When Catholic and Orthodox theologians met at the Vatican some years back, the Catholics explained Transubstantiation and asked the Orthodox to explain their understanding. They simply replied that they know it happens and they have no need to know how it happens
Indicative of how the Catholics as a result of Scholasticism and Thomism try to use their fallible human reason to understand everything about the universe... unfortunately sometimes resulting in error.
If you ever have the chance to visit one of the Eastern Catholic parishes, you are welcome to attend (and yes it does fulfil your Sunday Obligation in that case).
@@cactoidjim1477 yes, I attend a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic parish. Have been attending for over a year for and in discerning making a canonical transfer.
Well Howdy, brother! My family just made it official after 10 years (last year)@@Compulsive-Elk7103 Edit: Don't rush - unless you're running into problems with Sacraments for the kids or are discerning a vocation or have some other Serious Issue. Most eparchies require 5+ years attendance before considering an application to the Seminary, regardless of when the Rite change is made official. And be sure to have all of your paperwork from the Roman diocese ready.
@@Stupidityindex Your comment is disrespectful and rude. With attitudes like this saturating the internet, it's no wonder why people are leaving the Church in droves. I encourage you to spend time praying over Mk 12:28-31.
I appreciate the simplicity and room for mystery with which the faith was presented from the beginning, but like Jdotoz, I agree that there is room for the Church to reflect on the mysteries of the faith and settle on understandings of them more precisely. Surely there are plenty of examples in the early ecumenical counsels that all Christians would agree on regarding the Trinity and the nature(s) of Christ in the Incarnation.
Many followers in John 6 left Jesus because of this teaching. They believed it was hard to accept. Christ didn’t over explain anything. He said what He said and meant what He said☦️💖
@@Orthodoxyandzataar Oddly enough, he also had communicated explanatory context (bread of life - living water) in other contexts. Those who were truly following would have some of that context. Those who were not truly following would not. Thus those who were not truly following would walk away.
I think the most basic difference in Eucharistic theology is the question of what consecrates the bread and wine, making it the body and blood of Christ. For (Roman) Catholics, it is the words of institution ("this is my body, this is my blood") which consecrates, while in Orthodox Churches, it is the invocation of the Holy Spirit which follows both the words of institution and the prayer of sacrifice which consecrates the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. These differences also express a different understanding of Eucharistic sacrifice. Feel free to contact me for more information.
We do not have a specific point in which we say the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. We just know that it happens by a certain point. I believe in the Catholic Mass they say that it happens at a certain point. We don’t have the same notion. They are the Mysteries.
@@devynrowe7492 Everything that I have read about Orthodox teaching on the subject is that the transformation occurs when the Holy Spirit is invoked and is asked to effect this transformation. "Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here spread forth and make this bread the most precious body of your Christ and that which is in this chalice, the most precious blood of your Christ, transforming them by your Holy Spirit."
@@jimbobjones5972 it’s more of we expect that it would happen by that time. Not that those specific words make it happen. It’s a slight difference, but important.
@@Stupidityindex I suppose one could ask anybody why their faith is respectable, but it can come across as judgemental - as if it presumes that the person you are asking has a faith that is not respectable. What do you mean by referencing Paul's words to the Galatians and asking Fazex why he thinks his faith is respectable?
I'm really loving this series of videos. However, I'm still not convinced that there is a significant difference between the two Churches. To me it seems mostly cultural, with a bit of stubbornness on both the Catholic AND Orthodox sides.
This is the most informed Christian I have seen online! He runs circles around almost every academic, pastor, or priest! 😂😂🙏✝👍... May God bless him! ... 1 Timothy 4:12 "Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers and example in speech, in conduct, in love, and faith, and purity"!
Excellent video. I would add a couple minor points of clarification on the subject of confession. The Orthodox do not have a single universal formula for absolution. In the Greek tradition which you quoted, the priest tends to avoid any claim of the absolution coming from them. However, in the Slavic tradition the priest often does. The Russian formula concludes with "May our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, by the grace and compassion of His love for mankind, forgive you, my child, [name], all your transgressions. And I His unworthy Priest, through the power given me, forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." Another difference is that confession in the Orthodox church is not anonymous. There is no confessional box with a screen. Confession is typically made in the church temple either to the side or in front of the icon of Christ the Savior. In both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the confidentiality of confession is considered inviolable, and a priest may never reveal what he hears from a penitent, even if under a legal order.
As always, impeccable in intent & execution. He is a master at allowing groups to speak for themselves, and researching deeply enough to communicate nuances. HRs skilled in the art of summary. I was a Stone-Campbell Restorationist before becoming Eastern Orthodox, and have no quibbles whatsoever in how he has presented either tradition.
With regard to reserved sins, the local bishop or bishop’s conference has the authority to allow absolution for those sins by a priest; such is the case in the United States. As always, very detailed.
Can you do a video on “The Local Churches?” Also called “Living Stream Ministry”. They have their own version of the Bible called the “Recovery Version”
Padre' Pio! I actually carry a third class relic (which was touched to a first class relic of his) in my inner coat pocket. (A third class relic is one that was touched to either a first class relic--literally a body part of the saint--or a second class relic--a possession owned by the saint.)
The Orthodox do believe in the apparitions of the Theotokos. The Theotokos has appeared countless times to the Saints throughout history. It is just that we are sceptical, to say the least, of a lot of the Marian apparitions claimed as legitimate by our Roman Catholic brothers e.g. the ones at Medjugorje, because in those apparitions, Mary supposedly speaks and acts in a way that is very foreign to Christian tradition.
Medjugorje has some weird things even in relation to catholicism, there was even a fake marian apparition who was reppeled by St. Dominic with the consecrated host, St. Dominic was also present in a true apparition of St. Mary who gave to him the rosary
That is why Fatima, La Salaette, Akita and Guadalupe should be studied. Apparations are not needed to be Catholic but as a Christian into the Mother of God you should not dismiss them out of hand, you would do yourself a great dis-favor.
I was very interested in Celtic Christianity, being a Brit but my research showed that it did come from Rome (with the Roman occupation of Britain). Then, when the Romans left in the 5th Century, Britain was isolated and this was where the Celtic Christians were more prominent, often forgetting their Roman origins. When Pope Gregory 1st sent Augustine to Britain in the 6th Century, there was some resistance but ultimately they returned under Papal authority, which by that time was much more established than it had been during Roman times. I had hoped that it had developed in and of itself (with perhaps some help from the desert Fathers in North Africa) but no, The Roman Catholic Church was there at it's inception.
@@clivejames5058 Were Celtic Christians like early Christians? but in the british isles? Also I want neo Celtic Christianity in the United States 🇺🇲 that would be cool!
Churching is the practice of offering your baby back to God the way Mary and Jesus were presented to the temple. It’s is what’s done after the 40 days. Not the 40 days themselves. Also the 40 days is optional not forced. I want that to be clear.
Regarding St Mary the Virgin there is a significant difference theologically between "God bearer" (Orthodox) & "Mother of God" Catholic. These terms in English are different and are also theologically different. That some misunderstanding has arisen is unfortunate.
Practically speaking, adoration makes more sense with unleavened hosts. The practice of chrismating Catholics later in life is probably due to the fact that it would take a while for the bishop to get around to doing it.
In the (Roman) Catholic Church, leavened or unleavened bread follow rite. Thus, the Latin rite uses unleavened bread while other rites use leavened bread. Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians using a western rite also use leavened bread.
A joke regarding the Latin Rite, is that it takes more faith to believe that the host or wafer is actually bread than it does to believe that it becomes the body of Christ.
I think your point on apparitions of the Mother of God could have been a little more detailed - Orthodox certainly have plenty of them and they are quite popular in lay devotion (North America's not a place to learn about normal Orthodox practice or belief, honestly), but in my experience and reading Orthodoxy's issues with Roman Catholicism's apparitions is that they're so sectarian - many Orthodox venerate the more generic ones like Guadalupe (and even more sectarian ones like Lourdes), but in many of the Roman Catholic apparitions uniquely Roman Catholic beliefs, doctrines, and obsessions (like the conversion of a Russia that was already Orthodox and Christian) are either mentioned or even a focus of the apparition. THAT would be the issue - the Mother of God appearing to assure a Christian of her love and protection (as in Guadalupe) would not be objectionable.
