shy of making threats about ones afterlife . But when you say it in English anything can be projected onto orthodoxy.
@@evans3922 Evcharisto Evangelos....well..you know, Bishop Kallistos Ware who wrote a respected book on Orthodox Christianity, says something like, "we can always be sure where the Church is, but we cannot always be sure where it is not." Trinitarian Baptism with water is the door into the Church, and initiation is completed by Chrismation (or Confirmation) and Holy Communion. In a sense it is the one who has all that plus a living faith hope and charity who is fully in the Church. For Catholic Christians of course the saying "ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" (where Peter is, there is the Church), would bear a lot of weight...but not I think to the extent of saying that those not in full communion with Peter (the Rock) are in no sense in the Church. Irini pasi!
This is ecumenism, brother. There is ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That quote is more telling in regards to the current state of Rome, than it is on the historical understanding of Church ecclesiology.
@@J..P.. I think that some years ago, when the Patriarch of Constantinople lifted the excommunication of the Pope, and the Pope lifted the excommunication of the Patriarch ( getting on for 1,000 years ago!), they were both saying in effect, "we are both in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a real sense: even although there are still painful divisions and problems which we must continue to pray about. Our communion is real, although still far from perfect. Let us pray with Our Lord, "that they may be one... and that the world may believe" (John 17.)
@@bdnl6268 Fortunately, the patriarch of Constantinople has no authority to make that claim. He is, ironically enough, using the same papist heresy that got Rome excommunicated, to return to communion with Rome - while undermining union with other Orthodox Patriarchs. He's a bad faith actor and is getting awfully close to being excommunicated himself. This is precisely why we use a counciliar universal concensus approach like we read in Acts 15, and not papal supremacy.
It's amazing how fast Rome went downhill after the 4th crusade attack on Eastern Christendom. That is really the point when the schism was completely solidified. Assisi and Aquinas both lived in that same century (13th). Ironically when the crusaders plundered Constantinople they brought home a revivied interest in pagan philosophers like Aristotle, from plundered Greek texts, which directly led to the renaissance and much of Rome's innovation. This innovation that largely led directly to the implosion of western Christian unity in the reformation. If you really want a deep dive into the core of this issue I think it's time for round two with Dr. Bradshaw on the topics of St. Gregory Palamas (excellent choice for a "Christians You Should Know" episode), scholasticism, and thomism/aristotelianism.
In my experience some Orthodox believers have an exaggerated understanding of Palamas' view on Aristotle and apply rather ignorantly - blanket condemnations of Western theology's engagement with Aristotle & Plato, St Thomas Aquinas, etc. Palamas’ classical education equipped him to make proper distinctions between inspired Wisdom and philosophy. His stance towards philosophy and classical literature reflects the spirit of the Church in complete harmony with the Church Fathers - East & West. He recognizes the educational value of philosophy in human efforts to understand the revealed truth. Period.
@@MPFXT Except for the whole professing the filioque is satanic and how ADS would lead the west to atheism. But whatever cope thomists need to try and do the two lungs bit and synthesize a completely incompatible worldview into their system. If it's so compatible why do trad caths fight so hard against St. Palamas and E/E distinction? Is it surprising rc will try to synthesize nearly any external system into their system? No, in fact they have done a very good job of synthesizing modernism into their system in the past 100 years which has wrought havoc on their church.
@@MPFXT Agreed, many Orthodox (and RomanCatholics), perhaps including me (and you), might misunderstand aspects of St. Palamas' arguments. In any case, it does seem that a blanket type of condemnation of the West's post-Schism synthesis of hellenism and Christianity, exemplified by Aquinas et al, is the appropriate type of condemnation. There is not much to salvage, it must all be thrown out. More on this later. You say St Palamas' philosophical stance reflects the Fathers of both east and west. Correct, but only because the west used to be Orthodox. St Palamas does not reflect post-schism westerners, but on the contrary, he writes against them. Other than a few letters, there is nothing he wrote that wasn't exclusively to refute the Latins. Even a number of his Sunday sermons have anti-Latin points sprinkled in them. You say St Palamas "recognizes the educational value of philosophy in human efforts to understand the revealed truth. Period." Correct, but that's not what post-schism westerners used philosophy for, and if they occasionally did, these occasions are not the reason why the western world has been destroyed. Two points to make: (1) Heretical concepts like filioque, created grace, purgatory, ADS, immovable mover view of God, etc, were generated not by philosophy being applied to understand revelation, but by philosophy being applied to distort it, revise it, and innovate it. (2) Philosophy in the post-schism west was used not for educational, but for salvific purposes. Taking cues from St Augustine's neoplatonism, they equated salvation with grasping platonic forms and formulating dogmas. This directly led to monks and theologians sitting on their desks and philosophizing (using greek pagan philosophy!) all day long, mocking hesychasm and thinking heaven is earned by contemplating on some aristotelian immovable mover or something. This is St Palamas' point. Philosophy, he says, does not save. Look, my point is, this christian-hellenic synthesis of the post-schism west is misguided and harmful. In Orthodoxy we might employ platonic or aristotelian jargon to articulate Christian concepts, the core is completely Christian. In RomanCatholicism you use christian imagery to cover-up hellenic worldviews and theology. On the outside you call it "Holy Trinity" or "Jesus", but on the inside it's all immovable movers and ADS and stuff. Not trying to insult anyone, and I know it's not that simple, but it kinda is...
Without denying the faith or succession of the Byzantines who have their own splits, this sounds like a nickel debating which quarter has lost the most value.
To be in a rift with each other doesn’t mean either party has left the Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox is not our official name). All the jurisdictions are still within Orthodoxy. If this was not so, there would have to be an Ecumenical Council because we are a conciliar Church without a Pope. No one person by themselves can kick a jurisdiction out of the Orthodox Catholic Church! Patriarchs and the Ecumenical Patriarch make declaratory statements of disapproval, caution or correction. They separate but are not broken permanently. In almost 2000 years these things have self corrected over time. God is perfect, humans are not.
This is not a penetrating analysis by Father Strickland. The rift between East and West goes all the way back to St. Augustine, at least. With Augustine there are clear major lines of division that have to be acknowledged. And more than that, the Orthodox church, particularly the Russian Orthodox church, has never adequately addressed the profound significance contained in the 'schism' (raskolniki) related to the Old Believers issue concerning the relationship between Church and State. I guarantee that this will come back to haunt and harry the Orthodox church. It's far from over and to begin with the official East-West schism as the source of explanations is to be in denial or deep ignorance.
As a Ex Orthodox I hope EO and Rome will reunite one day I can't with Orthodoxy it's truly not united its just national church's who can't agree with each other
You are seeking the true Church by intellectual speculation of church politics? This is the problem I’m seeing with the new converts. You are looking at things from a very surface level glance. And this caused you to apostatize from the Church. It’s better that you never knew the truth than the know it then reject it. You accepted heresy for the Sake of an external man made illusion of unity? While true unity is a mystical participation in the Holy Trinity and body of Christ. This is found in the Holy Orthodox Church alone. A unity centered in One Faith and one Bread. Centered in the body of Christ. Not an intellectual submission of will to the Pope.
@@diegobarragan4904 nope in Orthodoxy its pure cope Rome is true end of story u don't know anything other than speculation of what wrote I was searching for truth and it's Rome let's not even go on "unity" in orthodoxy bro
@@Catholic01 what truth did find in Rome? Don’t lie to yourself. You converted and compromised for the sake of a external illusion of unity to bring you comfort. You accepted soul destroying heresies for mental comfort. The unity of Rome is not true unity according to the teaching of the Apostles and the Saints of God. Rome is just a large umbrella of different faiths and contradicting Saints, the only requirement is an intellectual submission to the pope of Rome. This is foreign to the Church. True unity is a mystical union with the Trinity, not a man made institution. The true unity found in the Holy Orthodox Church stems from the life of the Church, union with the God Man Christ, and therefore with eachother, with one faith and one mindset, and one bread. But someone like you will probably convert again to some new tradition a few years down the road. There’s a trend of new converts who are just looking at things from the surface level, but not grounded in holy Scriptures and Writings of the Saints, and ascetical struggle and spiritual life of the Church. But are dragged around by the leash of the passions to wherever the Enemy of your soul leads you. You might find a certain type of peace in your novas order, but it won’t last, because it’s not from above. Only Christ and the Truth sets you free.
@@diegobarragan4904 you think you ate that I don't care for your eastern heresy no more I'm home in the True Catholic orthodox Church I'm not gonna debate online I got better things to do God bless friend
Ok, this is another 'golden age', ahistorical, mythical view of the history presented. - There were no such thing as universal 'paradisiacal' culture whatever that means. - Church had already beed divided for centuries before 1054 (Church of the East already separate, Egyptian church is separate); - What is 'decline' exactly? Is not orthodox Russia in decline? Is Greece experiencing Renaissance? Are orthodox-majority countries better off?
You need to read his books or listen to his podcast to get more context on such questions. There are some nuances. The paradisiacle culture exists only within Christendom. That is a culture which believed that they could experience paradise in this life and in the life to come through transformative grace passed from Christ directly to his apostles who distributed such grace in the “gatherings/ecclesia” translated to the English word church. If you find his view ahistorical it’s not because you have read and refuted his interpretation of his many prodigious sources which are meticulously cited in his books but most likely because you share a modern prejudice against meta narratives. Each culture has a beginning middle and end. They have a destiny and a role to play in the grand calculus of world history. Most are not bold enough to interpret what these are in the particular because it takes many years of distance to see things clearly. Also the narrow focus of modern history cares more about technique and accurate details than noticing broader patterns that repeat throughout human history. These patterned are what adds richness and meaning to our self awareness and cultural awareness. But modern man would rather be smug and nihilistic than humble and enriched.
We can’t even begin to explain why we would never join Rome under their current beliefs, but this video by Father Josiah Trenham scratches the surface if you’re interested; m.ua-cam.com/video/y6zXs_cUSjQ/v-deo.html
I am a convert to Roman Catholicism, my brother converted to Orthodoxy. His criticisms of my faith invariably were based on ignorance of Catholic theology and history. When we occasionally were able to talk amicably he asked me--we agree on so much, why aren't you Orthodox? One answer I gave him is still quite true---when I was living in Boston and looking for my permanent spiritual home, I couldn't even find an Orthodox church to visit. In every place I have lived in The West, I see Catholic Churches, Catholic Universities, Catholic Hospitals, Catholic Charities, Catholic Social activists. There are other reasons, but I have even heard an Orthodox priest concede that point.
Anselm is a much bigger problem. Thomas is OK, he is rooted in the fathers (as well as Greek philosophy), Anselm before him makes radical departures at the same time as being the major fanboy for Papal primacy at the same time as the great schism.
@@zarnoffa That was just Franciscan/Dominican rivallry, and the Franciscans like Peckham were hardly free of novelty themselves. Look at Anselm (1033-1109), there is a much clearer link to total rupture there.
