7:03 Blessed Augustine is not a derogatory term for the Eastern Orthodox. We call others blessed as it emphasizes their piety, such as Blessed Seraphim Rose. I hope you see this and realize that Blessed does not have a subjugators meaning as it does in the West for us. Recall that terminologically we have lots of differences, and so while I understand your misunderstanding, I hope you are able to see that this is not accurate.
Perhaps you yourself may not intend it that way, but there are many among the Eastern Orthodox who would intend its use to mean a subtle rejection of Saint Augustine. It really just depends on who is speaking.
@@gizmorazaar It's absolutely not. It's a term used to refer to a Saint who is primarily known for a pious life. That's why the Russian traditionally listed him as "blessed." It's not that unlike terms like "Holy," or "God-Bearer." The Orthodox Church holds Saint Augustine in high regard, and his teachings on the Orthodox Faith are also held in high regard.
I pray that once orthodox Anglicans (that do not ordain women) can unify there can be increased intercommunion between us. I am curious to see how issues like the filioque would be resolved, if they can be though
Traditional Anglican here…the Filioque is [bracketed] within the Nicene Creed in the 2019 ACNA BCP. I think that’s a good start. Personally when reciting that part of the Creed I say “THROUGH the Son” rather than “AND the Son”.
@@doubtingthomas9117 There is an acceptable way to believe this from an Orthodox POV. If you're curious to an Orthodox view on this, Craig Truglia of Orthodox Christian Theology talks about our view of Western Fathers.
@doubtingthomas9117 Just a practical question here, not sure if posing it in a comment is the best way, but nonetheless... what's the big practical issue with the filoque anyway? Is anyone's salvation in jeopardy by accepting or rejecting it? And how the heck can you debate what happened on a time sequence (before/after) for something that happened before time even existed!?!? Seems all a tool of pride from Satan to distract us all from #1 loving God and #2 loving our neighbor as Jesus so clearly said. Any response or random thought on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks!
@@coloradopaul4798 Hey, I completely understand the question. And I am not the one to answer it, but I think I may put you looking in the right direction, the Filioque affects the way the Trinity relates to itself, and hence the way we relate to God. There’s more to be said to this, but I suggest watching Constantine Zalalas’ lecture on the Filioque from Orthodox Ethos. It breaks down why it mattered ultimately in a practical sense. Hope this helps! ☦️
Fr. Moses is a very divisive figure on Twitter, and although I respect him because he is a priest, he is wrong on a lot. Priests such as Fr. Spyridon Bailey or Fr. Josiah Trenham are much better to get info from.
I'm not opposed to Western Rite Orthodoxy. But it has to actually be Orthodox. The Anglo-Catholic culture is worth preserving. What's not worth preserving is wallowing in the Augustinian ditch. I'm opposed to Latin theology.
genuinely this Orthodox opposition to Augustine is completely self defeating, Augustine was one of the great theological teachers of the early period, if you think he was wrong on theology then you cannot justify the Orthodox opposition of doctrinal development. im saying this as an EO
Latin theology as a whole? Or just post-schism innovations? I wouldn't be so quick to reject the ideas of Augustine, Ambrose, Pope Gregory, Irenaeus, etc.
I understand the Orthodox having objections to things like Papal supremacy (from which infallibility springs because the Pope himself isn't infallible but he exercises the Church's infallibility) or the Filioque. But, purgatory? That is a true mountain out of a molehill issue.
@@Hope_Boat Whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died prior to her Dormition/Assumption is a small issue of faith and relatively immaterial to the truth of it. Catholic are free to believe either. The Orthodox believe she died prior to the Assumption. Whether there was a time when the Son was not is not a small issue of faith. You're not going to suggest the former is of the same kind as the latter, are you?
@@achilles4242 There are plenty of 'minor issues' that aren't minor. Take the casual declaration of Francis concerning all religions being paths to God. That's a no go. "But he didn't spoke ex cathedra" I hear. That's not enough. There are wolves in sheep cloatings by the plenty in the West.
@@Hope_Boat Stop deflecting from my question. Obviously there are small issues of faith. You just want to be a holier than thou warrior. Congratulations, online Mark Eugenicos Orthobro, you have made your point.
Greek orthodox here. I totally agree with the idea that orthodoxy has nothing to do with geography. There is no such thing as Eastern orthodox. There is an orthodox church in the East. But there was an orthodox church in the West for the first millennium as well. And there were plenty of western orthodox rites. Not just the Latin mass, but also the Celtic, the Gallican etc. I hope and pray that a truly orthodox western Church will reflourish rich of her own rites with her own liturgical languages. Orthodoxy is a matter of faith. Not of ethnicity. Now why do we, Greeks, Russians etc are so sceptical about the Latin rite? Because in our imagination it is linked with the eradication of all others rites. The dispute between Leo IX and Michel of Constantinople started about the rite in Sicily. Leo IX invaded Sicily in 1053 with his army (yeah I know Pontiffs...) and started to push the local bishops to drop the Byzantine rite in favour of the Latin mass. The bishop referred to Constantinople and Patriarch Michael told them to ignore Leo IX who was infuriatied. Latinisation of the West (even Rome did the liturgy in Greek in the beginning) was weaponized to reduce the influence of the Byzantine Church. There are stigmata of that history we have to heal. But most importantly we have to focus on the orthodoxy of the faith. As saint Gregory the Great wrote _Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist._ This is the key to the disasters that came onto the Church with the great Schism. Kyrie eleison ☦️ IC XC NI KA
The Catholic Church is almost 3 times bigger than the Orthodox who are divided between Eastern, Oriental, and within Eastern there is currently a schism. How did this happen? Moreover Protestants do not have one single church that can compare to your churches in size, but collectively they are 2 times bigger than you. How did this happen? You have to be honest with yourselves and see that you lost something.
@@VirginMostPowerfull Islam is bigger than Catholicism, should we all become Muslims now? The Nestorian Church of the East was 10 times bigger than the united Orthodox and Catholic Church, at their peak, so should everyone have become Nestorian back in the day? Arians were the big majority, should we all have become Arians? So clearly numbers means absolutely nothing. Lol, it's funny that you bought up protestants in the first place, since they BROKE OFF FROM ROME'S HERESIES, you call out Orthodox disunity, but the 800 million Protestants are a result of the disunity in the Catholic Church. Uniates, Sedevacantists, Old Catholics, Protestants, SSPX, etc... it's neverending disunity Oriental "Orthodox" hasn't been in communion with either of our churches since the 5th century and they only started calling themselves "Oriental Orthodox" in 1965, they've got nothing to do with the actual Orthodox Church. The current Moscow-Constantinople is completely political (not theological), regarding the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Both Moscow and Constantinople are both still considered part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, their break of communion is only between the clergy, not the lay people. Patriarchs being in communion with some but out of communion with others has been since the beginning of Church history (Photian Schism, Meletian Schism, etc). Incredibly enough, every single Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction/Church believes in the exact same unchanged early Church theology, the same could not be said about Catholicism. Chaldean Catholics venerate Nestorius, Oriental Catholics have different Christology and they venerate Dioscorus and Severus, Byzantine Catholics venerate Orthodox saints that called the papacy and Catholicism heretical, such as Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, Photios, Alexis Toth (who converted 20000 Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy), and Justin Popovic.