All of these 'differences' only reinforce the idea for me that the Catholic and Orthodox Church are actually closer and more similar than otherwise. Just a few councils away from becoming once again united and not divided as Our Lord surely desires of all Christians. One faith, one church.
CAN U do the John Carroll "Trail of Bloodl/ V. Raymond Edman Light in Dark Ages stuff? For WiickedPedia it is Proto-Protestantism. E.g., some of these (some may be heretical, others just simple non-Papist Christians: the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, Waldenses, Petrobrusians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Hussites , Lollards, Anabaptists; denominations or types of real Christians throughout middle ages?
11:28 if a Catholic goes to confession with an Orthodox priest even when they have easy access to a Catholic priest, would that action then be another sin they have to confess?
It mostly has to do with the Western notion of inherited guilt. Babies would inherit the guilt of Adam's sin and not just the consequences(corruption/death). Therefore, you see unbaptized babies talked about going to hell or limbo in the West.
@@erichhershey2308 We generally don't believe in inherited guilt. Even the Council of Trent refers to original sin as Reatum(the consequences of a crime), rather than Culpa(guilt). To Aquinas original sin is a disordered disposition of human nature, a corruption he compares to sickness. He only ever called it guilt analogically, insofar we aren't born with the original justice our foreparents lost
@andrewthomastaylor There is no dogmatic statement that EO must hold to in regards to what happens to an infant/child who dies prior to baptism. I have never heard from any EO authority who would not tell you that they trust in Christ's love and mercy. They have nothing like a limbo for children that is found in the West. That being said, baptism is part of salvation/theosis/deification. That is the normative way. God can do whatever He wants though and can save outside of that ie. The thief of the cross. If one were to reject the command to be baptized, he is in rebellion against God, and God will judge him for that. However, if one intends to be baptized but dies prior (ie. a catechumen) he would receive a full Orthodox funeral.
How was Mary a PERPETUAL VIRGIN if Jesus had brothers? (Not trying to be disrespectful of anyone’s beliefs. A serious question that needs a serious answer.)
They should also check out the Alexandrian Document. I get the impression that the vast majority of Catholics are unaware of their official teachings re: Orthodoxy.
Vatican I was never abrogated. These documents only say that in the first millenium the exercise of Papal Primacy was extremely respectful of the local autonomy of the Eastern Churches, following the principle of subsidiarity as much as it was possible. This doesn't mean no Universal Jurisdiction exists at all
@@igorlopes7589 So was this part just Rome being "respectful": "the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East." So did Rome secretly exercise canonical authority over the churches in the East, but out of "respect" they made them all believe that they were in control😅? The exact level of authority that this document speaks of (a primacy of honour), is the exact same primacy the new first see, Constantinople, has in the Orthodox church. The Orthodox church is the only church in the world that has upheld the faith, traditions, dogmas, and apostolic canons. That's why nothing has changed in the Orthodox Church.
@@TsarOrthodoxBro_II The Pope having Universal Jurisdiction doesn't mean he is going to use it all the time, specially in places far away from Rome and that traditionally have a higher degree of autonomy
My considerations on the video 1:24 Lol, orthodox and refusing to define or distinguish things, name a more iconic duo. The seven sacraments have always been more special than the other blessings 1:44 Clarifying the catholic view here. For us it ultimately only matters that it be true bread, the rest is just local traditions and symbolism. This is why Rome never tried to impose azymus bread into the East (although some frankish missionaries to the slavs entered in conflict about this with the greeks). For us the absence of leaven symbolizes that Christ is sinless, for this is the symbolism of leaven in 1 Corinthians 5:6-7. For the Easterners leaven symbolizes that Christ has a soul, so they use leavened bread. 2:24 Can any orthodox explain to me the problem of saying the bread becomes the Body of Christ preserving the accidental properties of bread? 4:00 Nothing to comment besides the difficulty some orthodox have in admitting a diversity of customs isn't a problem. Heteropraxis is merely a practice that teaches heresy, but some orthodox seem to define it as anything alien to byzantine customs. Same for other things like one-kind communion, azymus or saturday fastings 5:40 I would like to just point the hipocrisy in crying about azymus because it is of the mosaic law and then praticing something of it. They do it to immitate the Theotokos and we do it to immitate the Last Supper. Regardless, it seems to be a nice custom that allows some rest for the mother in her recovery from birth 6:25 I would like to remember the historical reason of how the twin sacraments drifted appart in the West. The primitive custom of both East and West was for Bishops to do both baptism, chrismation and first communion at the same time. As the christian population increased the the Bishop wasn't able to baptize all babies being born, so the solution in the West was the priest baptizes and later the Bishop chrismates. In the East the solution was the priest gives both sacraments but the oil used for chrism is consecrated by the Bishop. Initially chrismation was given in the West to infants (Aquinas hismself defends this practice as fine) but later it was considered more *expedient* to chrismate after the age of reason, this was to better signify the spiritual maturity given by the sacrament 10:28 I think it is important to say how many times you commited a sin even if just by an approximation. After all commiting a sin a thousand times is more grave than commiting it a single time. 10:43 I defend the Western custom by saying that the Lord told the Apostles "the sins you forgive will be forgiven". There is a forgiveness on the part of the priest that serves as an instrument for Divine Forgiveness 11:39 For the record, those reserved sins are basically sins that result in excommunications. Thus the reason the priest can't forgive the sin is because the person is excomunicated and only with the consent of the Bishop (or Pope) may an excomunication be lifted.
@@andrewthomastaylor In the assumption the only difference is that they rule out Mary never dying while we allow both views. On immaculate conception its a more complicated debate that relies on the debate on original sin
@@andrewthomastaylor Aquinas defines original sin as an inordinate disposition of human nature, comparing it to a sickness. He only speaks of guilt analogically. Also, the Tridentine Council doesn't refer to original sin as guilt(culpa), but as reatum, which is the consequence of guilt. Our forefather lost original justice and corrupted his nature, and as a consequence of this we are conceived without original justice and with a corrupted nature. The consequences of Adam's guilt are suffered by all humanity, just like that if a nobleman commits treason against the King the King may remove his titles and riches from him, and by extension his children. There is no injustice done by the King in his punishment, even if it affects also the descendants of the treasonous nobleman. This is my summary on what I perceive to be the catholic view on original sin
I'm from Belgrade Serbia, and I never in my life saw full immersion baptism, not even of children and let alone adults. Those large baptismal pools are now mostly present in old monasteries
Very interesting to know the difference between the two Churches. Although some of them seem small when seen in isolation, it seems that their accumulation ends up leading to two traditions that are very different from each other. That said, although I really enjoy learning about the difference between denominations, videos like this only clarify even more why I could never be Catholic or Orthodox. I can't see much of what was said here and in your previous video having any kind of direct or indirect Biblical support. It is almost as if it were another religion when compared to historic protestantism.