@@gillianc6514 Nice attempt at downplaying it, but it was more than order rivalry. Thomas really was introducing speculation. Your contention that the church had some novelties might be true, but my point was that Thomas’ speculation actually became dogma. That dogma is garbage. Anselm? I am not going to play “what about” that other guy because the focus was Thomas, but I know some have a strange reaction when a Christian says, “Jesus died for your sins.” It’s really an aversion and hatred for the Gospel. This is an Orthodox posture of thought in some circles that is truly unfortunate.
The Great Schism of Christendom continues daily in UA-cam comments.
That's when Protestantism started.✝️💒
@@albertaowusu3536 and both are the product of heaping teachers upon themselves, according to their lusts. Catholics and Protestants, all following the voice of strangers. His sheep hear His voice and they know Him and He leads them out. They know not the voice of strangers, but flee from them. His sheep don't follow hirelings or stage performers, imposters, deceitful workers. As it is written, what the gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and I would not have you to fellowship with devils. Satan appears as a messenger of light and his ministers disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. When we are still in the harlot houses warming a pew we are children being tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine by the sleight of MEN and their cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. The elect are given the Spirit of Truth and need not that any man teach them. They have the anointed one, Christ IN them. They have ONE TEACHER, ONE HIGH PRIEST, ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, the man Christ Jesus, WITHIN. This is the difference between the few and the many, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares. The few are severed from the people and are separated unto God. The many stumble at the word and follow strangers and are under strong delusion, believing lies. As it is written, let God be true but every man a liar. We must come out from among them and be separate, touch not the unclean thing and the Father will receive us and we will be His sons and daughters.
@@albertaowusu3536
Before throwing bricks at others, let us admit that we often screw up as Orthodox Christians because like Catholics and Protestants and Oriental Orthodox we are human being’s.
Our cry “Lord Have Mercy” isn’t vain repetition!
Change it to “Lord Heal Me”, Lord Forgive Me”, “Lord I have forgotten you again, and again and again”….
I was Protestant for 47 years and I give credit to that for creating a desire in me for deep worship. (I’ve been Orthodox 23 years).
Let us be imitator’s of Christ and love one another.
@@jm1733 No. I only came across Orthodox teaching in the last few years through the internet. Actually, just by trying a book on Audible. It's not the fault of all Christians in the West, it's not our fault that the Church split in 1054. Are you a greater Christian than all the non-Orthodox Christians who have been martyred in Africa and Asia in the last 100 years? No. Humble yourself and give us time. Orthodoxy will increase in the West but we've barely even experienced it in my country !
@@grahamwilliams8871 everything I wrote was scripture. I apologize if it sounded to you as if I lack humility. It just becomes obvious that all of Christianity is in Babylon once the Spirit of Truth comes. Orthodox, protestant, catholic, any other name of a sect you want to insert. It is all an act of following the traditions and doctrines of men. It is where we all are until the time appointed by the Father when He separates us unto Himself. None of us have a choice when that happens, it's all predestined. Once it happens, there is no mistaking that one will have absolutely no desire to be led by a carnal man in a temple made with hands. Once we taste of that heavenly gift, there is nothing like it and to go back to heaping teachers on myself would make me a covenant breaker, adulterer, fornicator, etc. I'm grateful for it because there is no other way to understand the scriptures or know the truth. It is the narrow path. I want all to experience it so everybody can be of one mind and have all things in common.
The Divine Eucharist is the thread that binds together The Church. It always has been. If we're not in Eucharistic communion with each other, we're not bound by that thread. The prerequisite for communion in The Church has always been: common confession of faith (creed), and proper initiation (baptism, chrismation, ordination of ministers in apostolic succession) as well as mutual acknowledgement of the above. All the ancient communions that call themselves “The Church” would agree with this, and have always thought and acted in this way. Of course each one would contend that their communion is The Church. But we all agree that only one communion can be The Church.
Thank you for another great interview.
Roman Catholics use a different 'eucharist' of unleavened bread, so it's not the same Communion.
@@r.lizarraga693 one of the many reasons why it's not legitimate
“Broad is the road that leads to destruction, but narrow is the way that leads to life.” Thank you Austin!
Can really recommend Fr. John Strickland's three history books. Age of Paradise, Age of Division, and Age of Utopia
The experience of Paradise can’t wither as long as Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy continues….paradise on earth or rather Heaven touching earth. Beyond words and despite our own failures, Christ is true and paradise is with Him. How i long for people to understand what this liturgy is and Who is taking action
And say Amen!
I cant believe you are 22. Wise beyond your years. God bless
Such a sweet kid too
Glory to God! Thank you Austin and Fr. John.
And we're back, can't wait to watch
My intuition has always been that 1054 is like the year our parents got divorced. All the proceeding religious, political, economic, and cultural revolutions are simply the rebellion of our parent's kids.
That's my Parish’s Father! Glory to God, can't wait!
Wonderful episode of a great show! I'm not officially Christian but a devotee of Krishna, yet find this program most illuminating.
Yeshua bless, shalom! In Jesus name
Jesus is the way to everlasting life. No other way.
@@waynecolburn8849He is clearly a Hindu and we don't believe in such limiting exclucivism.
May Lord Krishna, bless you.
@@st.mephisto8564 well thank you for your kind blessing but No other Gods exist but the God of Abraham . Jesus is his son and was sent to us to save us. From death and from slavery to our sins and from the world. Blessings to you .
@@waynecolburn8849 There's no God exclusive to Abraham. We don't believe that.
God is one but known by many names and forms. We don't believe there's any difference.
I love what he has had to say about Christendom and how the Schism created many of the problems that we are facing in the world today. I would be interested in hearing what he thinks of the Russian-Constantinople schism which is causing some priests to leave their traditional Patriarchs in favor of Patriarchs who they want to side with.
Schisms aren’t anything new within the Orthodox Church , it happened during the first millennium and will continue to happen in the future . Only difference with Rome was that all the Orthodox Church’s excommunicated Rome. That is why it was such a huge deal.
@@franciscovasquez9417 should have held an Ecumenical Council before Florence. The bishops on both sides let christendom down and allowed the east and west drift further apart. Although, for centuries, Latins and Greeks on the local level ignored the wider schism. It's pretty much ignored in the Middle East even today.
This is all just my opinion, and Christ clearly has a purpose in allowing this. I suspect He will use it for His Glory in the end. But it saddens me.
Yeah all political actors (i.e not Christians but just actors) go to Constantinople, it's close to being nothing but an NGO - being on all globalist and political agendas of CIA
And what Constantinople did and have been doing often is against Orthodox cannons
It is schismatic church now
@@ephesiansbrowne5982
Two big obstacles to that from 1100-1453, the Venetian monopolists and the Turks/Ottomans. Venice’s Merchant guild leaders gradually took advantage of the initial official schism to advance their trade monopoly by scaring away potential Western European investors in Greek goods on the argument that “Don’t trade with heretics!”, making them afraid and prejudiced and deliberately growing the gulf of the schism on more than just dogma, now more and more on trade and culture, widening the resentment across several dimensions. Healing a schism grows exponentially more difficult once that sort of thing starts to happen. Venice was behind pushing that one angry Byzantine Queen past all endurance leading to the “massacre of the Latins” (overwhelmingly Venetians), and the sack of Constantinople (ALSO mostly Venetian mercenaries). How this led to the Ottoman conquest should be obvious.
Can't blame priests and bishops for not wanting to commune with those recognizing the schismatic church in Ukraine (OCU). Just because the EP wants to play geopolitical games with NATO/EU/UN/NWO etc.
They asked to be freed from this communing. Russia obliged. It's a way to force the issue at a synod/council so no patriarchate can make this sort of unilateral decision to recognize schismatics in the future. The EP isn't and never will be pope supreme of the East.
Great interview. The books are even better!
Austin, your friend at Cordial Catholic recently spoke with Rod Bennett. This interview with Fr. Strickland brought to mind Bennett's book, Bad Shepherds: The Dark Years in Which the Faithful Thrived While Bishops Did the Devil's Work. It would be appreciated if you could invite Bennett or someone similar who can speak to the evils the church of Rome has dealt with from a Catholic who remains in the church.
Fr. John Strickland) is great!
Fr. John, you are a very good presenter in audio/video format. After your Podcast on AFR and your conversation with Jonathan Pageau, this latest video is yet another confirmation of this fact. If you have the resources to do so, I suggest that you continue to seek out these kinds of conversations. Austin is a great example because, despite his own continued questionings, he represents a bridge between the Sacramental worldview and other people with misgivings about the state of culture today. Thank you!
Wishing a blessed Holy Epiphany to all Orthodox brothers and sisters... In Greece it's a holiday today all shops closed people gathering in the Churches celebrating Our Lord Jesus Christ Baptism and taking the Great Blesses Water for themselves and their houses...
If you can watch later in UA-cam the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew throw the Holy Cross into the Bosphorus sea to bless the waters. And many Orthodox men fall into the cold waters to catch the Cross....
Apolytikion of Holy Epiphany
Lord, when You were baptized in the Jordan, the veneration of the Trinity was revealed. For the voice of the Father gave witness to You, calling You Beloved, and the Spirit, in the guise of a dove, confirmed the certainty of His words. Glory to You, Christ our God, who appeared and enlightened the world.
Kontakion of Holy Epiphany
You appeared to the world today, and Your light, O Lord, has left its mark upon us. With fuller understanding we sing to You: "You came, You were made manifest, the unapproachable light."
Χρόνια πολλά✝️
So cool! They will also celebrate Theophany in Russia in 2 weekz. Many Russian mem will jump into icy water, but alas, The EP is out of the dyptycs .
@@eliasn.477 watch the Holy Epiphany in Phanarion Constantinople... A young Turk baptised Orthodox Christian caught the Holy Cross in the Bosphorus.... Regarding Moscow since they have in diptych the other Orthodox Churches which commemorate EP like Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Antioch etc they are indirectly in communion also with EP..God will heal this schism too as He has done with many in the past..
@@JohnSmith-gc4rm επίσης... Χρόνια πολλά
@@eliasn.477 but the diptychs don’t govern Heaven
At 53:02 Fr. Strickland glosses over 1st crusade, which was a response to
the eastern call for aid. The history of the crusades is a time in history, as if isolated centuries ago. I would contend that we in the U S have been crusading since 9/11.
Very interesting. I am an orthodox catacuman and am very well 😀 pleased.
If a person wants to know the truth and is willing to make the effort to learn, as well as make the effort to set aside one's presuppositions and pride - the Lord will lead into all Truth. Orthodoxy is inevitable. Pride and spiritual laziness keeps Protestants stuck. That's my opinion and I'm happy with it! 🤔😅👏 Good guest. One thing I love about Orthodoxy is that with 2000 Rich years of History to draw from there will be no shortage of learning for the rest of my life. Fascinating
May God bless you. ☦
I would love you to interview David Bentley Hart, a heavyweight in orthodox thought. He wrote a fascinating article, calling the schism a myth.
Working on it!
Ehhhh, DBH ascribes to lots of heretical teachings. Nearly any Orthodox worth their weight in theology knows this, he is no heavyweight.
I would say it is a myth to some extent. Some denominations are straight up not Christian, like christ consciousness and things like that.