Fr. Moses is not our pope. Being Orthodox is not about repudiating the good in Western culture. I pray that he will repent of his idle words. That being said, there are some important theological issues which Anglicans would need to be open to correction on. If those issues are addressed, it would warm my heart to see entire Anglican churches join communion with Holy Orthodoxy.
Modernity, secularism, and the enlightenment all came directly from Catholic and Protestant theology. That is their fruit. Further, the Church doesn’t change to accommodate the desire to preserve a particular culture. What about the West is worth preserving over communion with the Truth?
this is false Orthodoxy absaloute has adapted to the cultures of its poeples, hense the different national denominations and churches, the errors of the west come from their false ecclesiology and their view of divine simlicity, if these are corrected is there any reason why we cannot conduct liturgies in western languages with western sytles of garments in western sytle churches etc?
@@buffcommie942 The Orthodox Church redeemed those cultures. Fulfilled them. She did not change to suit them. And if you don’t want to come to the Truth because you want the Truth to look a certain way, then you’re not looking for the Truth. You’re looking for something else. Liturgies, vestments, etc. all came about organically. There isn’t anything organic about taking the practices of heretical and schismatic groups, then simply slapping an Orthodox veneer on it. Christianity is not a series of beliefs. It is a way of life. The Way of Life. Whether or not the Book of Common Prayer contains “orthodox” theology is irrelevant. That completely misses the point. One is not saved by what one believes.
Now listen. You want to talk about fruit? Let me tell you about Eastern Orthodox fruit. I am an Eastern Orthodox from Sweden. I am a native of this land and a convert. We have many EO churches here, Greek, Serbian, Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Finnish. Most of these parishes have been here for a generation. Most do not use the local language but their own ethnic tongue, hereby effectively excluding native born people from joining. Most parishes basically serve only their own ethnic group. Some parishes use the Gregorian calender while some use the Julian. This means there is no unity concerning feasts, fasts or daily readings. There is not one bishop but many, all claiming jurisdiction over the same territory. My own bishop is Bulgarian but sits in New York, US. 100 meters away sits the Greek Metropolitan of the Ec Patr of Constantinople. Essentially, for me to join a service I have to drive 350 km/ 4 hours to services I mostly cannot understand. Swedish is used only once a month and my parish is the oldest non-Lutheran church in the country, it dates back some 400 years. So you EO zealots out there with your finely tuned theological skills and your meticulously copied arguments to rule them all, I say many of you have blinders on to the world. Eastern Orthodoxy is regional, national and ethnic. That's a definite fruit and me and my 12 year old Orthodox daughter couldn't care less about your high-minded sophistry and the constant repetition of tired standard Eastern Orthodox textbook answers. I see a clear disconnect with reality. Basically, I wish my Orthodox brethren would keep their traps shut a little more often than what is the case today. Good video, don't let my Eastern Orthodox brethren discourage you. I wish to apologize on their behalf for their sometimes lack of courteous magnanimity. May we all be united to the universal mother church in Rome.
@@locksmith9498 honestly i would rather have a church which has regional, national and ethnic influences than one which fundamentally has departed from the church established by Christ. alot of these problems come from the fact that Orthodoxy is new in the west.
@@buffcommie942 You finally said it without realizing it. Do you know why Orthodoxy is new in the West? You admit Orthodoxy is new to the West because it was originally not there in the first place? Is that what you are saying? Thus you admit it is not the original faith but a later variant originating and developing from after the great schism. What happened to the Catholic church so many church fathers write about? So if it is relatively new here, as you yourself admit, how can it be the church established by Christ? The early church fathers talk about churches throughout the west, in Europe, that they all share the same faith. By your logic Eastern Orthodoxy as it is manifested today is not the original faith? Is it new or not? You just said it is relatively new to the West did you not? Secondly, my parish is 400 years old and is still mostly catering to immigrants and for that reason still not using the language of the land. 400 years! That is not new!!! Is 400 years not enough to transition to a universal parish for all. Ethnic influences my foot. You obviously type without using logic. I'll tell you the deal: Eastern Orthodoxy is the schismatic remnant of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, a loose union of churches who separated themselves from the mother church 1000 years ago. They are not the original church entity since they have remained regional, national and ethnic. The church fathers talk about a universal church in many lands. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't fulfill the practical historical adherence to universality. It is disproven because it is regional, national and ethnic, and thanks for your input, also new to the west as you said. I'll choose the universal church anyday myself, I am neither Greek nor Jew (or Georgian or Finnish or Russian or Romanian)
You are mistaken. Actually, ROCOR has a Western Rite vicariate. The Antiochian Jurisdiction has a robust Western Rite, also with its own vicariate. The OCA is skittish. Both the OCA and ROCOR have roots in the Moscow Patriarchate. It was St. John Maximovitch, the Wonderworker(whose body lies in state in San Francisco) who said, "Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must be Eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies." France has a strong Western Rite, and it was Russia who seriously attempted to give its blessing to a Western Rite were it not for the failure of Fr. Overbeck who deposed himself from the priesthood when he married after ordination. Know, too, that one of the reasons given for not being gung-ho about a Western Rite is not a matter of taste, but rather a respect for the origins of the particular jurisdictions. We Orthodox claim that Rome overstepped its boundaries, attempting to divide the Orthodox world, by advocating Eastern or Byzantine Rites(Maronites excepted). Truly, brother, I don't know why you are singing this song, when Orthodox Western Rite Churches are already functioning in US, Canada, France, UK. What more do you want? Well, I will tell you. You must retreat from the Anglican Communion and its women ministers, etc., take a stand for unity. Stop whining. Grow up and get yourself chrismated into the Orthodox Church-that's how unity happens. PS-ChecK out St. Patrick's in Virginia.www.stpatrickorthodox.org/. We could use a man like you!
Rather than criticize the Church from the outside waiting for it to be better before joining…perhaps join in humility and be part of the solution from within.
Very good video. And you have only scratched a surface that lies beneath Eastern Orthodox stance. I am conversing with orthodox frequently. The amount of pride is staggering. Greeks will tell you that Western culture is rooted in their antique society, the original of Scripture is written in Greek. Basically they are saying that we are what we are thanks to the Greeks. Russians and Serbs are special story due to the nationalistic melee. Personally, I don't consider the leadership of those churches (russ and serb) Christian churches, they are in essence a governmental outposts that serve national and political oligarchy interests. They are not interested in Christendom as a whole, they want to keep it that way. Only a foreign invasion might change that like islamic incursions in middle ages.