@@andrewthomastaylor Strawman, they did not lol. Since the begging of the Church a wide variety of Canons being used by the Church Fathers for the Old Testament. We use the Palestinian Hebrew Canon, because: The Bible says that this would be a tradition that we would receive from the Jews, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and he conferred infallibility and authority on the OT referring to the Canon he used and not to another, it is the Canon which was more accepted by the Ancient Church, while the acceptance of other books has always varied. Additionally, our Canon is the same Hebrew canon affirmed by Josephus in the first century and by Athanasius in his last letters. Oh, and before I forget: no version of the Septuagint dating from the biblical period that has come down to us has the exact same books as the Catholic Canon (there are several versions of the Septuagint) and the RC just defined its Canon in an authoritative way for the entire Church in Trent, previously the only Councils that dealt with the topic were regional and non-binding for the entire Church. Post Tenebras Lux.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 I’m sorry but no Jewish writer has the exact same books of the Old Testament as the Protestants. Even Josephus doesn’t have the exact one. The “Palestinian Hebrew Canon” was defined until the 2nd century by Jewish believers, to distinguish themselves from Christian’s. Any scholar on the topic would tell you that. I have read the church fathers and I can tell you they absolutely don’t affirm a Protestant Canon. Athanesius for example reference various deutrocanonical books as being inspired so that is just not true. Not to mention all forms of historic Christianity hold to a longer canon. And all Jewish groups in the diaspora hold to a larger canon of scripture. Even most Jewish groups hold to other inspired works, Mishnah and Talmud, and some others as well. Protestants are in a unique category, most of their beliefs about the Bible if you are a “historic” Protestant come from the 1500s and from all of the Protestants I have reacted with most hold views about the canon that are far more recent. So no, Protestants don’t hold to the earliest “canons”
Quite small differences . The main tenets of christianity are however the same . Seems both denominations respect eachother and have dialogue . We all need to pray that christ enlightens us moving forward. My humble view is that jesus often reprimanded stringent rules of the pharisees and was more concerned about the state of your heart. I.e. when i was hungry you did not feed me etc.. etc. God have mercy on us all.
The claim from the Catholic Church and the Orthodox is that they are not denominations. They are the one true church established by Christ though a church in schism.
@@m4641 yes i would agree with that . However dialogue and recognition exist and if i am not mistaken catholic recognise most of the orthodox sacraments as being valid. May they both be enlightened.
you being non catholic and non-orthodox may fnd it minor, but as a Catholic I think the skepticism in marian apparitions in orthodoxy quite problematic(I myself tend to believe in marian apparitions in catholicism and orthodoxy) and the rejection of the philosophy in relation to sacraments unecessary, they may not use it, but would find it complementary to their faith(it doesn't oblidge them to accept filioque, the pope or any topic who caused the schism) I also find the position of the Russian Orthodox Church of rebaptizing Catholics as a pure malevolence and skepticism, honestly, even they in theory reject rebaptism, in practice, they do, If one day I became orthodox, I'd choose Greek Churches instead of Russian ones because of this position, I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and I profess every affirmation of my baptism, even tho I was baptized as a baby, in this regard I tend to favour patriarchates who undestand that, no offence to people who follow orthodoxy, I know you disagree with catholicism and I'm fine, but the thing to me that would be a close door would be the Russian Position, and I was becoming orthodox, I'd find a Greek Diocese unless I had no other choice(and before going to my Catholic parish, i considered seriously becoming orthodox, but if I'd go east, I'd become Eastern Catholic or go to TLM which I would do if my sleep schedule ar sunday wasn't punitive to me wakin up earlier)
It’s funny you mention Christ admonition of, “I was hungry and you did not feed me.” That was the epistle reading at every Orthodox Church this morning.
Do you know which Pope and where/when it was said? Joshua is correct that when the Pope taught about the assumption in it's most authoritative way, (i.e. dogmatically), it was carefully phrased in order not to state one way or the other about her death (in Munificentissimus Deus). But I wouldn't be surprised if you are right that some Pope or Popes have at times expressed support for the idea that she did die, just teaching it in a less authoritative and definitive manner.
@@igorlopes7589Thanks for the pointer. Kinda like I said, it wouldn't be surprising or a big problem if he or another Pope had expressed favor for the idea, but when they have taken the time to set out an authoritative, definitive teaching they were careful not to weigh in on the matter authoritatively.
@@JRPRussell "Not all mothers are birthgivers and not all birthgivers are mothers". No, in the strictest and literal sense, only one of these statements is true. Even the word 'mater' also recognises this by also being used to mean 'source' or 'origin'.
5:37 So they practice a literal mosaic commandment while crying that we shouldn't do it in the Eucharist in immitation of the Last Supper?? LMAO, the hipocrisy
I find this ridiculous Jesus in the gospels never taught about catholic or orthodox. Instead the kingdom of God. We should guide people to follow messiah not about traditions of men in the churches. All it matters is believers in these church gatherings are taught the message of the gospel not traditions over the word of God Jesus said go make them disciples and teach them to obey what I have instructed you. Not catholicism or orthodox. Shame on you that you don't promote gospel but traditions with do tribes of men.
Again, as with your first video, your mistake is in regarding Eastern Catholic churches as being something like a different denomination, as you talk about them the same way you might talk about one Protestant community and another. This is inaccurate. Rather, they are both local instances of the same One, Holy, Catholic and Aposotlic Church. The Roman church does not define the Catholic faith, and Eastern Catholic practices are just as Catholic as Roman ones. The only real difference is that Orthodox churches are in schism from this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, otherwise they have the same theology as Eastern rite Catholics. Both Western rite Catholics and Eastern rite Catholics are part of a single confession of faith. Really, when we speak of “differences” we are speaking of different styles or local customs, but the distinction isn't between East and West but in each of the 24 sui iuris churches from the other 23.
Sad. It’s like 2 skydivers arguing over who jumped out of the plane first. Meanwhile, both of them forgot a parachute. The Lord Jesus Christ cares nothing for your religion or man made traditions. Ye must be born again (John 3:3 KJV)! “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” - Hebrews 10:11-12 KJV “For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” - Romans 10:3 KJV “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” - Romans 3:23-26 KJV
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Provide historical evidence from the first few centuries that what you say is true. I don’t care what modern anti-Christian “scholars” say. We will wait for you to find it.
Respect to all Christians who follow Jesus Christ! We need to be united, because the world is against us! Muslims, liberals, gay ''pastors'' and many more. United in Christ, AMEN!
Muslims, liberals, gay "pastors" are not my enemies. The culture war is not my war, especially because the anti-Muslim, anti-liberal, anti-gay "pastor" side in the US wants my country conquered and subjugated by the communist KGB officer, putin of Russia. A man who desecrates our churches with the communist hammer and sickle. How can I be united with people who want me harmed, who close their eyes to what the putinists are doing to Ukraine and to what they're planning to do to my East?
Priests and deacons of the Roman Rite are authorized to wear a black zucchetto, though in practice this seems rare. Officially, the color for episcopal zucchetti is called "amaranth." As a Latin, I much prefer the Eastern administration of the Sacraments to infants. As a parent, I say get kids all the graces possible as early as possible, especially in this day and age. In practice, the need to number sins in confession is not strict. The penitent should give enough information to allow the priest to have a reasonable idea of what he is forgiving.
Both said claim to be the One True Church, it is not that the Church divided but that half of all local Churches entered in schism with the One True Church
When the Roman Catholics decided to make so many changes to church law and tradition, I don’t see how the orthodox church will ever go along with some huge differences, for example celibacy. Our orthodox priest are married with families and the Roman Catholic Church is celibate with children.
@@bryanthomas1495 You know that the Vatican never tried to impose celibacy unto the East, right? And that St Epiphanius of Salamis defended priestly celibacy, right? And that a the Synod of Elvira in the early IV century made celibacy mandatory in Spain, right? And that the western obligation to celibacy comes from this synod and not the 1100's, right?? Stop pretending any non-byzantine custom is a later inovation, priestly celibacy is a very ancient custom that should not be slandered like that!
I attended Catholic school for 17 years and I never once heard of reserved sins. Now that I have researched the topic, it makes complete sense to me. Thank you for the education!
Roman Rite Catholic and Western Rite Orthodox is a pretty simple comparison and can be laid out by describing what Western Rite Orthodoxy is. Western Rite Orthodoxy holds to the same theology and the rest of the Orthodox Church but follows Western practices like the Roman mass and other services as well as following the western liturgical calendar, though it celebrates Eastern on the same day as the rest of the Church.
@igorlopes7589 Not so, the most we have record of is the mass the Irish used beyond that there isn't enough information for there to be a Celtic Rite. I'm unsure if that mass is approved for Orthodox usage, but even if it is I'm unaware of any parish which uses it.
@igorlopes7589 Gallic would be different from Celtic in this context. The accuracy of the reconstruction is debatable, besides that that rite is only used by a group in France that left the Orthodox Church, but even before they left it wasn't universally used by the WR Orthodox in France many followed Dom Denis Chambault who was against the reconstructed rite and favored the Roman Rite, and it his views that have served as the basis for the WR in America.