The schisms between this or that leader when they all hold to the core truth of salvation are myths. Their respective disagreements are basically pointless and don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Naman wasn't getting circumcised and keeping it kosher and going to synagogue or temple, but he was just as saved as a true believing jew who followed the laws to the letter and dot. The truth and the relationship between the person and God are what matters
@@GospelSimplicity You're awesome, man! Any luck? If you've had trouble contacting him...it may not work and I'd want you to message me your pitch...but I'm a paid subscriber to his substack page. Lol he's forced against his will to read questions. I'd be happy to either repeat your pitch, and or ask him again to do it.
From an Eastern Catholic I agree that article by DBH is very, very interesting and well thought out. I'd love to have him interviewed.
Fr. Strickland is VERY well educated and well spoken. Excellent, focused questions were asked.
Fr. Strickland's going through some of the history of Orthodoxy reminded me of the Orthodox Icon of the Ark of Salvation.
If you are unfamiliar with this Icon, I suggest checking it out!
One of the best icons. It says it all!
1:03:40 Bishop Barron covered Mathias Grunwald's Isenheim Crucifix in his 10-part CATHOLICISM series (Excerpt below)
The Beatitudes: The Key to Joy - ua-cam.com/video/XHmTcxYHzy8/v-deo.html
Going into 2022 with an explosive topic! Can't wait for this, happy New Year!
Praise be to God for the good news of Jesus Christ forgiveness of my sin! Amen!!!!!
Please God, continue to refine me on your straight and narrow path, and please be gentle on me for my sins have been great.
In Jesus Holy perfect name,
Amen.
Yeah, a brilliant start for the new year... Right to the root of the Western secularization problem... A blessed new year Austin
why secularization is the problem though?
The Black Death had a hugely scarring effect on those who lived through the period.
That “penitential pessimism” was very real in my experience of growing up Catholic. Being horrified by the idea of purgatory; it all felt very dark and painted a sadistic image of God for me. Luckily I discovered Lewis and Tolkien as a teen and that gave me a vision of Christianity that was beautiful.
Did you stay Catholic or find another communion?
@@mazzaferroracing I was received into Orthodoxy with my whole family on Christmas Eve. I like to think my formation by Tolkien and Lewis pre-catechized me toward an Orthodox vision of the faith.
@@confectionarysound God grant you many years! I was Catholic also.
@@confectionarysound congratulations! Many years.
I’ve always heard of “Catholic guilt” before but my education in Catholicism came from Bishop Barron, so this “penitential pessimism” and “sadistic view of God” you experienced in Catholicism is foreign to me. Is your experience common? For the record Im orthodox but didn’t entertain Catholicism before I converted.
@@mazzaferroracing That's difficult to answer. My experience of Catholicism shifted in high school as I got more into Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, and even the theology of JPII (it got deeper, more cosmic, more optimistic.) But as a younger child I feel I was exposed to more of that pessimism and troubling conceptions of God (stuff from the late Middle Ages)...my education was a very traditional Catholic program. I doubt my experience in either case is the experience of "most Catholics". "Most Catholics" don't know what the church teaches about hardly anything lol. In all honesty I was probably traumatized as a child by my experiences reading about the torments of Purgatory and dreaming about statues of Mary weeping blood. It was all very morbid. I would say that long before I knew about Orthodoxy, I had sort of bracketed off the way I understood Catholicism to be something like Orthodoxy by my late teens and 20's. So then when I discovered Orthodoxy, I was like oh, here it is. The Christianity I had hoped existed. Glory to Jesus Christ.
I’m only 20 minutes in, but one thing that strikes me is the Great Schism is framed by the struggle between Rome and Constantinople.
How did the three other Greek-speaking patriarchates relate to this? Isn’t it fair to say that only 1/5 of the church broke off?
It seems that people look at a map and that gives the false impression that it was pretty much a 50/50 split.
I know this comment was two years ago, but the other patriarchates remained with Constantinople. And to this day all 4 remain in communion with one another. If you ask me that’s one of the starkest illustrations that this division is truly a schism-a schism of the Roman Patriarch from the other 4.
My name is Kelsey. Austin, I so appreciate your channel and the thoughtful theology discussions you have. Congrats on getting engaged! Your wedding registry link is broken.
Thanks for the kind words and the heads up!
God bless you Austin!😇
I've been exploring the Russian Orthodox Church. I'm Catholic and have been away from the church for 20 yrs. I decided to try an Orthodox Church in my community because I like the liturgy. Let it be said I have no problems with Father Mark. He has been very gracious to me. What I have found among the congregants is a lot of Catholic bashing and a very cultish feel to the church.
To my chagrin, I was on UA-cam this morning and found a post uploaded by an Orthodox that refered to Jewish people as wicked and shameful. When I read that I got a pain in my stomach.
Another thing I have found in my experience is Orthodox claim to not believe in things they believe in such as purgatory, original sin, and immaculate Mary. They will twist the wording so as to say they don't believe in these doctrines but in essence they believe in these doctrines. It's something worse than protestantism. Another thing I found is evangelizing in the Orthodox Church is dead. There is no outreach to the less fortunate in the world and the church is dormant in growth.
I also found that many of the congregants are stuck in the past. Brooding over 1054 and not one of them was alive during that time. There is a lack of desire to bring Christians together.
I also discovered there are schisms within the schisms. The Russians aren't in union with the Greeks and so on. Whenever there's a disagreement among the churches another schism occurs. I find that to be scandalous to Christ.
I also discovered that if I wanted to join the Russian church I would have to renounce all the doctrines the Orthodox say they don't believe even though they believe them. I would also have to renounce the filioque and the Pope of Rome.
Well guess what, I'm not renouncing any of those things to join a church that is in constant schism and it's adherents refer to Jewish people as wicked and shameful.
Instead focusing on the Westerner church that is growing by leaps and bounds even after the sex scandal, focus on the problems within Orthodoxy.
I think wicked is not a strong enough description of the people behind the Babylonian Talmud, a continuation of pharisaism.
You went through a lot there, but I'll try to respond as briefly as possible.
First, you say there is a lot of Catholic bashing - this is probably true of any heavy convert parish, many of which either come from protestant or Catholic upbringings. In ethnic parishes, these are hardly ever brought up at all. But it's understandable for westerners to compare Orthodoxy with their old traditions.
As for your comment on Jews, Christ called them the sons of Satan, said they were of the synagogue of Satan and likened them to thieves and murderers. There are Jews in my parish, and we love them as brothers and sisters, but a quick study of jew-gentile relationship will explain why there is anamosity there.
As for the seemingly minor differences between dogmas, I can assure you that while it appears that way on the surface, when one studies these issues seriously, he finds the two positions are a world apart and that these differences have impacted both faith traditions.
Now for the evangelism. You speak of "less fortunate" countries as if the Orthodox world isn't coming out of the most brutal totalitarian regimes and persecution in all of human history. Context matters. The continued existence the Church is nothing short of a miracle. Most Orthodox countries are just getting back on their feet now and a reconversion of their own people is a necessary first step. If you want a further discussion on evangelism prior to to revolution, Chech out the relevant videos on Ubi Petris UA-cam channel.
As for schism, we pray daily and in every liturgy for unity. But we cannot unify with false doctrines nor unify under political expediency. You might say this is scandalous, but we say it is being faithful to Christ and necessary to protect the Body of Christ from the cancer of heresy.. so yes, to be in communion with the Church you must renounce your heresies. Just as the Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, Iconoclasts etc did within the first 1000 years of the Catholic Church as well, so this is nothing new. And just as Protestants or Sede Vacantists would to unite with Rome today.
And the growth of the Catholic Church is largely superficial. It's entirely in Africa and Latin America and reflects the large birth rates more than actual evangelism. Catholicism is in complete collapse within Europe and N. America where the birth rates are low.
And your claim that supposedly the Orthodox Church does not evangelise or "outreach to the less fortunate". Forgive me but this is completely a slander and a total ignorance at best, to us who are taking part in the Orthodox mission in Southeast Asia, which is flourishing, just for your information. I don't know where do you live, but the world is a big place, you know?
Edited to add these links:
ua-cam.com/video/_nImg9C9Xsw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/capEyT5uiCY/v-deo.html
instagram.com/exarchate.sea?
About the current Constantinople-Moscow schism. If you've studied the history behind this, about its origin, then you would've known who was the provocator of this mess: the roman church.
Here's the overly simplified summary, spare the details:
Back then, the roman catholic church through the unia disrupted Orthodoxy in the Slavic lands, especially in Kiev, which was under the rightful jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople then was small and had been weakened by the roman catholics, not to mention still recovering from their prior submission to the roman catholic church. It was not in any conditions nor had the strength to manage their Kiev from the vigorous advances of the roman catholics and uniates. In 1686, the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Tsar, being the only mighty Orthodox Kingdom and the only stronghold of Orthodoxy back then, offered the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to fully transfer Kiev, which is located precisely at the outskirt region (literally the meaning of "Okraina") of the Land of Rus, to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople agreed.
For about 300 years since, the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been rightfully under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and this fact has always been ingrained in the consciousness of the whole Church, unanimously, a fact without any denying.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has the prerogative to bequeathe the status of Autocephaly to a local Church, only after these requirements/prerequisites are met; that the local Church in question has truly asked to be granted the status of Autocephaly, and its Mother Church has allowed it. Only after that, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, usually with the consent of all Autocephalous Primates of the Orthodox Church, can bestow the status.
Now, what has been happening for quite a while is; the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not ask for nor want any Autocephaly. The ultranationalistic Russophobic schismatics (who in fact do not care nor understand anything about the Faith) was the one who, for obvious reasons (which are their zeal of ultranationalism and abhorring Russia), indeed asked for Autocephaly, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople gave them what they want and has been recognising them (these separatists who consider themselves the "orthodox church of Ukraine")
This new body has been (physically) persecuting the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Church both as in the "Congregation of Faithful People" and also the "Temple/Building"). Not to mention that some of the current "clergies" and "hierarchs" of this body are controversial figures; one was a notorious deposed monk with a wife who failed to be elected as the then Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, one is a full-blown liberal modernistc ecumenist and a political strategist and another one is a dandy fashionmonger. Has just been founded, but this new body has already gotten its first schism among themselves not too long ago, when the aforementioned deposed monk could not accept the fact that he's not to be made and styled a "Patriarch", he and his followers schismed and made their own sect with the deposed monk as their "Patriarch". It is also a well-known fact that this new body, albeit named as "Autocephalous", yet it has very few and limited rights and liberties very unseemly for a true Autocephalous Church, even in comparison to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (mind you, this Church is only an Autonomous Church). In fact, some groups of people who initially joined this new body and joined in persecuting the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the heat of the moment, have repented and came back to the canonical Church, and some of the snatched-away Churches also have been returned to their rightful canonical Owner.
Here are some bits of sources where you could widen and deepen your knowledge about the Ukrainian situation:
1. “Ukrainian Autocephaly: The Concealment and Misinterpretation of Documents” by Fr. Theodore Zisis.