This is a tuff one. I don't disagree with anything you said but looking at it from the East's point of view the West has fallen and they alone have persevered the truth. While I see no issues with the current Western rite and what goes on in traditional Anglo catholic churches, I do wonder where that eventually could lead. Rome has just approved the Mayan rite for the exact reasons you cite. One look at that rite and you quickly see for the sake of converts heresy has shown its ugly head.
Would you hear the mistakes though? Aren't you convinced that you are now in the exclusive only true church? I can tell you a few mistakes, some are obvious like praying to saints. Icons which are like idols. They risk calling men "father" even who are not their dad. Relics are another mistake.. I'm sure there are more but people won't hear it. I'm sure you already disagree with what I pointed out, and you have the talking points and retorts preloaded ready to recite?
@@br.m OP told us they are Orthodox and are curious, that’s all. You are making a tremendous amount of assumptions and accusing them of having talking points before they’ve even said anything. You appear to be the one who has been activated in attack mode and entered a mini diatribe. How silly and ignorant.
@@br.m If calling someone father who isn't your biological father is wrong your condemning Timothy and Titus because Paul calls them his children... 1 Timothy 1:2 Titus 1:4 Also, the verse you're referring to in reference to calling no man father is as follows... "Matthew 23:8-12 ESV [8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. [10] Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. [11] The greatest among you shall be your servant. [12] Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." Now in light of just this section, and not even the entire chapter which brings context to this portion, like who Jesus was speaking to, why he said these things, what he means, do you have eyes to see? Ears to hear? Jesus says call no man teacher, or instructor... Have you never done this? Let's try to properly exegete the text instead of adding our emotions to it. With that being said, if we are to discover how wrong the assumption "calling no man father means the Catholic Church is against the Bible"; how many more presuppositions could you honestly admit you have that are just as egregious?
I can appreciate Orthodoxy, but if I were to move from my Anglo--Catholic position, it would be to Rome - not the east -- mostly due to their arrogance and attitude (as a whole) - not being critical to anyone in particular ....
as far as im aware, every Orthodox Saint who has spoken on the Western rite has been in favor of it. to me thats enough to say Orthodoxy is in favor of the Western rite, no matter what some chauvanists may say
As an Orthodox i agree with some things especially nationalism. I hate this also.. Saints were never really nationialists. They of course loved their country but they didnt hate others. Also i say that Orthodoxy is true church but i dont agree with every priest. We people are sinful, we make mistakes. Please dont mix Orthodox people with Orthodoxy. Also we mostly have liturgy of st. John Chrystosom which is Eastern. The earliest liturgy was actually the Last Supper. Then its said to be st. Jacob Greek liturgy. I was RCC and i have to say that Orthodox Liturgy touched me far more deeply than RC.
@@DrGero15 it's an invention of the post schism Frankish Papacy. Many examples before the schism of Patriarchs being in communion with some, and out of communion with others (meletian schism, Photian Schism, etc)
I would like to add that I think we in America can have an exoticism regarding the East. While it is true that the West is the primary promoter and machine behind secularism, the East is no stranger to it either. Orthodox nations like Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Israel, and many more are heavily influenced by the enlightenment and the post-enlightenment world. Whether that is directly the fault of the west or not may be up for debate. I certainly believe it is the West's fault primarily, however, we can't act like in the East is completely immune to the Western problems. Even Orthodox clergy will tell you that the biggest problem among members of their churches is that the conregation barely believes the things that they're taught, if at all.
I understand the points you are attempting to make. As an orthodox Anglican, likely more high church traditional Anglo-catholic have you explored the possibility of joining the Anglican Ordinariate in the Catholic Church? It is definitely growing and gaining more popularity. They have a beautiful liturgy based on the Common Book of Prayer. It does seem that the western right in Orthodoxy is not exactly liked or appreciated by sizable numbers of Eastern Orthodox. Also keep in mind that the Catholic Church has 23 Eastern churches, such as the Maronites, Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church, etc.
When Western Christianity went into Africa, the Americas and Asia, they didn't change, they expected the local population to change. Many other ethnic groups and cultures have had to step out of their comfort zone to become Catholic or Anglican. So to say that many Western Christians would become Eastern Orthodox if only there was more Western Orthodoxy is a weak argument. You wouldn't be the first group of people to give up their culture for Christ. Plus, if the Eastern Orthodox do not like the idea of Eastern Catholic "uniate" churches, then why would they like Western Orthodoxy? It seems The way to have a Western Orthodoxy is for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to re-establish communion and unite.
I agree with Father Moses 100% on this topic. Former Roman Catholic here that wants nothing to do with Western Christianity. If you have a Pope, you are not Orthodox. If you no not recite the Nicene Creek, your not Orthodox. In other words, you are in a transvestite religion. Pretending to be something your not.
Very well put! There's just so many wannabe "Orthodox" out there muddying the waters; including the host of this podcast unfortunately. The bottom line question is this: why can't/won't you just become Orthodox? If to become Orthodox is so bad, then why all these comments about Her?
So if people would convert to orthodoxy in a heartbeat if there was a more widely available western liturgy, aren’t they just complaining over a stylistic and aesthetic difference too? Lol seems a little weird. It sounds a lot like worshiping the form and style of worship…
Jonah, the EO doctrine is not the same as Anglican doctrine. I am bewildered as to why you don’t see this. Your only beef with the EO is that they not are accepting of Anglicans. They believe we are in heresy and that they are the true and only church. The Anglican formularies are at odds with EO doctrine. There will not be be unity because of that and not because culture or ethnicity.
We nearly achieved communion with them in the midst of the Oxford Movement. I see nothing in the Anglo-Catholic movement that is fundamentally at odds with EO beyond the Western and Eastern divide. I know that they view us as in error, but I believe that the heart of Christ does not mandate that be mutual.
@@br.m do you think God revealed to us books to be under a law ? do you not see what beautiful concept was he trying to commmunicate , only to be stopped by your words that seems in all likelyhood to be mocking this truth ?
@@planteruines5619 Friend, now I am convinced you are confused. You seem to struggle with the English language. I don't think you and I will be able to communicate. The comment I left was legitimate. You must have misunderstood and then you launched in to what appear to be personal attacks against me, yet you do not know me. Thank you for not replying to me anymore. Peace.
It's been my experience that western rite orthodoxy quickly becomes Eastern over time. I've argued that catholic anglicanism should be regarded as true western orthodoxy.