I mean... bro nails it. He's legit unbiased. These are the differences. I've spent hours explaining these... I'm just going to link this video from now on.
Excellent work, again : ) But I would clarify that the Greek word "stigmata" is the word St. Paul used to say "I bear in my body the marks of Christ" and many of us Greek Orthodox DO believe in the Stigmata, even if we have fewer modern instances of them. I'm surprised to see that someone in the OCA states otherwise.
What is left to you to complete betrayal is to proclaim Latin heretic in Rome as your supreme leader and his blessings of the Sodom & Gomorrah... oh... wait... your parliament already did that.!
Hey just thought I'd let you know, Pope Pius XII did teach that the Virgin Mary died before she was assumed Body and Soul into heaven. "Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."" -Pope Pius XII, (#17), Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1990
Great video as always! Perhaps in one of the following videos you could discuss Catholic vs Orthodox views of the Trinity in the Old Testament. From my understanding, Catholics, and by extension Protestants, generally believe that when you read the name of the LORD (Jehovah, or Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton) in the Old Testament, this name denotes the Trinity. After doing an in depth Bible study with a seminary-educated Orthodox man, he told me that some of the main Orthodox theologians say that when they read the name of the LORD in the Old Testament, it denotes Jesus, and by extension, the Trinitarian model is superimposed beyond this understanding of Jehovah as Jesus. It is a minute difference, but as a Oneness Pentecostal, I do find it at least very interesting, since, in the first regard, we would agree with part of the Orthodox position in that the Jehovah of the OT is the one God of Israel, Who later manifested or appeared in flesh as Jesus, the Son of God. The Catholic position on this is enumerated in the catechism, but I haven’t been able to find written evidence of the Orthodox position yet, but perhaps you will have better luck. Thanks again for another great video!
Atheist: “Why do you literally believe bread and wine is Jesus’ body?” Catholic: “Transubstantiation (Latin: transubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, ‘the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ’. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered" Orthodox: “Because Jesus said so”
I am glad, all things considered, that when there is a roman tradition foreign to Orthodoxy, the Orthodox tend not to weigh in or judge, but simply to make it clear that the church doesn't have a position on it, and likely never will.
Do you remember how the Great Schism happened?? The crisis that turned the strangement between West and East into schism was Cerularius condemning Roman traditions foreign to the byzantine Rite, namely azymus bread and saturday fastings
In most western baptisms, the priest/minister will say "I baptize you in the name......" In the Orthodox Church, the priest says "The servant of God (Baptismal name) is baptized in the name..."
8:10 in the philippines, predominantly catholics., newborn's papers where religion is included we write RC for Roman Catholic. since the parents are RC even though the baby hasnt been baptized.
The reality is that almost all of the differences are things that were later added or changed by the Western Church in the centuries before and then mostly after the East/West Schism.
Mysticism is the highest doctrine of spirituality. No need to explain the unexplainable, which is real. This overrationalization of west leads to utopic atheism(which leads to demise)
I would agree with the idea that there is only so far that rationality can take us and beyond it we should appreciate the mysteries of the faith. But I would not call it 'over-rationalization' when someone reaches atheism because atheism is not itself the fully rational conclusion independent of faith. Furthermore, there is plenty of example in the early ecumenical councils of the faithful response of the Fathers to reflect on the truths handed down in a rational manner to reach a more precise understanding of the faith, so it is not automatically an 'over-rationalization' to reach reasonable conclusions about matters of faith.
Is that why the Orthodox have an almost autistic level of details in explaining christology? You must be joking. I reality Orthodox simply don't have the choice, that's why they don't give details on the Eucharist. And they don't have the choice because the universal Magisterium was lost to them after the 11th century schism, leaving only the Catholic Church with the ecclesial substance of the 1st millennium hence Trent, Florence, etc. That's why I'm Catholic, and we need to reunite sooner rather than later.
As an Anglican, a bunch of Catholic info has "being in the state of Grace" but it seems more like our sin affects our state of believing in that grace, or a "state of Faith" for salvation is by grace through faith. Maybe we mean the same thing though, but it seems odd and seems to salvation by works.
There are sins that destroy your relationship with God, 1 Jonh 5 16-17 says there is sin that leads to death and sin that doesnt lead to death. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of sins that make you not inherit the Kingdom. Jesus says that those who are not merciful will be among the damned on the Day of Judgment. If you refuse to love God and your neighbor you can have all the faith of the world, the faith to move mountains even! But this faith without Love is nothing 1 Corinthians 13:2
Excellently researched. Good video. Just one note: The Orthodox tend to view the so called Eucharistic miracles of Rome as an ill omen. In our Tradition, if the bread and wine show physical signs of being the Body and Blood of Christ, like in the so called Eucharistic miracles of Rome, then it is always seen as a sign of judgment and it is said to have happened because of our lack of faith.
When Catholic and Orthodox theologians met at the Vatican some years back, the Catholics explained Transubstantiation and asked the Orthodox to explain their understanding. They simply replied that they know it happens and they have no need to know how it happens
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I've wondered about the Orthodox understanding.
And this is why I’m Orthodox lol
When you have wife, there is less time for philosophy xd
Indicative of how the Catholics as a result of Scholasticism and Thomism try to use their fallible human reason to understand everything about the universe... unfortunately sometimes resulting in error.
@@seminoleboy96evangelicals could literally use the same argument about orthodoxy
I am Catholic but i have a lot of love and respect for our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters.
Glory to Jesus Christ 🙏☦️♥️
If you ever have the chance to visit one of the Eastern Catholic parishes, you are welcome to attend (and yes it does fulfil your Sunday Obligation in that case).
@@cactoidjim1477 yes, I attend a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic parish. Have been attending for over a year for and in discerning making a canonical transfer.
Well Howdy, brother! My family just made it official after 10 years (last year)@@Compulsive-Elk7103
Edit: Don't rush - unless you're running into problems with Sacraments for the kids or are discerning a vocation or have some other Serious Issue. Most eparchies require 5+ years attendance before considering an application to the Seminary, regardless of when the Rite change is made official. And be sure to have all of your paperwork from the Roman diocese ready.
switch over we're closer
You should a video on the differences between Eastern Orthodox vs. Oriental Orthodox vs. Church of the East.
Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
What makes you think your faith is respectable?
@@Stupidityindex Your comment is disrespectful and rude. With attitudes like this saturating the internet, it's no wonder why people are leaving the Church in droves. I encourage you to spend time praying over Mk 12:28-31.
Absolutely 💯
As Orthodox we believe the holy Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood because He said it is. No further explanation was an offered and none is needed.
Surely some explanation is needed if only because what's there looks like bread and we have reason to believe that Jesus was not made of bread.
I appreciate the simplicity and room for mystery with which the faith was presented from the beginning, but like Jdotoz, I agree that there is room for the Church to reflect on the mysteries of the faith and settle on understandings of them more precisely. Surely there are plenty of examples in the early ecumenical counsels that all Christians would agree on regarding the Trinity and the nature(s) of Christ in the Incarnation.
Excellent and 100% Orthodox stance.!
Many followers in John 6 left Jesus because of this teaching. They believed it was hard to accept. Christ didn’t over explain anything. He said what He said and meant what He said☦️💖
@@Orthodoxyandzataar Oddly enough, he also had communicated explanatory context (bread of life - living water) in other contexts. Those who were truly following would have some of that context. Those who were not truly following would not. Thus those who were not truly following would walk away.
I think the most basic difference in Eucharistic theology is the question of what consecrates the bread and wine, making it the body and blood of Christ. For (Roman) Catholics, it is the words of institution ("this is my body, this is my blood") which consecrates, while in Orthodox Churches, it is the invocation of the Holy Spirit which follows both the words of institution and the prayer of sacrifice which consecrates the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. These differences also express a different understanding of Eucharistic sacrifice. Feel free to contact me for more information.
We do not have a specific point in which we say the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. We just know that it happens by a certain point. I believe in the Catholic Mass they say that it happens at a certain point. We don’t have the same notion. They are the Mysteries.