2. "The Ecclesial Crisis in Ukraine
and its Solution According to the Sacred Canons" by Metropolitan of Kykkos and Tylliria Nikiforos, Cyprus.
3. A collection of documents relating to the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate was published in Kiev, 1872: runivers.ru/bookreader/book9503/#page/1/mode/1up
4. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite's interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
5. Metropolitan Seraphim (Mentzelopoulos) of Piraeus' explanation about the Ecumenical Patriarchate's actions.
6. orthochristian.com/123385.html
The Patriarch of Alexandria and the Archbishop of Cyprus, were good friends of the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, the Patriarch of Alexandria even studied in and served in Russia, and he can speak Russian. They were defenders of the true canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church ( ua-cam.com/video/TSDRFg6w7o0/v-deo.html ) ( ua-cam.com/video/4VpU0gUPnoo/v-deo.html ), but suddenly, out of nowhere, they changed their mind thus recognised the Ukrainian schismatics (this happen very suddenly and unexpectedly after Patriarch Bartholomew met them). This greatly and deeply scandalised and hurt Ukrainian Orthodox faithfuls. It seems that the Ecumenical Patriarch, western countries and some Ukrainians who are Russophobes and want to separate Ukraine from Russia and enjoin it with western powers, share the same goal. That is why we see great supports and praises for the Ecumenical Patriarch on this decision from western countries especially from the US, and they all have been putting pressures, financially and politically, on other Orthodox Churches to accept and to recognise their decision regarding Ukraine.
7. orthochristian.com/126449.html
8. orthochristian.com/135172.html
9. orthochristian.com/142656.html
The ROC did not want to do this initially, but after the Patriarch of Alexandria literally concelebrated with the schismatic, this forced the ROC to do this. And for your information, it was the African clergies who requested the ROC, not the other way around.
Rest assured, this kind of jurisdictional disputes had very frequently happened in the ancient Early Church. So now, the Early Church is just experiencing another of the Early Church's jurisdictional dispute. If a church does not have the Ancient Church problem, like everything seems to be very neatly organised, I think its faithfuls should start to question whether their church is the Ancient Church or not. Even the Apostles disagreed with each other and we didn't see them reported and asked permission for everything to St. Peter, as if he was the "supreme boss".
Is this Michael Lofton? lol
Austin, please put all the orthodox vids in your orthodox play list. I love your videos. Thank you.
Good stuff
My question then is this, Before the great schism the western church was Orthodox, how did such a large part (meaning covering a large area and many groups of people) of the Orthodox church go so wrong?
I want to add that I enjoyed this interview and listened to it a second time.
Non-Chalcedonians were also large and yet they schismed even earlier.
When something or someone gets so much power, it leads to arrogance and pride and then comes the downfall.
Dear Austin, here are some synonyms to the word 'appreciation': acknowledge, enjoy, welcome, thankful, etc.
Just saying...
1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:14
I’d like to hear a part 2 discussion! This was very interesting because too few talk about this and more should!
Another aspect of the impact of scholasticism that sometimes gets ignored is the impact it had on moral theology which consequently rise to a general scrupulosity. Suddenly the common lay man went from a small handful of mortal sins to concern himself with to 1000s. OCD and scrupulosity begins to arise in larger swaths of people. Moreoever, infant Holy Communion is stopped as a practice in the 1200s precisely because of scrupulosity. Suddenly it was feared that communing infants was a kind of sacrilege. Clearly a significant change in mentality had occurred and due to the schism unfortunately there wasn't a counter-balance of the Greek and Syrian influence to balance out some of the Latin excesses that were forming in the high middle ages.
Interesting points!
Father you mention there are elements of truth within protestantism and Catholicism but perhaps truths out of context is the ultimate deception like an angel of light.
Oh it’s orthodox Matt Damon again. I watched a great interview with Fr. John Strickland and Johnathon Pageau about the same topic a while ago. Looking forward to reading his book when I get the chance
1:03:45
I almost disagree with you regarding the Isenheim Altarpiece. For starters, the Gospel understates how bloody the sort of “deluxe” crucifixion Christ suffered from deliberately because that would be a needless distraction from the sacred narrative and how bad it was was common knowledge in the Roman world anyway, so why go into the obvious? By “deluxe” I mean the worst version of it, save for the unusual requirement that all three prisoners be dead before nightfall, instead of potentially being left to die slowly for days. Of course, it’s easier to last days when you not only haven’t been scourged,but not even nailed, as the simplest version was to tie someone to a tree and let them die of thirst and exposure. But you can’t say that the Isenheim Crucifix is in isolation of the Resurrection, as it’s part of three sets of triptychs. The problem is that on the second triptych, the CENTER Piece is the Nativity while the ABSOLUTELY wonderful Resurrection is off to the side! This speaks to another dividing issue, pushing the emphasis more on the nativity rather than the resurrection, that’s the major problem with the set, in my opinion, but the contrast is amazing, nonetheless.
Is this 3:30 EST or CST? You usually schedule them for 4:30 EST/3:30 CST.
Union with Christ, Divinization, Theosis
Each one of these come from the church traditions Protestant, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. I think an emphasis on these ideas would bring more unity to the church.
Amen
We don't even agree on what "the Church" is. Most of us don't believe that Protestants are in communion with anyone except themselves, and few at that. There can't be union until we all believe the same things with no contradictions. That is why in the Apostolic Faiths we believe that our one Church is the Church of Christ. An invisible "church" isn't feasible.
@@LadyMaria The body of Christ is the Church Matthew 7:21-23 it is Christ who will judge who he knows, not you or I.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
@@j.harris83 And we disagree what the Church is.
@@LadyMaria you disagree with St Paul not me.
I am Catholic and I know thing or two about schism and I'll go deeper if necessary, but my question is this, to anyone maybe is stupid or answered before but I never heard if the answer so im sorry
Regardless of Fr's opinion and if papacy is true or not in his mind, we believe it is and obviously pope belived back then again regardless of doing right or wrong by excommunicating the Patriarch, he thought he can and have right and authority to do
But Patriarch, if one among equal he can't or doesn't have authority, if he is one among equal as Ortodox believe, how he could excommunicate anyone if not in his parish or area of authority.
God bless
Excommunication here means ceasing to commemorate. It was mutual with the other Patriarchs and Rome was cut free.
Very informative and interesting interview Austin. Thank you.
I'm no expert on the Great Schism or church history but from what I've read there were long-standing cultural differences as well as political rivalry between the Eastern and Western Churches before the Great Schism occurred. It was more of a culmination of all these differences and brought an official split that had been developing for centuries.
Exactly. And why the OCA isn't involved in any Western Rite Parishes is baffling to me as an outside observer considering new faiths. There are only a handful in the US and all are under the authority of the Russian and Antiochian Churches. I know it is all very complicated but one would think that the OCA would be better suited to- and have more of an interest in- the managing and promulgation of Western Rite Parishes. Rome and Constantinople have been more cooperative in the last few years, and in the modern world there is no place better for the mingling of the laity to understand each other better than in America. If the tru goal is the eventual reunification of a global Church, I think this would be the place to start, and having an increase in Western Rite parishes to appeal to the sensibilities of more traditional Catholics would be nothing but good. Plus the Orthodox could probably save many who were scandalized by the abuse scandal or have grown weary from falling away from faith altogether.
What about iconoclasm? Of East and Protestants?
I think it doesn’t figure prominently into the topic perimeters.
@Gospel Simplicity and @Fr John Strickland, I am getting the volume that covers 1054-Reformation time. I was heading to the Roman Catholic Church, but I definitely have some concerns. At the end of the day, we must seek to be united to Jesus the Head and His body. Hoping to have clarity. Please pray for me!
Great talk! Fr. John makes some very compelling points which I think are very relevant today, but I am not sure I agree with his greater point. The Schism was not the cause, but a symptom of a far more pernicious problem; pride and human failing. The devil has been actively tearing at the Church's frayed ends since out Blessed Lord's Passion. Satan presumed he had won by his machinations to get Jesus killed, but the moment Our Saviour gave up His Ghost, Satan's despair was realized. Then through persecution of the Holy Martyrs, the devil attempted to destroy His Church. Only, the blood of the martyrs, similar to the blood of Jesus, gave life to the Church. Then after Constantine legalized Christian worship, heresy after heresy was heaped upon the Church. The Coptic Church fell away from this briefly, and it gave rise to an even more insidious false prophet in the form of Mohammed. Then the Schism laid bare the corruption of pride within the Mystical Body Of Christ. Fr. John seems to think, and I apologize if this is a mischaraterization, that Byzantine piety was in some was superior to Latin piety, and more broadly laid. Full disclosure, I am Byzantine Catholic so I very much understand Eastern Christian theology, at a layman's level, first hand, while still also having that understanding of Western Christian sensibilities. First, We cannot divorce culture from religion. Both East and West were shaped dramatically by their different experiences over the millennia. So to make a judgements over nuances of that culture from Christian Iconography, to the bread used for consecration of The Holy Eucharist is, I feel, a way we have delved into factionalism. And this is a major stumbling block for all Christians today. The Protestant reformation was just another symptom in that line of pride. And just so I am clear, none of this was one sided. I, as a Catholic, am under no illusion that Rome played a the innocent in our shared history. In the same way, the Eastern Churches have also played a shameful role, as did Protestant reformed churches. Pride has been at the center of our disunion since the expulsion from the garden. Jesus formed ONE Holy Church. We will ALWAYS be one church no matter how much we try to hate our brother and sister. Let us not wait until our judgement to see which of us were the cancers to the Mystical Body. The Church WILL be healed, and I pray for just that daily. The Lord will use all our failings for His Glory. We should all strive to see what God sees in these divisions, both good and bad. Some examples I see are that the Protestant reformers have inadvertently given the Catholic Church much needed renewal of the appreciation of scripture. Perhaps my Orthodox brothers and sisters could see the value in the rationalism of the West, and how God's gift of intellect grants us a new and wonderful understanding of His creation around us. And perhaps my Catholic brothers and sisters could surrender some of that reason to the acceptance that God's permissive Will is sufficient for higher curiousities. We MUST let the Holy Spirit move in us, both individually and communally, or we will stifle the Graces that flow from Him.
While it’s always true that all human sin & corruption flue from the Evil One and his deceptions, nonetheless in history there are identifiable points of departure or acceleration. The OT is clear on this: the apostasies of Sinai, Peor, Kaddish & Dan are constant points of reference for the psalms & prophets.
Btw, no condemnation here, but being Byz. Catholic doesn’t make one orthodox in faith. An Orthodox would never speak of “Graces flowing from God” as you have, coming, as it does, from a view of grace & energies more or less codified by the Scholastics in opposition to the Palamites, the latter having been accepted in Orthodoxy and actually formally ratified. Not an insignificant point of departure.