And what has to be done with dogmatic differences between orthodoxy and catholicism, like Filioque (the biggest one, but not the only one)? If "the churches* (I used quottas because Lord Jesus created only one church, not many churches, because He is the Head of only one Body, not of many bodies) reunite, we will not even comune with the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ but with only the Body, not also the Blood, because some catholic scholars decided to change even the Eucharist; to my knowledge, is the only church which does this (give to lay people an incomplete form of eucharist); what is this other than hiperclericalism? Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered blessed, not saint, in the orthodox church (albeit term blessed is absolutely foreign to orthodoxy, it does't refer to a category of people as is the case in the catholic church). Only other blessed that I heard of in the orthodox church is Saint Jerome; both of them are celebrated as "blessed" on June, 15 Aren't the secularism and the modernism the product, the end result of western culture, together with all their consequences? I want to be very clear: this does not mean that the orthodox church(es) has no problem, it has a lot: - the relation with the state, which makes it prone to be subordinate to the state and used as an unofficial departament of the guvernement (which happens in all traditional orthodox countries, making it a state-church) - nationalism (ethnophiletism) which plagues all traditional orthodox churches, allthough it was declared heressy by an panorthodox council in 18 or 19 century - a flawed ecclesiology which derives from the above problems and which can be seen in every major western country (paralel orthodox jurisdictions in the same place at the same time, driven by nationalistic (ethnophiletistic) reasons)
At least from the online comments, I get the impression that some - maybe many - Eastern Orthodox folks define themselves primarily as Eastern (or, more to the point, “not Western”) rather than as orthodox. That is, it is the cultural or spiritual traditions that are not shared by western churches that define their whole communion. I think you are correct that a western-affirming Orthodoxy, that embraces the Western liturgy and the Eastern rites, that is in communion with traditionalist Anglicans and others, would be a very compelling alternative to Rome for many who are looking for a solid place to stand. It is certainly true that many of us would love to be in communion with Constantinople as “first among equals”, if the opportunity were opened to us.
Part of me thinks it is silly that these EO churches are making an effort to *revive* the Western Rite within their communion, rather than enter back into communion with the churches that have been organically practicing and developing the Western Rite all along. Sort of like, if a marriage ended in a divorce, then the husband thought “you know, we were really great together - I’m going to recreate my wife in someone else … except minus all the things I think were wrong with them. I’m incomplete without that original relationship, but I want it back on my terms, as I envision they should be.” Not the best analogy. The “Ecclesial Realist,” or “Branch Theory” of the Church is making more and more sense to me. It’s just unfortunate that 2/3 of the “branches” involved outright reject such an idea and instead insist they are the tree in its entirety.
Orthodoxy is here for any who are seeking authentic Catholic doctrine. No apologies needed! Western seekers are also free to overcome some of their own biases. Although Orthodoxy may use some works from western fathers like Augustine, that doesn't mean that they approve of all of his teachings (original sin) or consider him a saint. Ascetical writings from Origen were also used in the Orthodox Church, but his doctrines repudiated.
Lot of emotional pleading and begging the question. It's a little deeper than "stylistic difference." And you talk about the culture you love, like it's self evident that your culture is good. That would need justification. Orthodoxy never lost anything in schism. You can assert that it did all day. Doesn't prove it. But if orthodoxy lost something at schism, then what church possessed the fullness of the truth at that time? If no church possesses the truth, then there is no true church and I would argue that would falsify Christianity.
Sorry but no church possesses the truth. Jesus is the truth and he possesses me. I belong to him not some cult. Orthodox needs a big O because it is just a title, a name, not a description. Because I am an orthodox Christian and my church is orthodox, but not Orthodox. Just like my church is catholic but not Catholic. You are right about the schism it was just a business decision that the leaders of each side agreed on. People were grumbling and discontent, so rather than let them escape.. They were offered a new alternative. The thing is, it was just more of the same heresies with a different paint job.
I disagree with the notion that the Anglican BCP is an example of Western liturgy at its most beautiful. The mistake that Cranmer made was bringing Byzantine prayers and practices into the Western liturgy e.g. prayer of humble access, opening benediction, etc. The West should remain wester and the East should remain eastern. The true authentic English liturgy is the Sarum rite, not the BCP.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only forms of Christianity that have produced Christian unity in any significant way. This sounds like some protestant platitude that has no bearing on reality.
@@nathankirwan2565 My kingdom is not of this world. Do not think that I have come to bring peace. You think that a man made church must be true since Christ? Why? Because "the gates of hell will not withstand it"? Tell me, will a gate come off its hinges and attack your church? Don't you think Jesus was saying that, right before he went and broke in to hell? Jesus is the only way. Not Rome, not Catholicism not Orthodoxy, none of these puffed up boastful man made institutions. Even the church I belong to, it is not the way, it is not the only true church, it won't save me. It makes no claim to be the only exclusive way. But my pastors are qualified and know how to rightly handle and rightly divide the word. Good luck.
I like Orthodoxy because it's eastern European feel. Try changing back to Orthodoxy and then there will be unity. I wasn't raised Orthodox but, my ancestors were, so I'm researching it.
@@planteruines5619 I wasn't raised Orthodox so I'm not familiar. But some of my ancestors likely were, because I have Serbian and Romanian ancestors. I'm researching it based on church history mostly to see if it's the better option. An Anabaptist Protestant faith was evangelized to Yugoslavians when Germans lived there. Some families converted. Mine was one of them. I feel sort of robbed by not experiencing Orthodoxy because of that.
7:03 Blessed Augustine is not a derogatory term for the Eastern Orthodox. We call others blessed as it emphasizes their piety, such as Blessed Seraphim Rose. I hope you see this and realize that Blessed does not have a subjugators meaning as it does in the West for us. Recall that terminologically we have lots of differences, and so while I understand your misunderstanding, I hope you are able to see that this is not accurate.
Perhaps you yourself may not intend it that way, but there are many among the Eastern Orthodox who would intend its use to mean a subtle rejection of Saint Augustine. It really just depends on who is speaking.
@@gizmorazaar It's absolutely not. It's a term used to refer to a Saint who is primarily known for a pious life. That's why the Russian traditionally listed him as "blessed." It's not that unlike terms like "Holy," or "God-Bearer." The Orthodox Church holds Saint Augustine in high regard, and his teachings on the Orthodox Faith are also held in high regard.
Loved this. Amen.
Former Anglican now Orthodox. I fully agree with you.
Excellent! You are 100% right. I am greek Orthodox priest and theologian. Believe me I know what I am saying.
I support serious conversations between Orthodox and (orthodox) Anglican bishops!
I pray that once orthodox Anglicans (that do not ordain women) can unify there can be increased intercommunion between us. I am curious to see how issues like the filioque would be resolved, if they can be though
Traditional Anglican here…the Filioque is [bracketed] within the Nicene Creed in the 2019 ACNA BCP. I think that’s a good start. Personally when reciting that part of the Creed I say “THROUGH the Son” rather than “AND the Son”.