@@devynrowe7492 Everything that I have read about Orthodox teaching on the subject is that the transformation occurs when the Holy Spirit is invoked and is asked to effect this transformation.
"Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here spread forth and make this bread the most precious body of your Christ and that which is in this chalice, the most precious blood of your Christ, transforming them by your Holy Spirit."
@@jimbobjones5972 it’s more of we expect that it would happen by that time. Not that those specific words make it happen. It’s a slight difference, but important.
These videos have been unbelievably informative. Thank you.
Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
What makes you think your faith is respectable?
@@Stupidityindex I suppose one could ask anybody why their faith is respectable, but it can come across as judgemental - as if it presumes that the person you are asking has a faith that is not respectable. What do you mean by referencing Paul's words to the Galatians and asking Fazex why he thinks his faith is respectable?
Love this! Keep up the excellent work, Joshua. So informational and educational.
Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
What makes you think your faith is respectable?
Wow, you're doing a really through job on this one! Thanks again for the video! It was really good!
I am in awe of this video series. So much work here!
I watch and I re-watch, often rewinding 10 seconds here and there as I go.
I enjoy your channel. This look at Catholicism and Orthodoxy has been particularly interesting. Keep up the good work!
thank you for making this
Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
What makes you think your faith is respectable?
I was worried these videos were going to be biased but they were not and simply gave facts. Thank you
I'm really loving this series of videos. However, I'm still not convinced that there is a significant difference between the two Churches. To me it seems mostly cultural, with a bit of stubbornness on both the Catholic AND Orthodox sides.
Another excellent video.
Thank you.
Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
What makes you think your faith is respectable?
This is the most informed Christian I have seen online! He runs circles around almost every academic, pastor, or priest! 😂😂🙏✝👍... May God bless him! ... 1 Timothy 4:12 "Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers and example in speech, in conduct, in love, and faith, and purity"!
Interesting. Thank you for the videos that you make.
Excellent video. I would add a couple minor points of clarification on the subject of confession. The Orthodox do not have a single universal formula for absolution. In the Greek tradition which you quoted, the priest tends to avoid any claim of the absolution coming from them. However, in the Slavic tradition the priest often does. The Russian formula concludes with "May our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, by the grace and compassion of His love for mankind, forgive you, my child, [name], all your transgressions. And I His unworthy Priest, through the power given me, forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." Another difference is that confession in the Orthodox church is not anonymous. There is no confessional box with a screen. Confession is typically made in the church temple either to the side or in front of the icon of Christ the Savior. In both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the confidentiality of confession is considered inviolable, and a priest may never reveal what he hears from a penitent, even if under a legal order.
In Portugal, Confirmation is at age 16 or older, at the last year(s) of Catechesis.
At ~13 years-old there is the Profession of the Faith.
This series is great
As always, impeccable in intent & execution. He is a master at allowing groups to speak for themselves, and researching deeply enough to communicate nuances. HRs skilled in the art of summary. I was a Stone-Campbell Restorationist before becoming Eastern Orthodox, and have no quibbles whatsoever in how he has presented either tradition.
Priests don't handle Sins in Orthodox confession, god does, priests just observe
Great job 👏
With regard to reserved sins, the local bishop or bishop’s conference has the authority to allow absolution for those sins by a priest; such is the case in the United States.
As always, very detailed.
Can you do a video on “The Local Churches?” Also called “Living Stream Ministry”. They have their own version of the Bible called the “Recovery Version”
This is a great video series.
As always, thorough, interesting, and informative work.
Padre' Pio! I actually carry a third class relic (which was touched to a first class relic of his) in my inner coat pocket. (A third class relic is one that was touched to either a first class relic--literally a body part of the saint--or a second class relic--a possession owned by the saint.)
Awesome video! You could add myrrh streaming icons as a counter to some of the Catholic signs.
The Orthodox do believe in the apparitions of the Theotokos. The Theotokos has appeared countless times to the Saints throughout history. It is just that we are sceptical, to say the least, of a lot of the Marian apparitions claimed as legitimate by our Roman Catholic brothers e.g. the ones at Medjugorje, because in those apparitions, Mary supposedly speaks and acts in a way that is very foreign to Christian tradition.
Many Catholics, especially the cognizant bishops, are also skeptical of Medjugorje.
The Church has not validated Medjugorje. We must wait and see.
Medjugorje has some weird things even in relation to catholicism, there was even a fake marian apparition who was reppeled by St. Dominic with the consecrated host, St. Dominic was also present in a true apparition of St. Mary who gave to him the rosary
That is why Fatima, La Salaette, Akita and Guadalupe should be studied. Apparations are not needed to be Catholic but as a Christian into the Mother of God you should not dismiss them out of hand, you would do yourself a great dis-favor.
Lying signs and wonders??
as a Catholic, part 3 is needed, is possible, with oriental orthodox
History of Celtic Christianity? Can you do a video on that?
I was very interested in Celtic Christianity, being a Brit but my research showed that it did come from Rome (with the Roman occupation of Britain). Then, when the Romans left in the 5th Century, Britain was isolated and this was where the Celtic Christians were more prominent, often forgetting their Roman origins. When Pope Gregory 1st sent Augustine to Britain in the 6th Century, there was some resistance but ultimately they returned under Papal authority, which by that time was much more established than it had been during Roman times. I had hoped that it had developed in and of itself (with perhaps some help from the desert Fathers in North Africa) but no, The Roman Catholic Church was there at it's inception.
@@clivejames5058 Were Celtic Christians like early Christians? but in the british isles? Also I want neo Celtic Christianity in the United States 🇺🇲 that would be cool!
Churching is the practice of offering your baby back to God the way Mary and Jesus were presented to the temple. It’s is what’s done after the 40 days. Not the 40 days themselves. Also the 40 days is optional not forced. I want that to be clear.
Very good
Regarding St Mary the Virgin there is a significant difference theologically between "God bearer" (Orthodox) & "Mother of God" Catholic. These terms in English are different and are also theologically different. That some misunderstanding has arisen is unfortunate.
Very informative! :-)
Practically speaking, adoration makes more sense with unleavened hosts.
The practice of chrismating Catholics later in life is probably due to the fact that it would take a while for the bishop to get around to doing it.
5:10
Well that is interesting
In Poland it's rather around 9-10
I Still wait when he try to explain what is Symphony in Orthodox Church and how it works
in my mind, the "One True Church" existed between:
the conclusion of the 'First Council of Nicaea' of 325 AD and 'The Great Schism' of 1054 AD
In the (Roman) Catholic Church, leavened or unleavened bread follow rite. Thus, the Latin rite uses unleavened bread while other rites use leavened bread. Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians using a western rite also use leavened bread.
A joke regarding the Latin Rite, is that it takes more faith to believe that the host or wafer is actually bread than it does to believe that it becomes the body of Christ.
Should be noted the coptic orthodox and ethiopian orthodox have had very popular Marian apparitions
I think your point on apparitions of the Mother of God could have been a little more detailed - Orthodox certainly have plenty of them and they are quite popular in lay devotion (North America's not a place to learn about normal Orthodox practice or belief, honestly), but in my experience and reading Orthodoxy's issues with Roman Catholicism's apparitions is that they're so sectarian - many Orthodox venerate the more generic ones like Guadalupe (and even more sectarian ones like Lourdes), but in many of the Roman Catholic apparitions uniquely Roman Catholic beliefs, doctrines, and obsessions (like the conversion of a Russia that was already Orthodox and Christian) are either mentioned or even a focus of the apparition. THAT would be the issue - the Mother of God appearing to assure a Christian of her love and protection (as in Guadalupe) would not be objectionable.
Great video, but this is only a small fraction of the differences. ☦️☦️☦️
i can't believe they don't say "I absolve you of your sins"! they don't speak on behalf of christ? (in the person of Christ)
RIGHT? In the roman right. That makes the confession invalid. How its considered valid i dont know.
All of these 'differences' only reinforce the idea for me that the Catholic and Orthodox Church are actually closer and more similar than otherwise. Just a few councils away from becoming once again united and not divided as Our Lord surely desires of all Christians. One faith, one church.