@@traceyedson9652 I don't disagree with the significance of the Schism, actually. It was a major departure, but the notion that the East has some kind of monopoly on Orthodoxy is nonsense. Please don't take offense, but I have observed a measure of arrogance in Eastern Orthodoxy that has tested Western charitability. And that is not to say that I think you, or other Orthodox are arrogant, but somewhere in the doctrine of the East is a rejection of theological development. And that doesn't seem to be the same everywhere. I am a member of the Ruthenian Church which is an offshoot of the Ukrainian church. The Ukrainian Catholic church and the Ukrainian Orthodox church, despite the obvious canonical differences have worked together very closely in the past. The same cannot be said about the Russian Orthodox church. The Eastern Catholic churches have theological differences between the western church, but have accepted many of the developments that western reason has come to. But what I hear often coming out of many eastern Orthodox churches is that the only way that reunion can occur is for the West to reject many of these dogmas and developments. And while an argument can be made for the reason or the timing in these dogmas, complete dismissal of them is ignoring the larger picture. The Holy Spirit moves within The Church. Not just in Constantinople, or Moscow, or Alexandria, but in Rome too. We don't all have a shared experience in Christendom, and we must be willing to accept that the Holy Spirit is working through all the Baptized. As Christians it is our duty to make sure we help our brothers and sisters understand each other, and not to anathematize each other over cultural and developmental differences. The West has statuary for the same reason the East has Iconography. Let's not misconstrue what the physical differences between them mean. Anyway, I know I am all over the place a bit, but I am just trying to offer a some random examples of silly things we all get hung up on.
@@hammerheadms You bring up way too many disparate topics to reply to. Orthodoxy does accept the development you refer to, beginning with the development in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, it’s singular focus on St Peter & Rome and all the way through it’s innovations including the dogmatic definitions on Mary & infallibility. These are ecclesiological and there pneumatological and Trinitarian. Byzantine Catholics are not exemplary as they hold Roman doctrines like created grace. As for arrogance, at the Judgment I will be held accountable for my sins, not yours, and vice versa. If you allow another’s sin to keep you from the truth, that’s a problem for you. (It may be for some Orthodox, as well, surely.) That’s not an argument, and you know it. Also, you can hardly be paying attention if you think your own apologists here & elsewhere don’t have their share!
The only place I enjoy hearing of traditional Catholicism is SSPX’s own channel. But what of it?
@@traceyedson9652 Forgive me if I am coming off as inarticulate. My last comment was very stream of consciousness as I was getting ready for work. Understand that I don't expect Orthodox Christians to accept Roman canons and dogmas. That wasn't actually what I was suggesting. What I was saying was that even within our own sphere Orthodox mock us for theological developments, and they never considered the the folly of it. My overarching point is that in Christ's eyes, we are not divided. We are one, just separated by out own sin and failing. Fr. John makes very good and valid points, but he heaps many of society's problems on the Catholic church, without noticing the failings of his own church. As I said, this is not a one sided problem. This is not a CHURCH problem. It is a HUMAN problem.
@@hammerheadms except the EO Church has had no impact on the development of Western culture. Now, Russia, Greece, Ethiopia, etc., sure. But this was a discussion of the trajectory of Western civilization since it’s schism from the East. That’s the locus of concern since it’s where we live, and no amount of good-will or EO self-deprivation can change that.
This author would not do well defending his position in a discussion with another serious historian.
Fascinating conversation!
I was disappointed with Fr. John in his treatment your question about what led up to the Great Schism of 1054. He seemed to take the line that everything is Rome’s fault and all heresies come from Rome.
The Great Schism of 1054 wasn’t by any means the 1st Great Schism between Rome and the New Capital. The separation of 867 was also known as the Great Schism. A full 40% of the time between 343 and 867 were spent separated because of the struggle of Constantinople with heresy. Each separation weakened the bonds of charity between them.
By the 11th century, Rome and Constantinople had lost the ability to speak with one another, there were no translators left. There are many other causes of separation. This is just a few.
Fortunately, we have people like you who have dedicated their time and effort to helping Christians speak with one another from the heart. Only in this way and with acts of Christian brotherly kindness can we heal the breach between us.
He was representing his understanding of history. And he said nothing about it being all Rome’s fault. But as he made clear he’s describing his understanding of the broad movement of cultural history. Clearly, patriarch & Cardinal we’re both pompous a**es.
Former cradle Roman Catholic here,
Rome left the Church. By definition the Church cannot practice heresy or teach error as the Church is from God not man, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church. Naturally this means all heresy came from Rome when they separated themselves from The Church. Orthodoxy is the Church. It's blatantly obvious to historical and theological scrutiny. Branch theory is a modernist ecumenist heresy invented to deal with infinity protestant schisms. Rome has tried to apply this to the Orthodox in the last 50 years becuase when you stack up post vatican I and II rome to Orthodoxy with any honesty its very clear which is "The faith once delivered to the saints". Rome isn't really a faith as they don't profess one faith due to things like uniates who profess the creed without the filioque and venerate saints whose theology is completely at odds with Rome ergo Rome does not have catholicity.
The early church was counciliar as seen in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Orthodoxy is counciliar.
The early church did not have a supreme bishop ruling the church. Orthodoxy does not have a supreme bishop ruling the Church.
All Roman Catholic papal dogma are based on a false foundation. St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome he was Bishop of Antioch. St. Paul first ordained St. Linus as Bishop of Rome, after St. Linus St. Peter ordained St. Clement as Bishop of Rome. Ss. Paul and Peter were likely martyred by Nero shortly after. This is in a text called the Apostolic Constitutions. It's reinforced in the Church's iconography where St. Peter is not depicted as a Bishop in the icons with St. Paul the way Ss. James or Lazarus are they were both apostolic Bishops. This explains why in Romans St. Paul does not greet St. Peter. He's not Bishop of Rome, never was and this flushes every single papal dogma down the drain as they are entirely predicated on this claim.
Roman Catholicism is essentially a creation from a few key historical realities. The Roman Patriarchate being on its own in the west after the collapse of the western half of the empire, this caused synodality to eventually break down in the west.
Political interference from Charglemane during his attempts to rival the Byzantine Empire seen during his opposition to the outcome of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which caused iconography to die out in the west eventually being replaced with statuary and then in the renaissance syncretic pagan art, this of course led to hardline protestant iconoclasm.
Finally the key one and the main cause of the west's slide into the current atheism. The embrace of synthesising pagan hellenic philosophy with Christianity. This leads to the implosion of any meaningful trinitarian theology, which of course is what birthed unitarianism in the west. Ultimately this leads to reletavism as there is no way to discern Truth. St. Gregory Palamas predicted this would occur when he was debating against western scholastic theology in the 14th century and how prescient his warning has become.
I'll leave with a neologism
"The well studied Protestant becomes Catholic, the well studied Catholic becomes Orthodox."
It's not "being mean" it's blunt honest truth. You want mass social atheism gone in the west embrace Orthodoxy. It's the truth and I thank God every day for His Church.
🙏🏻☦
As a Catholic, I agree with much of what Fr Strickland says. The Church has a legal structure (Canon Law) which grew immensely during the medieval period. Also it is clear that there has been a lot of focus in different places at different times, upon the fires of hell, and a conflation of those fires with the purification we call purgatory. This is a matter of emphasis - but did Saint Francis of Assisi emphasise the fires of hell? Fear of hell does have a place in Christian life. St Paul said to work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and Jesus mentioned damnation many times. If you read extracts from St Bernard of Clairvaux, St Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and just about any of them, they talk about the love of God and his mercy and so on. If you listen to the prayers prayed by the priest during the mass in English, you will hear about heaven, eternal life, the blessed state of the life to come, etc.
But how would continued communion with the churches now called Orthodox have made a difference? The Eastern Christians had much less success at causing any evolution in their societies. The Emperors and their court in Constantinople often acted much like King Herod, ordering massacres here and there, blinding their rivals and their own children, deposing Churchmen as they wished. In the west, as time went on, the rulers increasingly were bound by the laws - even kings like Henry V111 had to arrange show trials and employ false witnesses to have his enemies (and wives) beheaded.
A Christian society needs just laws, but Orthodoxy historically has cohabited with arbitrary autocracies, without appearing to ameliorate it at all. In Moscow there was no Patriarch from 1700 to 1917, when the communists decided to recreate the position.
Worthy & fair questions, I think, without too much call for a conclusion. My guess is that Fr. Strickland is more interested in cultural life on the ground than political structures. And “paradisiacal” isn’t to be understood as “perfected” in his usage. I think he made that clear. It had to do with the normative orientation of society. Your posting admits of a secular one, I think, in contrast with his emphasis.
"in Moscow there was no Patriarch..." and there's no problem with that, we did have the Holy Synods and Metropolitans as the primus during that period. Our ecclesiology is not exactly the same with that of the roman church.
@@symphonymph3562 The Synod was governed by a lay oberprocurator as a department of the government bureaucracy. Of course there was something wrong with it.
@@traceyedson9652 Are you talking about the period before or after Patriarch St. Tikhon? Yet the Faith prevails to this day. Wasn't old rome hijacked by the Franks, and there was that whole affairs with Pepin and Charlemagne, the Great Western Schism (Three Popes), also Napoleon with Pius VII, Ultramontanism, and the political motives behind the First Vatican Council?
@@symphonymph3562 certainly, the Faith survives the worst outrages. But nonetheless, that the Church was made a department of the administration…not ok.
It would be good to admit the reasons why Cardinal Humbert walked into Hagia Sophia with the Bull of excommunication. Don't you think?
The fact is Cerularius selfishly blocked the Pope's representative from seeing the emperor to ask for help on a serious matter.
Both sides had issues, Father Strickland. But the biggest one was Cerularius huge ego and lack of charity to handle an important matter for the West.
God bless.
Nice points, but the more we listen to Eastern Orthodox figures, the more their “ethos” strangely consolidates an accusative stance towards us and an obstinate way to talk about the Great Schism with pointing fingers and stones to throw. It gets predictable. All things - on important or even irrelevant themes - must lead them to blame the Catholic Church and to cover up for their own disciplinary, ecclesiastical, historical and doctrinal issues, troubles, guilts and faults. It seems even difficult for their scholars, who are presumably driven by the spirit of academic investigations, to break the vicious circle and still be respected among Eastern Orthodoxs and not ostracized, I guess.
Did you really think that was the biggest problem? Remember how cardinal Humbert insulted almost every eastern christian practice there is with the foulest choices of words?
@@symphonymph3562 What? Cardinal Humbert suffered perverse boycotts and direct offenses from the Patriarch of Constantinople until he did what he did. Of course it’s not noble to be infuriated and imprudent, even under unjust aggression, more so if you are strictly a legate. But Cerularius was the one that went on and made a fun list of Latin “heresies” in 1053, long before Humbert’s action in 1054, that represents an absurd list of burlesque accusations on heresy, like the format of episcopal hats and how beards must be or not be shaved. Interestingly enough, Cerularius completely missed the ‘Filioque’ but rallied over the azyme bread as the number one “heresy” of the side he cared to demonize. Byzantine Imperialism went over all good senses without even any case of direct conflict between the Pope of Rome and the Byzantine Emperor (nor much less the Patriarch of Constantinople, generally subservient to the Empire), as it happened in the time of Photius, when St Ignatius of Constantinople suffered destitution by the Emperor so as to put Photius in the patriarchal seat. So it can mostly be said to be driven by cultural hatred towards the West and the convenient narrative built to enforce that very long established despise: that orthodoxy was at risk, so they needed to break away from the deplorable barbarians of the West, as they used to name the Latins.