@@doubtingthomas9117 There is an acceptable way to believe this from an Orthodox POV. If you're curious to an Orthodox view on this, Craig Truglia of Orthodox Christian Theology talks about our view of Western Fathers.
@doubtingthomas9117 Just a practical question here, not sure if posing it in a comment is the best way, but nonetheless... what's the big practical issue with the filoque anyway? Is anyone's salvation in jeopardy by accepting or rejecting it? And how the heck can you debate what happened on a time sequence (before/after) for something that happened before time even existed!?!? Seems all a tool of pride from Satan to distract us all from #1 loving God and #2 loving our neighbor as Jesus so clearly said. Any response or random thought on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks!
@@coloradopaul4798 Hey, I completely understand the question. And I am not the one to answer it, but I think I may put you looking in the right direction, the Filioque affects the way the Trinity relates to itself, and hence the way we relate to God. There’s more to be said to this, but I suggest watching Constantine Zalalas’ lecture on the Filioque from Orthodox Ethos. It breaks down why it mattered ultimately in a practical sense. Hope this helps! ☦️
Fr. Moses is a very divisive figure on Twitter, and although I respect him because he is a priest, he is wrong on a lot. Priests such as Fr. Spyridon Bailey or Fr. Josiah Trenham are much better to get info from.
I’ve heard both of them say the exact same thing.
I’m Orthodox and I see your point.
I'm not opposed to Western Rite Orthodoxy. But it has to actually be Orthodox. The Anglo-Catholic culture is worth preserving. What's not worth preserving is wallowing in the Augustinian ditch. I'm opposed to Latin theology.
wht do yopu mean by that? - too often, 'orthodoxy is defined by anti-Western bigotry bias
genuinely this Orthodox opposition to Augustine is completely self defeating, Augustine was one of the great theological teachers of the early period, if you think he was wrong on theology then you cannot justify the Orthodox opposition of doctrinal development. im saying this as an EO
Latin theology as a whole? Or just post-schism innovations? I wouldn't be so quick to reject the ideas of Augustine, Ambrose, Pope Gregory, Irenaeus, etc.
your point is taken, but the western church would need to renounce herrsies like purgatory, infallibility of the pope, etc.
I understand the Orthodox having objections to things like Papal supremacy (from which infallibility springs because the Pope himself isn't infallible but he exercises the Church's infallibility) or the Filioque. But, purgatory? That is a true mountain out of a molehill issue.
@@achilles4242There is no small issue in faith.
@@Hope_Boat Whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died prior to her Dormition/Assumption is a small issue of faith and relatively immaterial to the truth of it. Catholic are free to believe either. The Orthodox believe she died prior to the Assumption.
Whether there was a time when the Son was not is not a small issue of faith.
You're not going to suggest the former is of the same kind as the latter, are you?
@@achilles4242 There are plenty of 'minor issues' that aren't minor. Take the casual declaration of Francis concerning all religions being paths to God. That's a no go. "But he didn't spoke ex cathedra" I hear. That's not enough. There are wolves in sheep cloatings by the plenty in the West.
@@Hope_Boat Stop deflecting from my question. Obviously there are small issues of faith. You just want to be a holier than thou warrior. Congratulations, online Mark Eugenicos Orthobro, you have made your point.
Greek orthodox here. I totally agree with the idea that orthodoxy has nothing to do with geography. There is no such thing as Eastern orthodox. There is an orthodox church in the East. But there was an orthodox church in the West for the first millennium as well. And there were plenty of western orthodox rites. Not just the Latin mass, but also the Celtic, the Gallican etc. I hope and pray that a truly orthodox western Church will reflourish rich of her own rites with her own liturgical languages.
Orthodoxy is a matter of faith. Not of ethnicity.
Now why do we, Greeks, Russians etc are so sceptical about the Latin rite? Because in our imagination it is linked with the eradication of all others rites. The dispute between Leo IX and Michel of Constantinople started about the rite in Sicily. Leo IX invaded Sicily in 1053 with his army (yeah I know Pontiffs...) and started to push the local bishops to drop the Byzantine rite in favour of the Latin mass. The bishop referred to Constantinople and Patriarch Michael told them to ignore Leo IX who was infuriatied.
Latinisation of the West (even Rome did the liturgy in Greek in the beginning) was weaponized to reduce the influence of the Byzantine Church. There are stigmata of that history we have to heal.
But most importantly we have to focus on the orthodoxy of the faith.
As saint Gregory the Great wrote _Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist._
This is the key to the disasters that came onto the Church with the great Schism.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
IC XC
NI KA
What was lost other than a schismatic church in Rome that produced more schisms and endless heresy?
The Catholic Church is almost 3 times bigger than the Orthodox who are divided between Eastern, Oriental, and within Eastern there is currently a schism.
How did this happen?
Moreover Protestants do not have one single church that can compare to your churches in size, but collectively they are 2 times bigger than you. How did this happen?
You have to be honest with yourselves and see that you lost something.
@@VirginMostPowerfull Islam is bigger than Catholicism, should we all become Muslims now? The Nestorian Church of the East was 10 times bigger than the united Orthodox and Catholic Church, at their peak, so should everyone have become Nestorian back in the day? Arians were the big majority, should we all have become Arians? So clearly numbers means absolutely nothing. Lol, it's funny that you bought up protestants in the first place, since they BROKE OFF FROM ROME'S HERESIES, you call out Orthodox disunity, but the 800 million Protestants are a result of the disunity in the Catholic Church. Uniates, Sedevacantists, Old Catholics, Protestants, SSPX, etc... it's neverending disunity
Oriental "Orthodox" hasn't been in communion with either of our churches since the 5th century and they only started calling themselves "Oriental Orthodox" in 1965, they've got nothing to do with the actual Orthodox Church. The current Moscow-Constantinople is completely political (not theological), regarding the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Both Moscow and Constantinople are both still considered part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, their break of communion is only between the clergy, not the lay people. Patriarchs being in communion with some but out of communion with others has been since the beginning of Church history (Photian Schism, Meletian Schism, etc).
Incredibly enough, every single Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction/Church believes in the exact same unchanged early Church theology, the same could not be said about Catholicism. Chaldean Catholics venerate Nestorius, Oriental Catholics have different Christology and they venerate Dioscorus and Severus, Byzantine Catholics venerate Orthodox saints that called the papacy and Catholicism heretical, such as Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, Photios, Alexis Toth (who converted 20000 Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy), and Justin Popovic.
@@VirginMostPowerfull if size = truth, then the arians were correct during their time.
Fr. Moses is not our pope. Being Orthodox is not about repudiating the good in Western culture. I pray that he will repent of his idle words. That being said, there are some important theological issues which Anglicans would need to be open to correction on. If those issues are addressed, it would warm my heart to see entire Anglican churches join communion with Holy Orthodoxy.