Seven mysteries (strictly) and transubstantiation are actually affirmed by the 1672 Council of Jerusalem.
What does "neutral way" mean?
CAN U do the John Carroll "Trail of Bloodl/ V. Raymond Edman Light in Dark Ages stuff? For WiickedPedia it is Proto-Protestantism.
E.g., some of these (some may be heretical, others just simple non-Papist Christians: the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, Waldenses, Petrobrusians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Hussites , Lollards, Anabaptists; denominations or types of real Christians throughout middle ages?
11:28 if a Catholic goes to confession with an Orthodox priest even when they have easy access to a Catholic priest, would that action then be another sin they have to confess?
I don’t think that an Orthodox priest is allowed to take confession from a non-Orthodox, because it’s a sacrament.
Serbian orthodox church pours water over the head instead of emersion for baptism, so it's not universally emersion in the orthodox church
2 very complicated religions
I have heard debates on the original sin issue and don’t really seem to see a difference.
It mostly has to do with the Western notion of inherited guilt. Babies would inherit the guilt of Adam's sin and not just the consequences(corruption/death). Therefore, you see unbaptized babies talked about going to hell or limbo in the West.
@@erichhershey2308 and you don’t see that in the East? In the East if you are die and are not baptized what happens?
@@erichhershey2308 We generally don't believe in inherited guilt. Even the Council of Trent refers to original sin as Reatum(the consequences of a crime), rather than Culpa(guilt).
To Aquinas original sin is a disordered disposition of human nature, a corruption he compares to sickness. He only ever called it guilt analogically, insofar we aren't born with the original justice our foreparents lost
@andrewthomastaylor There is no dogmatic statement that EO must hold to in regards to what happens to an infant/child who dies prior to baptism. I have never heard from any EO authority who would not tell you that they trust in Christ's love and mercy. They have nothing like a limbo for children that is found in the West. That being said, baptism is part of salvation/theosis/deification. That is the normative way. God can do whatever He wants though and can save outside of that ie. The thief of the cross. If one were to reject the command to be baptized, he is in rebellion against God, and God will judge him for that. However, if one intends to be baptized but dies prior (ie. a catechumen) he would receive a full Orthodox funeral.
@@erichhershey2308 Some Eastern Church Fathers believed in the Limbo, like St Gregory the Theologian
5:38 Why dodge referring to Mary as the Mother of God?
Not everyone is familar with Catholic terminology. This video is for everyone to understand so I use "layman's terms" whenever possible.
@@ReadyToHarvest Ok, thanks for clarifying
How was Mary a PERPETUAL VIRGIN if Jesus had brothers? (Not trying to be disrespectful of anyone’s beliefs. A serious question that needs a serious answer.)
The Chieti document is all you need to know😅
They should also check out the Alexandrian Document. I get the impression that the vast majority of Catholics are unaware of their official teachings re: Orthodoxy.
@@cassidyanderson3722 yes, 100%
Vatican I was never abrogated. These documents only say that in the first millenium the exercise of Papal Primacy was extremely respectful of the local autonomy of the Eastern Churches, following the principle of subsidiarity as much as it was possible. This doesn't mean no Universal Jurisdiction exists at all
@@igorlopes7589
So was this part just Rome being "respectful":
"the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East." So did Rome secretly exercise canonical authority over the churches in the East, but out of "respect" they made them all believe that they were in control😅?
The exact level of authority that this document speaks of (a primacy of honour), is the exact same primacy the new first see, Constantinople, has in the Orthodox church. The Orthodox church is the only church in the world that has upheld the faith, traditions, dogmas, and apostolic canons. That's why nothing has changed in the Orthodox Church.
@@TsarOrthodoxBro_II The Pope having Universal Jurisdiction doesn't mean he is going to use it all the time, specially in places far away from Rome and that traditionally have a higher degree of autonomy
My considerations on the video
1:24
Lol, orthodox and refusing to define or distinguish things, name a more iconic duo. The seven sacraments have always been more special than the other blessings
1:44
Clarifying the catholic view here. For us it ultimately only matters that it be true bread, the rest is just local traditions and symbolism. This is why Rome never tried to impose azymus bread into the East (although some frankish missionaries to the slavs entered in conflict about this with the greeks). For us the absence of leaven symbolizes that Christ is sinless, for this is the symbolism of leaven in 1 Corinthians 5:6-7. For the Easterners leaven symbolizes that Christ has a soul, so they use leavened bread.
2:24
Can any orthodox explain to me the problem of saying the bread becomes the Body of Christ preserving the accidental properties of bread?
4:00
Nothing to comment besides the difficulty some orthodox have in admitting a diversity of customs isn't a problem. Heteropraxis is merely a practice that teaches heresy, but some orthodox seem to define it as anything alien to byzantine customs. Same for other things like one-kind communion, azymus or saturday fastings
5:40
I would like to just point the hipocrisy in crying about azymus because it is of the mosaic law and then praticing something of it. They do it to immitate the Theotokos and we do it to immitate the Last Supper. Regardless, it seems to be a nice custom that allows some rest for the mother in her recovery from birth
6:25
I would like to remember the historical reason of how the twin sacraments drifted appart in the West. The primitive custom of both East and West was for Bishops to do both baptism, chrismation and first communion at the same time. As the christian population increased the the Bishop wasn't able to baptize all babies being born, so the solution in the West was the priest baptizes and later the Bishop chrismates. In the East the solution was the priest gives both sacraments but the oil used for chrism is consecrated by the Bishop. Initially chrismation was given in the West to infants (Aquinas hismself defends this practice as fine) but later it was considered more *expedient* to chrismate after the age of reason, this was to better signify the spiritual maturity given by the sacrament
10:28
I think it is important to say how many times you commited a sin even if just by an approximation. After all commiting a sin a thousand times is more grave than commiting it a single time.
10:43
I defend the Western custom by saying that the Lord told the Apostles "the sins you forgive will be forgiven". There is a forgiveness on the part of the priest that serves as an instrument for Divine Forgiveness
11:39
For the record, those reserved sins are basically sins that result in excommunications. Thus the reason the priest can't forgive the sin is because the person is excomunicated and only with the consent of the Bishop (or Pope) may an excomunication be lifted.
What are your thoughts on the Marian differences, they don’t really seem different
@@andrewthomastaylor In the assumption the only difference is that they rule out Mary never dying while we allow both views. On immaculate conception its a more complicated debate that relies on the debate on original sin
@@igorlopes7589 the original sin one is hard for me to understand, it seems like we affirm the same thing
@@andrewthomastaylor Aquinas defines original sin as an inordinate disposition of human nature, comparing it to a sickness. He only speaks of guilt analogically.
Also, the Tridentine Council doesn't refer to original sin as guilt(culpa), but as reatum, which is the consequence of guilt. Our forefather lost original justice and corrupted his nature, and as a consequence of this we are conceived without original justice and with a corrupted nature.
The consequences of Adam's guilt are suffered by all humanity, just like that if a nobleman commits treason against the King the King may remove his titles and riches from him, and by extension his children. There is no injustice done by the King in his punishment, even if it affects also the descendants of the treasonous nobleman.
This is my summary on what I perceive to be the catholic view on original sin
@@igorlopes7589 how is it different from the orthodox view though?
8:40
[baptism] as soon possible after birth, or in some cases before...
Lol
Take that, immersion-onlyists.
Pouring is also now comon in Orthodox Church
Not common.
No it’s not.
I'm from Belgrade Serbia, and I never in my life saw full immersion baptism, not even of children and let alone adults. Those large baptismal pools are now mostly present in old monasteries
@@Crown_995 Man, Serbia down bad. Serbs in the US do fill immersion.
Very interesting to know the difference between the two Churches. Although some of them seem small when seen in isolation, it seems that their accumulation ends up leading to two traditions that are very different from each other. That said, although I really enjoy learning about the difference between denominations, videos like this only clarify even more why I could never be Catholic or Orthodox. I can't see much of what was said here and in your previous video having any kind of direct or indirect Biblical support. It is almost as if it were another religion when compared to historic protestantism.