_”After Photius, John Bekkos says there was "perfect peace" between East and West. But the peace was only on the surface. Photius's cause did not die. It remained latent in the party he left, the party that still hated the West, that was ready to break the union again at the first pretext, that remembered and was ready to revive this charge of heresy against Latins. Certainly from the time of Photius hatred and scorn of Latins was an inheritance of the mass of the Byzantine clergy. How deeply rooted and far-spread it was, is shown by the absolutely gratuitous outburst 150 years later under Michael Caerularius (1043-58). For this time there was not even the shadow of a pretext. No one had disputed Caerularius's right as patriarch; the pope had not interfered with him in any way at all. And suddenly in 1053 he sends off a declaration of war, then shuts up the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurls a string of wild accusations, and shows in every possible way that he wants a schism, apparently for the mere pleasure of not being in communion with the West. He got his wish. After a series of wanton aggressions, unparalleled in church history, after he had begun by striking the pope's name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July, 1054). But still there was no idea of a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefully provided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who was excessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city were "most pious and orthodox". They excommunicated Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents._
_This quarrel, too, need no more have produced a permanent state of schism than the excommunication of any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope's name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius's bidding. But, eventually, the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well to consider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism. We see, too, how well Photius's idea of calling Latins heretics had been learned. Caerularius had a list, a longer and even more futile one, of such accusations. His points were different from those of Photius; he had forgotten the Filioque, and had discovered a new heresy in our use of azyme bread. But the actual accusations mattered little at any time, the idea that had been found so useful was that of declaring that we are impossible because we are heretics. It was offensive and it gave the schismatical leaders the chance of assuming a most effective pose, as defenders of the true Faith”._
(Catholic Encyclopedia. Entrance: ‘Eastern Schism’).
I like how he touches on the issues of the Hellenistic influence upon the faith. I also largely agree with him. The only thing I wish would be to go back further to the first major division in the faith that being between Jewish and Gentile believers.
Rabbinic Judaism birthed from Pharisaism, the first schism from The Church.
Not to mention the Oriental Orthodox schism in the 400's.
@@joefrescoln David Erhan has a good video series on that topic. It's complex and there is a lot of history involved as it was both theological differences and political. The historical term would be nonchalcedonian. "Oriental orthodox" is a neologism and a misnomer. Nonchalcedonians are neither oriental nor orthodox.
@@NavelOrangeGazer Of course it was complex and political, so was the "great schism". I know they aren't "oriental". Thanks, I'll check out the series.
@@joefrescoln God bless!
Constantinople was a big city like London or New York and there were a number of Latin-rite churches in the city. These had been closed and that is what Cardinal Humbert came to complain about in 1054.
No mention of the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.
Pope Innocent III was not in command of any armies in 1204. He opposed the Sack of Constantinople and kept up almost a running commentary on events.
The Filioque was introduced to England by St Theodore at the Council of Hatfield in 680.
The Council of Ferrara-Florence was as good as it gets, but was rejected in the East. We can see from the 2016 Council of Crete that those who call themselves Orthodox are merely contumacious types who will never accept any authority.
I note Father Strickland's reference to Catholics in Ireland and Northern England. Quite simply, the Orthodox Church is unknown in our part of the world. Our first encounter with it is likely to be some fanatic on the Internet saying why we are Filioquist heretics in between being not validly baptised. Aren't you just a variety of Protestant? You do use words like "papist" to describe Catholics like myself, and even your priests use this kind of language. It just sounds dreadful to us. Do you actually have any evangelical ambitions in Ireland or England?
Ironically the orthodox consider you people to be the first protestants.Latins or frankish latins divided the church due to their ego and then tried using force and coercion to force some kind of union .if papacy was needed and does what it claims to do then the reformation wouldn't have happened .the fact that the western church divided into 1000+ churches tells us a lot.
@@Abk367 The activities of the Franks are irrelevant from an English point of view and I don't see why the Orthodox are so obsessed with them.
With all due respect, the Orthodox Church has been in the British world for well over 1000 years at this point. Certainly, we may need to be more outgoing, but there are modern saints from Britain as well as many of the old saints are Orthodox. It may be more an issue of people not being curious about what is behind what we do and why do we do it.
@@LukeStultz I suggest that you Orthodox begin by banning the use of the word "papist" in referring to Catholics. It just makes you sound like Rangers supporters.
Glasgow Rangers is a football team with a reputation for being anti-Catholic, though perhaps less so in modern times.
@@LukeStultz I suggest that you Orthodox begin by banning the use of the word "papist" in referring to Catholics. It just makes you sound like Rangers supporters.
Glasgow Rangers is a football team with a reputation for being anti-Catholic, though perhaps less so in modern times.
Very educational. Thank you. Listening made me think whether there has been a decline in the East considering that the 20th century saw the rise of communism especially in the East. There was a mention of “Westernism” that supposedly started by Peter the Great in Russia and could be interpreted as the root of communism in the East. Nevertheless, This would suggest that the presence of conditions in the East that had made the culture susceptible to “Westernism”. I am curious whether Father John also sees a decline of the East, and if he does I am also curious of his understanding on whether this decline can be traced to Great Schism.
The argument makes very little sense. The ironic part of the “Westernism” of the czar Peter the Great supposedly ‘causing communism’ in the East is that he himself - on religious affairs - followed the model of state-controlled synods after the structure of the National Lutheran churches in Sweden and Prussia of the 16th-17th century, which is entirely STRANGE to the Catholic West - apart from the heresy of Gallicanism intended in France and that got a sort of threatening relevance in the 19th century - but are (and has always been) extremely adaptable to the Eastern model of cesaropapism, that traces its roots back to Byzantine Emperors’ interference on religious matters and appointing/ destituting bishops and even patriarchs, which Peter the Great stretched to a conceptual level adjusted to the new Modern States and its demands.
To test the argument, Bulgaria and Romania (or many other countries of the communist block) didn’t have Czars, much less they had “Westernizer” leaders as retumbant as the czar Peter the Great from the 1700s, yet they still had to face the spread of communism after the model of the stabilized Soviet Union, which made demonstrable the extreme adaptability of the communist premises on their own political and cultural conditions; if not a Bolshevist revolution on itself, the Eastern Christian countries were on the very least suited enough to receive by force the “Stalinist formula” and prove adjustability. In both Bulgaria and Romania the Catholic Church was strongly persecuted whereas the Eastern Orthodox national church made alliances with the Communist regime just like it did at least in Stalinist Russia or in Ukraine, Slovakia and other places were the Catholic Church still had (some) important representation. But in Poland and Lithuania, where the majority of Catholics went as high as 80-90% of the population, Eastern Orthodoxy was not capable to absorb the Catholic correlate, therefore the regime was much more ostensibly atheistic and strong in persecution towards religion in general than it was in finding a paradoxical use for “State religion” as in EO cohabitation alongside the atheist regime in those societies. That’s not my particular opinion but a historical fact: Poland’s social-political crisis and the active role of Pope St John Paul II from 1979 on in the communist Eastern world showed it with milimetre precision.
As I’ve said in another place, the philosophical ‘discovery’ of the individual (and the self) is much more relevant as a phenom in the process of Western ‘décadence’, so are the philosophical, material and historical conditions that made the development of the Modern States possible, which in few years would be much more influential than the Church into their own societies. So Fr Strickland just took the fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc” to a new proportion so as to throw the usual stones (as Eastern Orthodoxy arguably got specialized for) onto a sort of “mythologized” Catholic West that embodies villainy and malignity. Narrative is the name of it.
On the contrary: the 20th century saw a flowering of Orthodox theology in Russia. The martyrdom of the Russian Orthodox Church under some of the Soviet leaders has resulted in a great renewal of the faith preceding the dissolution of the Soviet Union and since.
Perhaps I should watch the full video but just from the title I have to wonder, is that two separate topics or is the implication that the West started to decline immediately after the Schism in a way the East didn't/haven't? Because I would have to say that aside from the fall of the civil Roman Empire, which was bound to happen eventually, I'd say the West did alright for the next few centuries, even after the Protestant reformation. The decline seems more recent and rapid if anything. And are we really going to say that the East did so much better? Because it hasn't exactly been sunshine and rainbows in the East either. I mean they at least the West's failings that led to the Protestant Reformation led to factions that at least call themselves Christian. The East couldn't prevent the heresy of Islam from taking over the vast majority of what would have been Eastern Church members. And as much as I understand some of the criticisms the East has with modern levels of papal authority, I have to say the last century or so has not been great for unity of the East. I mean just look at the situation with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow and the situation in Ukraine. Perhaps a bit more deference to the first among equals would do them well?
Edit: oh and there was also that whole Communism thing that probably single-handedly caused more bloodshed and damage to the world than any other political idology in the last 500 years. The idea came from the West but took hold in the East. How did the Eastern Church not rebuff that ideology?
Definitely watch the video. I come from a Protestant background so I, too, looked upon how "successful" the West has become as an indicator that we had God's blessing. That's not what Jesus promises us, however. He promised us tribulation. We're to take heart, because He has overcome the world, but still, the East has been persecuted for a long time. The Venician traders didn't like competing with Constantinople, and attacked them, weakening their defenses and allowing the overthrow of the city by the Muslims a century later. Islam was constantly attacking and the Golden age of Byzantium was interrupted with iconoclasm, so it wasn't easy the entire time before the Crusades. My argument is that if you look to monetary success and worldly success, it may not point you towards thel true church. Russia is a complex question, but Russian czars who were westernized (one of them made men shave their beards!) led to the downfall of Holy Russia. A relatively small group of athiests took over the country. Read Fr. Seraphim Rose's Orthodox Survival Course (or listen to it on UA-cam) to get much more detail. Blessings!
@@OrthodoxInquirer what part of my comment said anything about monetary success?
@@urusledge I said that I viewed it that way initially. You were pointing out military defeats like Islam overrunning the East and Communism taking over Russia. My thought when I initially was pondering the same question was that the West became "successful" and invented many things and seemed "blessed." I think it comes from David Barton and other Christian historians that point to the US as having some special blessing, almost like the new Israel. It really shocked me when I realized "we" were many of the bad things other nations say about us. We're the new Babylon, frankly. We're a terrible influence on the world morally.
One more thing. Islam originated in a very pagan area with a mixture of Jews and Heretical Christian groups. It wasn't like a bunch of Orthodox Christians allowed Islam to arise in it's own area. There are also good videos on UA-cam about the Catacomb Church in Russia. After I started researching this I realized how little I knew about this part of history. It's fascinating.
Austin, I liked the tone of the presentation in general and Fr Strickland seems to be a person really enjoyable to discuss with. But deep down there is still their necessity to define identities on the negative or, in other words, the positive conflictual differentiation: more than 70% of scholarly works by Eastern Orthodox theologians relate to the “why we are not in communion with Rome” theme, either in history or doctrine, explicitly or not, and the “theology of the Schism”. Things get even deeper and numbers even higher when we transition to EO apologetics, laymen or ordained clergy doing it.