Modernity, secularism, and the enlightenment all came directly from Catholic and Protestant theology. That is their fruit. Further, the Church doesn’t change to accommodate the desire to preserve a particular culture. What about the West is worth preserving over communion with the Truth?
this is false Orthodoxy absaloute has adapted to the cultures of its poeples, hense the different national denominations and churches, the errors of the west come from their false ecclesiology and their view of divine simlicity, if these are corrected is there any reason why we cannot conduct liturgies in western languages with western sytles of garments in western sytle churches etc?
@@buffcommie942 The Orthodox Church redeemed those cultures. Fulfilled them. She did not change to suit them. And if you don’t want to come to the Truth because you want the Truth to look a certain way, then you’re not looking for the Truth. You’re looking for something else. Liturgies, vestments, etc. all came about organically. There isn’t anything organic about taking the practices of heretical and schismatic groups, then simply slapping an Orthodox veneer on it. Christianity is not a series of beliefs. It is a way of life. The Way of Life. Whether or not the Book of Common Prayer contains “orthodox” theology is irrelevant. That completely misses the point. One is not saved by what one believes.
Now listen. You want to talk about fruit? Let me tell you about Eastern Orthodox fruit. I am an Eastern Orthodox from Sweden. I am a native of this land and a convert. We have many EO churches here, Greek, Serbian, Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Finnish. Most of these parishes have been here for a generation. Most do not use the local language but their own ethnic tongue, hereby effectively excluding native born people from joining. Most parishes basically serve only their own ethnic group. Some parishes use the Gregorian calender while some use the Julian. This means there is no unity concerning feasts, fasts or daily readings. There is not one bishop but many, all claiming jurisdiction over the same territory. My own bishop is Bulgarian but sits in New York, US. 100 meters away sits the Greek Metropolitan of the Ec Patr of Constantinople. Essentially, for me to join a service I have to drive 350 km/ 4 hours to services I mostly cannot understand. Swedish is used only once a month and my parish is the oldest non-Lutheran church in the country, it dates back some 400 years. So you EO zealots out there with your finely tuned theological skills and your meticulously copied arguments to rule them all, I say many of you have blinders on to the world. Eastern Orthodoxy is regional, national and ethnic. That's a definite fruit and me and my 12 year old Orthodox daughter couldn't care less about your high-minded sophistry and the constant repetition of tired standard Eastern Orthodox textbook answers. I see a clear disconnect with reality. Basically, I wish my Orthodox brethren would keep their traps shut a little more often than what is the case today. Good video, don't let my Eastern Orthodox brethren discourage you. I wish to apologize on their behalf for their sometimes lack of courteous magnanimity. May we all be united to the universal mother church in Rome.
@@locksmith9498 honestly i would rather have a church which has regional, national and ethnic influences than one which fundamentally has departed from the church established by Christ. alot of these problems come from the fact that Orthodoxy is new in the west.
@@buffcommie942 You finally said it without realizing it. Do you know why Orthodoxy is new in the West? You admit Orthodoxy is new to the West because it was originally not there in the first place? Is that what you are saying? Thus you admit it is not the original faith but a later variant originating and developing from after the great schism. What happened to the Catholic church so many church fathers write about? So if it is relatively new here, as you yourself admit, how can it be the church established by Christ? The early church fathers talk about churches throughout the west, in Europe, that they all share the same faith. By your logic Eastern Orthodoxy as it is manifested today is not the original faith? Is it new or not? You just said it is relatively new to the West did you not? Secondly, my parish is 400 years old and is still mostly catering to immigrants and for that reason still not using the language of the land. 400 years! That is not new!!! Is 400 years not enough to transition to a universal parish for all. Ethnic influences my foot. You obviously type without using logic. I'll tell you the deal: Eastern Orthodoxy is the schismatic remnant of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, a loose union of churches who separated themselves from the mother church 1000 years ago. They are not the original church entity since they have remained regional, national and ethnic. The church fathers talk about a universal church in many lands. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't fulfill the practical historical adherence to universality. It is disproven because it is regional, national and ethnic, and thanks for your input, also new to the west as you said. I'll choose the universal church anyday myself, I am neither Greek nor Jew (or Georgian or Finnish or Russian or Romanian)
You are mistaken. Actually, ROCOR has a Western Rite vicariate. The Antiochian Jurisdiction has a robust Western Rite, also with its own vicariate. The OCA is skittish. Both the OCA and ROCOR have roots in the Moscow Patriarchate. It was St. John Maximovitch, the Wonderworker(whose body lies in state in San Francisco) who said, "Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must be Eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies." France has a strong Western Rite, and it was Russia who seriously attempted to give its blessing to a Western Rite were it not for the failure of Fr. Overbeck who deposed himself from the priesthood when he married after ordination.
Know, too, that one of the reasons given for not being gung-ho about a Western Rite is not a matter of taste, but rather a respect for the origins of the particular jurisdictions. We Orthodox claim that Rome overstepped its boundaries, attempting to divide the Orthodox world, by advocating Eastern or Byzantine Rites(Maronites excepted).
Truly, brother, I don't know why you are singing this song, when Orthodox Western Rite Churches are already functioning in US, Canada, France, UK. What more do you want? Well, I will tell you. You must retreat from the Anglican Communion and its women ministers, etc., take a stand for unity. Stop whining. Grow up and get yourself chrismated into the Orthodox Church-that's how unity happens. PS-ChecK out St. Patrick's in Virginia.www.stpatrickorthodox.org/. We could use a man like you!
Rather than criticize the Church from the outside waiting for it to be better before joining…perhaps join in humility and be part of the solution from within.
Very good video. And you have only scratched a surface that lies beneath Eastern Orthodox stance. I am conversing with orthodox frequently. The amount of pride is staggering. Greeks will tell you that Western culture is rooted in their antique society, the original of Scripture is written in Greek. Basically they are saying that we are what we are thanks to the Greeks. Russians and Serbs are special story due to the nationalistic melee. Personally, I don't consider the leadership of those churches (russ and serb) Christian churches, they are in essence a governmental outposts that serve national and political oligarchy interests. They are not interested in Christendom as a whole, they want to keep it that way. Only a foreign invasion might change that like islamic incursions in middle ages.
This is a tuff one. I don't disagree with anything you said but looking at it from the East's point of view the West has fallen and they alone have persevered the truth. While I see no issues with the current Western rite and what goes on in traditional Anglo catholic churches, I do wonder where that eventually could lead. Rome has just approved the Mayan rite for the exact reasons you cite. One look at that rite and you quickly see for the sake of converts heresy has shown its ugly head.
This is a comment for which I have a lot of sympathy. I fully agree, and it is probably the only hesitation I had making this video.
I'm a former Protestant who was baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church a few years ago. I'm curious to hear what these perceived mistakes are.