Everything the Orthodox Church does has biblical support.
@@Uthwita Ad Orientem has no biblical support, the Church Fathers themselves said they learned it from Oral Apostolic Tradition, not the Bible
I’m sure historic Protestantism is very biblical 😂 so biblical they took books out of it lol
@@andrewthomastaylor Strawman, they did not lol. Since the begging of the Church a wide variety of Canons being used by the Church Fathers for the Old Testament. We use the Palestinian Hebrew Canon, because: The Bible says that this would be a tradition that we would receive from the Jews, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and he conferred infallibility and authority on the OT referring to the Canon he used and not to another, it is the Canon which was more accepted by the Ancient Church, while the acceptance of other books has always varied. Additionally, our Canon is the same Hebrew canon affirmed by Josephus in the first century and by Athanasius in his last letters. Oh, and before I forget: no version of the Septuagint dating from the biblical period that has come down to us has the exact same books as the Catholic Canon (there are several versions of the Septuagint) and the RC just defined its Canon in an authoritative way for the entire Church in Trent, previously the only Councils that dealt with the topic were regional and non-binding for the entire Church.
Post Tenebras Lux.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 I’m sorry but no Jewish writer has the exact same books of the Old Testament as the Protestants. Even Josephus doesn’t have the exact one. The “Palestinian Hebrew Canon” was defined until the 2nd century by Jewish believers, to distinguish themselves from Christian’s. Any scholar on the topic would tell you that. I have read the church fathers and I can tell you they absolutely don’t affirm a Protestant Canon. Athanesius for example reference various deutrocanonical books as being inspired so that is just not true. Not to mention all forms of historic Christianity hold to a longer canon. And all Jewish groups in the diaspora hold to a larger canon of scripture. Even most Jewish groups hold to other inspired works, Mishnah and Talmud, and some others as well. Protestants are in a unique category, most of their beliefs about the Bible if you are a “historic” Protestant come from the 1500s and from all of the Protestants I have reacted with most hold views about the canon that are far more recent. So no, Protestants don’t hold to the earliest “canons”
Quite small differences . The main tenets of christianity are however the same . Seems both denominations respect eachother and have dialogue . We all need to pray that christ enlightens us moving forward. My humble view is that jesus often reprimanded stringent rules of the pharisees and was more concerned about the state of your heart. I.e. when i was hungry you did not feed me etc.. etc. God have mercy on us all.
The claim from the Catholic Church and the Orthodox is that they are not denominations.
They are the one true church established by Christ though a church in schism.
@@m4641 yes i would agree with that . However dialogue and recognition exist and if i am not mistaken catholic recognise most of the orthodox sacraments as being valid. May they both be enlightened.
you being non catholic and non-orthodox may fnd it minor, but as a Catholic I think the skepticism in marian apparitions in orthodoxy quite problematic(I myself tend to believe in marian apparitions in catholicism and orthodoxy) and the rejection of the philosophy in relation to sacraments unecessary, they may not use it, but would find it complementary to their faith(it doesn't oblidge them to accept filioque, the pope or any topic who caused the schism)
I also find the position of the Russian Orthodox Church of rebaptizing Catholics as a pure malevolence and skepticism, honestly, even they in theory reject rebaptism, in practice, they do, If one day I became orthodox, I'd choose Greek Churches instead of Russian ones because of this position, I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and I profess every affirmation of my baptism, even tho I was baptized as a baby, in this regard I tend to favour patriarchates who undestand that, no offence to people who follow orthodoxy, I know you disagree with catholicism and I'm fine, but the thing to me that would be a close door would be the Russian Position, and I was becoming orthodox, I'd find a Greek Diocese unless I had no other choice(and before going to my Catholic parish, i considered seriously becoming orthodox, but if I'd go east, I'd become Eastern Catholic or go to TLM which I would do if my sleep schedule ar sunday wasn't punitive to me wakin up earlier)
these are huge differences wym?
It’s funny you mention Christ admonition of, “I was hungry and you did not feed me.” That was the epistle reading at every Orthodox Church this morning.
The Pope actually did declare Mary actually died as he referred back to the teachings of the Church Fathers
Do you know which Pope and where/when it was said?
Joshua is correct that when the Pope taught about the assumption in it's most authoritative way, (i.e. dogmatically), it was carefully phrased in order not to state one way or the other about her death (in Munificentissimus Deus). But I wouldn't be surprised if you are right that some Pope or Popes have at times expressed support for the idea that she did die, just teaching it in a less authoritative and definitive manner.
@@John_FisherI think Jonh Paul II said he believed that Mary died, but I don't know
@@igorlopes7589Thanks for the pointer. Kinda like I said, it wouldn't be surprising or a big problem if he or another Pope had expressed favor for the idea, but when they have taken the time to set out an authoritative, definitive teaching they were careful not to weigh in on the matter authoritatively.
@@John_Fisher Yes, you are perfectly correct
Theotokos does not mean Mother of God in Greek. That's Mater Theou, which title is also used by the Orthodox. Theotokos means Birthgiver of God.
Gosh, if only we had a word for a birthgiver.
@@Mic1904 Not all mothers are birthgivers and not all birthgivers are mothers. Mary is both birthgiver and mother to God.
@@JRPRussell "Not all mothers are birthgivers and not all birthgivers are mothers". No, in the strictest and literal sense, only one of these statements is true. Even the word 'mater' also recognises this by also being used to mean 'source' or 'origin'.
5:37
So they practice a literal mosaic commandment while crying that we shouldn't do it in the Eucharist in immitation of the Last Supper?? LMAO, the hipocrisy
I find this ridiculous
Jesus in the gospels never taught about catholic or orthodox.
Instead the kingdom of God.
We should guide people to follow messiah not about traditions of men in the churches.
All it matters is believers in these church gatherings are taught the message of the gospel not traditions over the word of God
Jesus said go make them disciples and teach them to obey what I have instructed you.
Not catholicism or orthodox.
Shame on you that you don't promote gospel but traditions with do tribes of men.
Both are Mystery Babylon and an abomination.
He who has an ear let him hear.
Lol no.
Read revelation 17 and 18. They are. The Roman Catholic church being Mystery Babylon and the orthodox being one of her harl0t daughters.
Again, as with your first video, your mistake is in regarding Eastern Catholic churches as being something like a different denomination, as you talk about them the same way you might talk about one Protestant community and another. This is inaccurate. Rather, they are both local instances of the same One, Holy, Catholic and Aposotlic Church. The Roman church does not define the Catholic faith, and Eastern Catholic practices are just as Catholic as Roman ones. The only real difference is that Orthodox churches are in schism from this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, otherwise they have the same theology as Eastern rite Catholics. Both Western rite Catholics and Eastern rite Catholics are part of a single confession of faith. Really, when we speak of “differences” we are speaking of different styles or local customs, but the distinction isn't between East and West but in each of the 24 sui iuris churches from the other 23.
They're under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome and are therefore Roman.
They seem to share a hatred for human life in Ukraine.
Sad. It’s like 2 skydivers arguing over who jumped out of the plane first. Meanwhile, both of them forgot a parachute.
The Lord Jesus Christ cares nothing for your religion or man made traditions. Ye must be born again (John 3:3 KJV)!
“And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” - Hebrews 10:11-12 KJV
“For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” - Romans 10:3 KJV
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” - Romans 3:23-26 KJV
Who gave you the Bible? The Church.
Quote mining our Bible to argue against us is extremely cringe.
How is the ancient faith contradictory to these Bible passages?
You’re welcome for the Bible
-🇻🇦
Good thing it's all fake and Jesus was just a cult leader. Now we don't have to argue at all.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Provide historical evidence from the first few centuries that what you say is true. I don’t care what modern anti-Christian “scholars” say. We will wait for you to find it.
Respect to all Christians who follow Jesus Christ! We need to be united, because the world is against us!
Muslims, liberals, gay ''pastors'' and many more. United in Christ, AMEN!