In the EO argument, the whole “décadence” of Western society leads to a preferential option for the Christian East (and please notice: outside of communion with Rome). I can’t help but say it sounds propagandistic and, in a sense, accusative and triumphalist. It’s not so usual to see Catholic scholars pointing fingers to others (as it is to see them doing ‘self-analysis’ both in and of the Church), but if a Catholic priest back then or nowadays preach that the Islamic definitive conquest of the Byzantine Empire, the massive loss of Christian territory and the alliance/ mutual agreement of the Islamic conqueror with the Orthodox hierarchy in the new-born Ottoman Empire, or if he defended that the communist revolution spreading and establishing in the Eastern christian countries even with cooperation and collaboration of the Orthodox church in a number of cases, or, at last, if he says that the politicization of the faith and the nationalization of the churches or the Christian “ethos” in the East happened due to social, political and religious reasons traceable to the Great Schism, then any EO audience would furiously blame it as “Latin arrogance” and Catholic propaganda.
Strangely enough, the philosophical ‘discovery’ of the individual (and the self) is not as big a phenom in the process according to EO apologetics. It must be caused by the Schism, it’s all about it - and the blameful ‘conceptual’ West. In other words, Fr Strickland just took the fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc” to a new application and proportion.
In synthesis the logic is: happening in the West, if bad, the thing has to be causally related with the Great Schism. The reciprocal with the East must be said to be not true. Never. So it is the simplest argument on the top of which Fr Strickland adds - fairly enough - layers of complexity to make it sound sufficiently robust. But it is a thousand years showing EO they need to come back to communion with Rome and the Catholic Church, where Truth is and can only be (fragments of truth and manifestations of grace surely can be seen outside of it, but not Truth with integrity and integrality). When Vladimir Soloviev - one of the most brilliant philosophical minds of the late 19th and early 20th century in the world -, and just few years before the Russian Revolution of 1917, wrote that their church could only recognize universality when going back to accepting the the undeniable truth of the Catholic Church in Rome and then find again the authentic Christian spirit that would prevent them from chaos, in his very _”Russia and the Universal Church”,_ he was deemed a traitor by many of the Eastern Orthodoxs. When we say the East is truly needed in the Catholic church, now more than ever, so as to recalibrate the vitality of the faith especially in the liturgy, Eastern Orthodoxs expect nothing less than the West bending knees.
So let us all always remember the theology of our saints: *PRIDE,* not hate or lust, is the root of all sins; accusation is the favorite hobby of the Father of Lies, the one who divides: the Latin word “diablo” comes from the Greek word “dia-ballein”, which means the union of the radical “dia”, that means the other side, across (like in ‘diagonal’) and “ballein”, that means to shoot, to aggressively push (like in ‘ballistic’): he is the one that divides and pushes to the other side what was united under God’ reigning before.
May we find the true Pax Christi! With love for all of my Christian brothers!
The side what was wrong in the schism of course wants the other side to come back and say everything is okay, while the side that was correct still holds firm the truth and won’t deviate for any kind of compromise.
It’s clear to see which side is which. The Romans have fallen too deep into the heresy of ecumenism, this is why they don’t talk against anyone else. They want everyone together.
@@diegobarragan4904 Brother, you seemed to prove the points on pride and accusation with precision. Ecumenism can be false: it relates to finding a synthesis on divergent grounds and to start a new set of middle-term beliefs without preoccupation with truth ‘in re ipsa’. It is thoroughly inadmissible. But real ecumenical dialogues are related to finding more the commonalities than the divergences among different beliefs so as to truly understand the other. If dialoguing under the commandment of charity and truly loving the neighbors, those dialogues may be fruitful; if not, they will necessarily sink. Only God can be the active principle of unity.
It is exactly what the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches are doing since Vatican II. For the first time in history the Ecumenical Patriarch set his foot in Rome in the 60s. In 2016 for the first time in history the pope and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow met in person, and it happened in Cuba. Pope Francis and Metropolitan Hilarion just recently met in Moscow in December 2021 with enormous respect, already arranging for the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow to meet personally again, either in Rome or Moscow. Many, many documents are produced on fruitful dialogues. Many of the reciprocal antipathies are healing. For the first time in history post-schism the Pope was in Greece, just recently in December 2021. He was received with remarkable deference. Maybe it takes a fragile leader in the Catholic side for the Orthodox ones to recognize why they are important for the Church, since the EO leaders were always haunted by “papal greatness” after the schism, just as pre-schism they were mostly thrilled by it. If there is a particular time to notice this paradox, that time is definitely now.
So again, the whole accusation on “the heresy of ecumenism” thrown at the Catholic Church on the level of doctrines, apart from some undeniable bad taste in some encounters that had happened, it is all but a narrative to ignite divisive mentality, mostly with political connotations.
@@masterchief8179 you seem to be greatly fearful of division, where Christ & St. Paul seemed to think it was necessary, certainly unavoidable. Rome’s post-VII obsession with unity at all costs seems to come through in your posting. The verbal machinations to make things legal & valid or technically orthodox (small ‘o’) so folks can be formally in communion with the Roman bishop and therefore “one” & Catholic is unattractive to most Orthodox and not a real solution.
@@traceyedson9652 I can only lament but that’s what you probably were taught by EOs apologists so as to avoid the devilish nature of division and some specific (bad) state of affairs that people want to put under the carpet. But it is entirely anti-biblical and a particular bad exegesis of the Gospel and of St Paul. Jesus wanted the unity AMONG Christians to be as perfect as the unity He has with the Father, that means the most perfect one ever conceivable, which is the indivisible oness of the very intratrinitarian life (John 17, 21). And St Paul teaches that we need to recognize “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5) because not only he conceived Christians to necessarily be one in spirit (Eph 4, 4) but also one in body (Eph 4, 3).
What Our Lord indeed says about divisions is that He himself would divide those - even families, father and sons and wife and husband - on the fundamental decision that concern following Him (Matthew 10, 34-39), the definitive Word that God proclaimed over history.
So double check your concepts, brother. Peace.
@@masterchief8179 As a Roman Catholic, you have a weak leg to stand on with that approach. That division is of the diabolos, yes, of course. But the answer is found in the Spirit, as St. Paul teaches, and not in the deceptive legalistic definitions of the Roman curia or the monarchical papacy.
Haven’t had time to watch, but I’m concerned with the current scism in the Orthodox Church between Russia and Constantinople. I just joined the church 12/24/21 and this is going on. It’s starting to look like Protestantism
It’s concerning, but it really doesn’t change anything (regarding the faith) and is far from the first time this has ever happened. If this squabble between patriarchs bugs you, boy, you would have a tough time with the church of the first millennium! Talk to your priest if it really concerns you; chances are he isn’t stressed, and you shouldn’t be either. Just live your life and above all, pray.
@@nuzzi6620 Amen brother.
I say, trust in God's providence. What is meant for evil, He will mean for good.
Over the History of the Church there has been these rumbles between Patriarchs before.
Because NONE of our Bishops run the Church on their own (the Patriarch’s are Bishops that administer geographical areas of the Orthodox Church and not Political figures). The only way Patriarchs/Bishops can change anything is by agreement in a COUNCIL!
They can get mad, complain or leave but that’s it.
As a member of GOARCH, I can still take the Eucharist at ROCOR, an Antiochian Orthodox Church, Romanian Church, etc., all the Orthodox Churches. Not a permanent split, but a spat between current Patriarchs.
This spat is without doubt political, temporal. Not of the Kingdom of God.
It will end at some juncture, of that I have no doubt.
The analogy with Protestanism splitting off from Catholicism is off quite a bit, I think you just do not know much about the history of the Church - and that's OK, we are all learning here.
There are issues and problems with each of the Orthodox Churches (because they are institutions run by imperfect man). In the end, we're One body. One blood. One cup.
Orthodox priest says that the source of all Western spirtual problems is that they aren't Orthodox. Seems like a rather arrogant take to me. If the East is so spirtually protected why were they so susceptible to communism, the most Utopian and anti-religious movement in history?
I would also dispute some of these assertions. The Filioque is much earlier than the 11th century. You had the Athanasian Creed circulating in the West in the early 6th century and it explicitly states the doctrine of the Filioque.
A very postmodern performance in Orthodox triumphalism, indeed.
Anybody who thinks they’re correct is considered triumphalist in this generation. Yawn
@@traceyedson9652 no, but this is really pomo.
Orthodox popular piety varied -granted- but it wasn’t always this “paradisiacal” fantasy . I come from a place where until the ‘50’s or ‘60’s if one was able to decipher the letters , the only works of piety available would have been “The Dream of the Theotokos” or “Epstle sent by ICXC from heaven “ all containing threats and graphic descriptions of the variiis tortures awaiting sinners in hell. Such was the predication-when it easy completely skipped- very moralizing and not shy of making threats about ones afterlife . But when you say it in English anything can be projected onto orthodoxy.
@@traceyedson9652 no, but this is really pomo.
Orthodox popular piety varied -granted- but it wasn’t always this “paradisiacal” fantasy . I come from a place where until the ‘50’s or ‘60’s if one was able to decipher the letters , the only works of piety available would have been “The Dream of the Theotokos” or “Epstle sent by ICXC from heaven “ all containing threats and graphic descriptions of the variiis tortures awaiting sinners in hell. Such was the predication-when it easy completely skipped- very moralizing and not shy of making threats about ones afterlife . But when you say it in English anything can be projected onto orthodoxy.
The Churches must learn again to breath with BOTH LUNGS (i.e. the Western and Eastern Churches): Pope St. St. John-Paul II.
There are not two lungs.. There is only One Orthodox Church of Christ.. The true church..
@@evans3922 Evcharisto Evangelos....well..you know, Bishop Kallistos Ware who wrote a respected book on Orthodox Christianity, says something like, "we can always be sure where the Church is, but we cannot always be sure where it is not." Trinitarian Baptism with water is the door into the Church, and initiation is completed by Chrismation (or Confirmation) and Holy Communion. In a sense it is the one who has all that plus a living faith hope and charity who is fully in the Church. For Catholic Christians of course the saying "ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" (where Peter is, there is the Church), would bear a lot of weight...but not I think to the extent of saying that those not in full communion with Peter (the Rock) are in no sense in the Church. Irini pasi!
This is ecumenism, brother. There is ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That quote is more telling in regards to the current state of Rome, than it is on the historical understanding of Church ecclesiology.
@@J..P.. I think that some years ago, when the Patriarch of Constantinople lifted the excommunication of the Pope, and the Pope lifted the excommunication of the Patriarch ( getting on for 1,000 years ago!), they were both saying in effect, "we are both in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a real sense: even although there are still painful divisions and problems which we must continue to pray about. Our communion is real, although still far from perfect. Let us pray with Our Lord, "that they may be one... and that the world may believe" (John 17.)
@@bdnl6268 Fortunately, the patriarch of Constantinople has no authority to make that claim. He is, ironically enough, using the same papist heresy that got Rome excommunicated, to return to communion with Rome - while undermining union with other Orthodox Patriarchs. He's a bad faith actor and is getting awfully close to being excommunicated himself.