Would you hear the mistakes though? Aren't you convinced that you are now in the exclusive only true church? I can tell you a few mistakes, some are obvious like praying to saints. Icons which are like idols. They risk calling men "father" even who are not their dad. Relics are another mistake.. I'm sure there are more but people won't hear it. I'm sure you already disagree with what I pointed out, and you have the talking points and retorts preloaded ready to recite?
@@br.mBy what authority do you condemn the life of the Church for 2000 years?
@@br.m OP told us they are Orthodox and are curious, that’s all. You are making a tremendous amount of assumptions and accusing them of having talking points before they’ve even said anything. You appear to be the one who has been activated in attack mode and entered a mini diatribe. How silly and ignorant.
@@br.m all you just did was assert the most “preloaded”, hot button protestant positions against Orthodoxy without any real argument.
@@br.m
If calling someone father who isn't your biological father is wrong your condemning Timothy and Titus because Paul calls them his children... 1 Timothy 1:2 Titus 1:4
Also, the verse you're referring to in reference to calling no man father is as follows...
"Matthew 23:8-12 ESV
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. [10] Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. [11] The greatest among you shall be your servant. [12] Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
Now in light of just this section, and not even the entire chapter which brings context to this portion, like who Jesus was speaking to, why he said these things, what he means, do you have eyes to see? Ears to hear?
Jesus says call no man teacher, or instructor... Have you never done this? Let's try to properly exegete the text instead of adding our emotions to it.
With that being said, if we are to discover how wrong the assumption "calling no man father means the Catholic Church is against the Bible"; how many more presuppositions could you honestly admit you have that are just as egregious?
Have you seen the recent Roots of Orthodoxy video with a Western Rite priest?
Yes. Very good.
I can appreciate Orthodoxy, but if I were to move from my Anglo--Catholic position, it would be to Rome - not the east -- mostly due to their arrogance and attitude (as a whole) - not being critical to anyone in particular ....
as far as im aware, every Orthodox Saint who has spoken on the Western rite has been in favor of it. to me thats enough to say Orthodoxy is in favor of the Western rite, no matter what some chauvanists may say
It’s actually a lot more complicated than that.
There's more too it than that. And it's not that black and white.
As an Orthodox i agree with some things especially nationalism. I hate this also.. Saints were never really nationialists. They of course loved their country but they didnt hate others.
Also i say that Orthodoxy is true church but i dont agree with every priest. We people are sinful, we make mistakes. Please dont mix Orthodox people with Orthodoxy.
Also we mostly have liturgy of st. John Chrystosom which is Eastern. The earliest liturgy was actually the Last Supper. Then its said to be st. Jacob Greek liturgy. I was RCC and i have to say that Orthodox Liturgy touched me far more deeply than RC.
Where does this idea of needing to be connected to a historic See come from?
John 17 “that they may be one as I and the Father are one”
@@mosesking2923 And? that does not mention any See.
@@DrGero15 it's an invention of the post schism Frankish Papacy. Many examples before the schism of Patriarchs being in communion with some, and out of communion with others (meletian schism, Photian Schism, etc)
I would like to add that I think we in America can have an exoticism regarding the East. While it is true that the West is the primary promoter and machine behind secularism, the East is no stranger to it either. Orthodox nations like Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Israel, and many more are heavily influenced by the enlightenment and the post-enlightenment world. Whether that is directly the fault of the west or not may be up for debate. I certainly believe it is the West's fault primarily, however, we can't act like in the East is completely immune to the Western problems. Even Orthodox clergy will tell you that the biggest problem among members of their churches is that the conregation barely believes the things that they're taught, if at all.
I understand the points you are attempting to make. As an orthodox Anglican, likely more high church traditional Anglo-catholic have you explored the possibility of joining the Anglican Ordinariate in the Catholic Church? It is definitely growing and gaining more popularity. They have a beautiful liturgy based on the Common Book of Prayer. It does seem that the western right in Orthodoxy is not exactly liked or appreciated by sizable numbers of Eastern Orthodox. Also keep in mind that the Catholic Church has 23 Eastern churches, such as the Maronites, Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church, etc.
When Western Christianity went into Africa, the Americas and Asia, they didn't change, they expected the local population to change. Many other ethnic groups and cultures have had to step out of their comfort zone to become Catholic or Anglican. So to say that many Western Christians would become Eastern Orthodox if only there was more Western Orthodoxy is a weak argument. You wouldn't be the first group of people to give up their culture for Christ.
Plus, if the Eastern Orthodox do not like the idea of Eastern Catholic "uniate" churches, then why would they like Western Orthodoxy? It seems The way to have a Western Orthodoxy is for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to re-establish communion and unite.
I agree with Father Moses 100% on this topic. Former Roman Catholic here that wants nothing to do with Western Christianity. If you have a Pope, you are not Orthodox. If you no not recite the Nicene Creek, your not Orthodox. In other words, you are in a transvestite religion. Pretending to be something your not.
Very well put! There's just so many wannabe "Orthodox" out there muddying the waters; including the host of this podcast unfortunately. The bottom line question is this: why can't/won't you just become Orthodox? If to become Orthodox is so bad, then why all these comments about Her?
So if people would convert to orthodoxy in a heartbeat if there was a more widely available western liturgy, aren’t they just complaining over a stylistic and aesthetic difference too? Lol seems a little weird. It sounds a lot like worshiping the form and style of worship…
I agree. It's honestly a Very VERY strange argument 😅
Jonah, the EO doctrine is not the same as Anglican doctrine. I am bewildered as to why you don’t see this. Your only beef with the EO is that they not are accepting of Anglicans. They believe we are in heresy and that they are the true and only church. The Anglican formularies are at odds with EO doctrine. There will not be be unity because of that and not because culture or ethnicity.
We nearly achieved communion with them in the midst of the Oxford Movement. I see nothing in the Anglo-Catholic movement that is fundamentally at odds with EO beyond the Western and Eastern divide. I know that they view us as in error, but I believe that the heart of Christ does not mandate that be mutual.
@@merecatholicity Unfortunately this is NOT true. It's only because you want it to be true.
"In Christ there is no East or West"
Only left or right?
@@br.mthis sarcastic comment is not adequate
@@planteruines5619 Please show me in scripture proof to back up your statement. Thanks.
@@br.m do you think God revealed to us books to be under a law ? do you not see what beautiful concept was he trying to commmunicate , only to be stopped by your words that seems in all likelyhood to be mocking this truth ?
@@planteruines5619 Friend, now I am convinced you are confused.
You seem to struggle with the English language. I don't think you and I will be able to communicate.
The comment I left was legitimate. You must have misunderstood and then you launched in to what appear to be personal attacks against me, yet you do not know me.
Thank you for not replying to me anymore. Peace.
Excellent points.
Well said
Can you show your way to theosis?
Wonderful!
It's been my experience that western rite orthodoxy quickly becomes Eastern over time. I've argued that catholic anglicanism should be regarded as true western orthodoxy.
Yes, I agree.
Bridge too far .
And what has to be done with dogmatic differences between orthodoxy and catholicism, like Filioque (the biggest one, but not the only one)?
If "the churches* (I used quottas because Lord Jesus created only one church, not many churches, because He is the Head of only one Body, not of many bodies) reunite, we will not even comune with the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ but with only the Body, not also the Blood, because some catholic scholars decided to change even the Eucharist; to my knowledge, is the only church which does this (give to lay people an incomplete form of eucharist); what is this other than hiperclericalism?
Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered blessed, not saint, in the orthodox church (albeit term blessed is absolutely foreign to orthodoxy, it does't refer to a category of people as is the case in the catholic church). Only other blessed that I heard of in the orthodox church is Saint Jerome; both of them are celebrated as "blessed" on June, 15
Aren't the secularism and the modernism the product, the end result of western culture, together with all their consequences?
I want to be very clear: this does not mean that the orthodox church(es) has no problem, it has a lot:
- the relation with the state, which makes it prone to be subordinate to the state and used as an unofficial departament of the guvernement (which happens in all traditional orthodox countries, making it a state-church)
- nationalism (ethnophiletism) which plagues all traditional orthodox churches, allthough it was declared heressy by an panorthodox council in 18 or 19 century
- a flawed ecclesiology which derives from the above problems and which can be seen in every major western country (paralel orthodox jurisdictions in the same place at the same time, driven by nationalistic (ethnophiletistic) reasons)
At least from the online comments, I get the impression that some - maybe many - Eastern Orthodox folks define themselves primarily as Eastern (or, more to the point, “not Western”) rather than as orthodox. That is, it is the cultural or spiritual traditions that are not shared by western churches that define their whole communion. I think you are correct that a western-affirming Orthodoxy, that embraces the Western liturgy and the Eastern rites, that is in communion with traditionalist Anglicans and others, would be a very compelling alternative to Rome for many who are looking for a solid place to stand. It is certainly true that many of us would love to be in communion with Constantinople as “first among equals”, if the opportunity were opened to us.
It's a latin copycat of Orthodoxy. Wheather you like it or not, it's an empty shell made of papacy.
Part of me thinks it is silly that these EO churches are making an effort to *revive* the Western Rite within their communion, rather than enter back into communion with the churches that have been organically practicing and developing the Western Rite all along. Sort of like, if a marriage ended in a divorce, then the husband thought “you know, we were really great together - I’m going to recreate my wife in someone else … except minus all the things I think were wrong with them. I’m incomplete without that original relationship, but I want it back on my terms, as I envision they should be.” Not the best analogy. The “Ecclesial Realist,” or “Branch Theory” of the Church is making more and more sense to me. It’s just unfortunate that 2/3 of the “branches” involved outright reject such an idea and instead insist they are the tree in its entirety.
“Ecclesial Realist”…I like that 👍🏻
We cannot enter back into communion with heresy. Simple as that.
Orthodoxy is here for any who are seeking authentic Catholic doctrine. No apologies needed! Western seekers are also free to overcome some of their own biases. Although Orthodoxy may use some works from western fathers like Augustine, that doesn't mean that they approve of all of his teachings (original sin) or consider him a saint. Ascetical writings from Origen were also used in the Orthodox Church, but his doctrines repudiated.
Lot of emotional pleading and begging the question. It's a little deeper than "stylistic difference." And you talk about the culture you love, like it's self evident that your culture is good. That would need justification. Orthodoxy never lost anything in schism. You can assert that it did all day. Doesn't prove it. But if orthodoxy lost something at schism, then what church possessed the fullness of the truth at that time? If no church possesses the truth, then there is no true church and I would argue that would falsify Christianity.
Christianity is false just like the religion it came from and all religions before that. All human.
You obviously don't have a high view of Scripture.
@@bobtaylor170 a high view of the Church ≠ a low view of Scripture. Quite the opposite in fact.
@@gilbertsaller913 it should be, alas, for Eastern Orthodoxy, it isn't.
Sorry but no church possesses the truth. Jesus is the truth and he possesses me. I belong to him not some cult. Orthodox needs a big O because it is just a title, a name, not a description. Because I am an orthodox Christian and my church is orthodox, but not Orthodox. Just like my church is catholic but not Catholic.
You are right about the schism it was just a business decision that the leaders of each side agreed on. People were grumbling and discontent, so rather than let them escape.. They were offered a new alternative. The thing is, it was just more of the same heresies with a different paint job.
this is a horrific strawman of why people are critical of western rite.
I disagree with the notion that the Anglican BCP is an example of Western liturgy at its most beautiful. The mistake that Cranmer made was bringing Byzantine prayers and practices into the Western liturgy e.g. prayer of humble access, opening benediction, etc. The West should remain wester and the East should remain eastern. The true authentic English liturgy is the Sarum rite, not the BCP.
🙏
If Christianity unites as one, it won't come from Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It would come despite Catholicism and Orthodoxy being in the way.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only forms of Christianity that have produced Christian unity in any significant way. This sounds like some protestant platitude that has no bearing on reality.
@@nathankirwan2565 My kingdom is not of this world. Do not think that I have come to bring peace.
You think that a man made church must be true since Christ? Why? Because "the gates of hell will not withstand it"?
Tell me, will a gate come off its hinges and attack your church? Don't you think Jesus was saying that, right before he went and broke in to hell?
Jesus is the only way. Not Rome, not Catholicism not Orthodoxy, none of these puffed up boastful man made institutions. Even the church I belong to, it is not the way, it is not the only true church, it won't save me. It makes no claim to be the only exclusive way. But my pastors are qualified and know how to rightly handle and rightly divide the word. Good luck.
The Catholic church didn't agree with the council's. You divided yourself from the historic first church.
I like Orthodoxy because it's eastern European feel. Try changing back to Orthodoxy and then there will be unity. I wasn't raised Orthodox but, my ancestors were, so I'm researching it.
wait wait wait, you want to be orthodox because you have a sense of familiarity in it ?
@@planteruines5619 I wasn't raised Orthodox so I'm not familiar. But some of my ancestors likely were, because I have Serbian and Romanian ancestors. I'm researching it based on church history mostly to see if it's the better option. An Anabaptist Protestant faith was evangelized to Yugoslavians when Germans lived there. Some families converted. Mine was one of them. I feel sort of robbed by not experiencing Orthodoxy because of that.
@@nickandrei51 so , if i understand correctly , you want to experience the orthodox rite of the liturgy and some of it's doctrine ?
@@planteruines5619 Yes, and the whole belief that the Orthodox church descend from the early church. Are you Protestant or Orthodox?
@@nickandrei51 i am catholic