This is precisely why we use a counciliar universal concensus approach like we read in Acts 15, and not papal supremacy.
Strickland Orthodoxy and Orthodox Accessories... Taste the Yeast, not "The Beast"!
Love it.
It's amazing how fast Rome went downhill after the 4th crusade attack on Eastern Christendom. That is really the point when the schism was completely solidified. Assisi and Aquinas both lived in that same century (13th). Ironically when the crusaders plundered Constantinople they brought home a revivied interest in pagan philosophers like Aristotle, from plundered Greek texts, which directly led to the renaissance and much of Rome's innovation. This innovation that largely led directly to the implosion of western Christian unity in the reformation.
If you really want a deep dive into the core of this issue I think it's time for round two with Dr. Bradshaw on the topics of St. Gregory Palamas (excellent choice for a "Christians You Should Know" episode), scholasticism, and thomism/aristotelianism.
Would that Venice had sunk long ago for this outrage.
In my experience some Orthodox believers have an exaggerated understanding of Palamas' view on Aristotle and apply rather ignorantly - blanket condemnations of Western theology's engagement with Aristotle & Plato, St Thomas Aquinas, etc. Palamas’ classical education equipped him to make proper distinctions between inspired Wisdom and philosophy. His stance towards philosophy and classical literature reflects the spirit of the Church in complete harmony with the Church Fathers - East & West. He recognizes the educational value of philosophy in human efforts to understand
the revealed truth. Period.
@@MPFXT Except for the whole professing the filioque is satanic and how ADS would lead the west to atheism. But whatever cope thomists need to try and do the two lungs bit and synthesize a completely incompatible worldview into their system. If it's so compatible why do trad caths fight so hard against St. Palamas and E/E distinction?
Is it surprising rc will try to synthesize nearly any external system into their system? No, in fact they have done a very good job of synthesizing modernism into their system in the past 100 years which has wrought havoc on their church.
@@NavelOrangeGazer lol
@@MPFXT Agreed, many Orthodox (and RomanCatholics), perhaps including me (and you), might misunderstand aspects of St. Palamas' arguments. In any case, it does seem that a blanket type of condemnation of the West's post-Schism synthesis of hellenism and Christianity, exemplified by Aquinas et al, is the appropriate type of condemnation. There is not much to salvage, it must all be thrown out. More on this later.
You say St Palamas' philosophical stance reflects the Fathers of both east and west. Correct, but only because the west used to be Orthodox. St Palamas does not reflect post-schism westerners, but on the contrary, he writes against them. Other than a few letters, there is nothing he wrote that wasn't exclusively to refute the Latins. Even a number of his Sunday sermons have anti-Latin points sprinkled in them.
You say St Palamas "recognizes the educational value of philosophy in human efforts to understand
the revealed truth. Period." Correct, but that's not what post-schism westerners used philosophy for, and if they occasionally did, these occasions are not the reason why the western world has been destroyed. Two points to make:
(1) Heretical concepts like filioque, created grace, purgatory, ADS, immovable mover view of God, etc, were generated not by philosophy being applied to understand revelation, but by philosophy being applied to distort it, revise it, and innovate it.
(2) Philosophy in the post-schism west was used not for educational, but for salvific purposes. Taking cues from St Augustine's neoplatonism, they equated salvation with grasping platonic forms and formulating dogmas. This directly led to monks and theologians sitting on their desks and philosophizing (using greek pagan philosophy!) all day long, mocking hesychasm and thinking heaven is earned by contemplating on some aristotelian immovable mover or something. This is St Palamas' point. Philosophy, he says, does not save.
Look, my point is, this christian-hellenic synthesis of the post-schism west is misguided and harmful. In Orthodoxy we might employ platonic or aristotelian jargon to articulate Christian concepts, the core is completely Christian. In RomanCatholicism you use christian imagery to cover-up hellenic worldviews and theology. On the outside you call it "Holy Trinity" or "Jesus", but on the inside it's all immovable movers and ADS and stuff. Not trying to insult anyone, and I know it's not that simple, but it kinda is...
27:00
Without denying the faith or succession of the Byzantines who have their own splits, this sounds like a nickel debating which quarter has lost the most value.
To be in a rift with each other doesn’t mean either party has left the Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox is not our official name).
All the jurisdictions are still within Orthodoxy.
If this was not so, there would have to be an Ecumenical Council because we are a conciliar Church without a Pope.
No one person by themselves can kick a jurisdiction out of the Orthodox Catholic Church!
Patriarchs and the Ecumenical Patriarch make declaratory statements of disapproval, caution or correction. They separate but are not broken permanently.
In almost 2000 years these things have self corrected over time.
God is perfect, humans are not.
This is not a penetrating analysis by Father Strickland. The rift between East and West goes all the way back to St. Augustine, at least. With Augustine there are clear major lines of division that have to be acknowledged. And more than that, the Orthodox church, particularly the Russian Orthodox church, has never adequately addressed the profound significance contained in the 'schism' (raskolniki) related to the Old Believers issue concerning the relationship between Church and State. I guarantee that this will come back to haunt and harry the Orthodox church. It's far from over and to begin with the official East-West schism as the source of explanations is to be in denial or deep ignorance.
As a Ex Orthodox I hope EO and Rome will reunite one day I can't with Orthodoxy it's truly not united its just national church's who can't agree with each other
You are seeking the true Church by intellectual speculation of church politics? This is the problem I’m seeing with the new converts. You are looking at things from a very surface level glance. And this caused you to apostatize from the Church. It’s better that you never knew the truth than the know it then reject it. You accepted heresy for the Sake of an external man made illusion of unity? While true unity is a mystical participation in the Holy Trinity and body of Christ. This is found in the Holy Orthodox Church alone. A unity centered in One Faith and one Bread. Centered in the body of Christ. Not an intellectual submission of will to the Pope.
@@diegobarragan4904 nope in Orthodoxy its pure cope Rome is true end of story u don't know anything other than speculation of what wrote I was searching for truth and it's Rome let's not even go on "unity" in orthodoxy bro
@@Catholic01 what truth did find in Rome? Don’t lie to yourself. You converted and compromised for the sake of a external illusion of unity to bring you comfort. You accepted soul destroying heresies for mental comfort. The unity of Rome is not true unity according to the teaching of the Apostles and the Saints of God. Rome is just a large umbrella of different faiths and contradicting Saints, the only requirement is an intellectual submission to the pope of Rome. This is foreign to the Church. True unity is a mystical union with the Trinity, not a man made institution. The true unity found in the Holy Orthodox Church stems from the life of the Church, union with the God Man Christ, and therefore with eachother, with one faith and one mindset, and one bread.
But someone like you will probably convert again to some new tradition a few years down the road. There’s a trend of new converts who are just looking at things from the surface level, but not grounded in holy Scriptures and Writings of the Saints, and ascetical struggle and spiritual life of the Church. But are dragged around by the leash of the passions to wherever the Enemy of your soul leads you. You might find a certain type of peace in your novas order, but it won’t last, because it’s not from above. Only Christ and the Truth sets you free.
@@diegobarragan4904 you think you ate that I don't care for your eastern heresy no more I'm home in the True Catholic orthodox Church I'm not gonna debate online I got better things to do God bless friend
@@Catholic01 what heresy does the Orthodox Church teach?
Which of the three delusions could this be?
Ok, this is another 'golden age', ahistorical, mythical view of the history presented.
- There were no such thing as universal 'paradisiacal' culture whatever that means.
- Church had already beed divided for centuries before 1054 (Church of the East already separate, Egyptian church is separate);
- What is 'decline' exactly? Is not orthodox Russia in decline? Is Greece experiencing Renaissance? Are orthodox-majority countries better off?
You need to read his books or listen to his podcast to get more context on such questions. There are some nuances. The paradisiacle culture exists only within Christendom. That is a culture which believed that they could experience paradise in this life and in the life to come through transformative grace passed from Christ directly to his apostles who distributed such grace in the “gatherings/ecclesia” translated to the English word church. If you find his view ahistorical it’s not because you have read and refuted his interpretation of his many prodigious sources which are meticulously cited in his books but most likely because you share a modern prejudice against meta narratives. Each culture has a beginning middle and end. They have a destiny and a role to play in the grand calculus of world history. Most are not bold enough to interpret what these are in the particular because it takes many years of distance to see things clearly. Also the narrow focus of modern history cares more about technique and accurate details than noticing broader patterns that repeat throughout human history. These patterned are what adds richness and meaning to our self awareness and cultural awareness. But modern man would rather be smug and nihilistic than humble and enriched.
Not sure you actually listened.
We wlecome our Orthodox brothers and sisters to join Rome. The doors are always open.
Why would we join pachamama?
We can’t even begin to explain why we would never join Rome under their current beliefs, but this video by Father Josiah Trenham scratches the surface if you’re interested; m.ua-cam.com/video/y6zXs_cUSjQ/v-deo.html
There are already over 20 Eastern communities that are in communion with Rome.
@@jeandoten1510 Uniate Eastern Catholicism refutes Roman Catholicism.
ua-cam.com/video/LrSU0afdDrs/v-deo.html
I am a convert to Roman Catholicism, my brother converted to Orthodoxy. His criticisms of my faith invariably were based on ignorance of Catholic theology and history. When we occasionally were able to talk amicably he asked me--we agree on so much, why aren't you Orthodox? One answer I gave him is still quite true---when I was living in Boston and looking for my permanent spiritual home, I couldn't even find an Orthodox church to visit. In every place I have lived in The West, I see Catholic Churches, Catholic Universities, Catholic Hospitals, Catholic Charities, Catholic Social activists. There are other reasons, but I have even heard an Orthodox priest concede that point.
Lol "decline of the west..." lmaooooo
Disingenuous description of the Crusades - greatly diminished his credibility.
Which part did you find disingenuous?
Which part of the crusades was Christian? The 4th one?
Thomas Aquinas is to blame for so much garbage.
Anselm is a much bigger problem. Thomas is OK, he is rooted in the fathers (as well as Greek philosophy), Anselm before him makes radical departures at the same time as being the major fanboy for Papal primacy at the same time as the great schism.
@@gillianc6514
Thomas was novel. Archbishop of Canterbury John Peckham warned everyone.
@@zarnoffa That was just Franciscan/Dominican rivallry, and the Franciscans like Peckham were hardly free of novelty themselves. Look at Anselm (1033-1109), there is a much clearer link to total rupture there.
@@gillianc6514
Nice attempt at downplaying it, but it was more than order rivalry. Thomas really was introducing speculation. Your contention that the church had some novelties might be true, but my point was that Thomas’ speculation actually became dogma. That dogma is garbage.
Anselm? I am not going to play “what about” that other guy because the focus was Thomas, but I know some have a strange reaction when a Christian says, “Jesus died for your sins.” It’s really an aversion and hatred for the Gospel. This is an Orthodox posture of thought in some circles that is truly unfortunate.
Shh Aquinas is the end all be all theologian for some