😂Bruh you are against yourself, Christians are against God this is why they follow a man
Muslims, liberals, gay "pastors" are not my enemies. The culture war is not my war, especially because the anti-Muslim, anti-liberal, anti-gay "pastor" side in the US wants my country conquered and subjugated by the communist KGB officer, putin of Russia. A man who desecrates our churches with the communist hammer and sickle. How can I be united with people who want me harmed, who close their eyes to what the putinists are doing to Ukraine and to what they're planning to do to my East?
Gay "pastors" are doing a disfavour to Christ.
Amen
You can unite, but don't say it's around Christianity. Christianity is a very exclusive, non uniting place to try to do that within!
Priests and deacons of the Roman Rite are authorized to wear a black zucchetto, though in practice this seems rare. Officially, the color for episcopal zucchetti is called "amaranth."
As a Latin, I much prefer the Eastern administration of the Sacraments to infants. As a parent, I say get kids all the graces possible as early as possible, especially in this day and age.
In practice, the need to number sins in confession is not strict. The penitent should give enough information to allow the priest to have a reasonable idea of what he is forgiving.
Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
What makes you think your faith is respectable?
@@Stupidityindex Are you responding to something I said or just babbling?
@@jdotozHe is spamming everyone with this comment
One day the church will reunite.
Doubtful.
Both said claim to be the One True Church, it is not that the Church divided but that half of all local Churches entered in schism with the One True Church
When the Roman Catholics decided to make so many changes to church law and tradition, I don’t see how the orthodox church will ever go along with some huge differences, for example celibacy. Our orthodox priest are married with families and the Roman Catholic Church is celibate with children.
@@bryanthomas1495 You know that the Vatican never tried to impose celibacy unto the East, right? And that St Epiphanius of Salamis defended priestly celibacy, right? And that a the Synod of Elvira in the early IV century made celibacy mandatory in Spain, right? And that the western obligation to celibacy comes from this synod and not the 1100's, right?? Stop pretending any non-byzantine custom is a later inovation, priestly celibacy is a very ancient custom that should not be slandered like that!
I think it will be very hard, there are too many differences that arose during the centuries
I attended Catholic school for 17 years and I never once heard of reserved sins. Now that I have researched the topic, it makes complete sense to me. Thank you for the education!
4:30 actually orthodox see it as a very bad thing when they happen showing lack of faith generally from the person experiencing them.
“Eucharistic Miracles” mean call the Bishop!!!
PLEASE compare eastern catholic with eastern orthodox,
and western catholic with western orthodox.
Roman Rite Catholic and Western Rite Orthodox is a pretty simple comparison and can be laid out by describing what Western Rite Orthodoxy is. Western Rite Orthodoxy holds to the same theology and the rest of the Orthodox Church but follows Western practices like the Roman mass and other services as well as following the western liturgical calendar, though it celebrates Eastern on the same day as the rest of the Church.
Western Rite Orthodoxy generally uses Celtic Rites afaik
@igorlopes7589 Not so, the most we have record of is the mass the Irish used beyond that there isn't enough information for there to be a Celtic Rite. I'm unsure if that mass is approved for Orthodox usage, but even if it is I'm unaware of any parish which uses it.
@@Uthwita They reconstructed a Gallic Liturgy
@igorlopes7589 Gallic would be different from Celtic in this context. The accuracy of the reconstruction is debatable, besides that that rite is only used by a group in France that left the Orthodox Church, but even before they left it wasn't universally used by the WR Orthodox in France many followed Dom Denis Chambault who was against the reconstructed rite and favored the Roman Rite, and it his views that have served as the basis for the WR in America.
I mean... bro nails it. He's legit unbiased. These are the differences. I've spent hours explaining these... I'm just going to link this video from now on.
Excellent work, again : ) But I would clarify that the Greek word "stigmata" is the word St. Paul used to say "I bear in my body the marks of Christ" and many of us Greek Orthodox DO believe in the Stigmata, even if we have fewer modern instances of them. I'm surprised to see that someone in the OCA states otherwise.
What is left to you to complete betrayal is to proclaim Latin heretic in Rome as your supreme leader and his blessings of the Sodom & Gomorrah... oh... wait... your parliament already did that.!
No, hardly any Orthodox believes in stigmata.
Hey just thought I'd let you know, Pope Pius XII did teach that the Virgin Mary died before she was assumed Body and Soul into heaven.
"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.""
-Pope Pius XII, (#17), Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1990
Another most interesting video
Great video as always! Perhaps in one of the following videos you could discuss Catholic vs Orthodox views of the Trinity in the Old Testament. From my understanding, Catholics, and by extension Protestants, generally believe that when you read the name of the LORD (Jehovah, or Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton) in the Old Testament, this name denotes the Trinity. After doing an in depth Bible study with a seminary-educated Orthodox man, he told me that some of the main Orthodox theologians say that when they read the name of the LORD in the Old Testament, it denotes Jesus, and by extension, the Trinitarian model is superimposed beyond this understanding of Jehovah as Jesus. It is a minute difference, but as a Oneness Pentecostal, I do find it at least very interesting, since, in the first regard, we would agree with part of the Orthodox position in that the Jehovah of the OT is the one God of Israel, Who later manifested or appeared in flesh as Jesus, the Son of God. The Catholic position on this is enumerated in the catechism, but I haven’t been able to find written evidence of the Orthodox position yet, but perhaps you will have better luck. Thanks again for another great video!
I was literally at that Orthodox parish in Omaha on Sunday!
Atheist: “Why do you literally believe bread and wine is Jesus’ body?”
Catholic: “Transubstantiation (Latin: transubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, ‘the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ’. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered"
Orthodox: “Because Jesus said so”
In the Catholic Church in America, some dioceses wait until as late as 16 for Confirmation.
At my Catholic church in my town, they generally give both bread and wine.... except for flu season (or during covid), when they only give bread lol
Marian Apparitions are a big thing in Orthodoxy especially relating to Mount Athos.
Conclusion: we got lost in the details. Pray to re-unite. 🙏❤✝️
I am glad, all things considered, that when there is a roman tradition foreign to Orthodoxy, the Orthodox tend not to weigh in or judge, but simply to make it clear that the church doesn't have a position on it, and likely never will.
Do you remember how the Great Schism happened?? The crisis that turned the strangement between West and East into schism was Cerularius condemning Roman traditions foreign to the byzantine Rite, namely azymus bread and saturday fastings
Very interesting!!
You typo'd and went from #25 to #36, both in the description and in the video sections.
Thanks, timestamps are fixed. Typing them in the description is what actually makes them in the video, it's a neat system.
That is neat. Hyped for the next video man, love the content!@@ReadyToHarvest
In most western baptisms, the priest/minister will say "I baptize you in the name......" In the Orthodox Church, the priest says "The servant of God (Baptismal name) is baptized in the name..."
So sad that they fell so far away from the true faith
What is the true faith?
8:10 in the philippines, predominantly catholics., newborn's papers where religion is included we write RC for Roman Catholic. since the parents are RC even though the baby hasnt been baptized.
60 differences since 1054 CE? Holy smokes!
I see a problem in that Orthodox is quite broad, even though some, particularly converts, think they can speak for the whole church with specificities
you forgot to put this one in the orthodox vs catholic playlist
Guiding us, brother. 🙏🏼
The reality is that almost all of the differences are things that were later added or changed by the Western Church in the centuries before and then mostly after the East/West Schism.
☦️❤
Mysticism is the highest doctrine of spirituality. No need to explain the unexplainable, which is real. This overrationalization of west leads to utopic atheism(which leads to demise)
I would agree with the idea that there is only so far that rationality can take us and beyond it we should appreciate the mysteries of the faith. But I would not call it 'over-rationalization' when someone reaches atheism because atheism is not itself the fully rational conclusion independent of faith. Furthermore, there is plenty of example in the early ecumenical councils of the faithful response of the Fathers to reflect on the truths handed down in a rational manner to reach a more precise understanding of the faith, so it is not automatically an 'over-rationalization' to reach reasonable conclusions about matters of faith.
Is that why the Orthodox have an almost autistic level of details in explaining christology?
You must be joking.
I reality Orthodox simply don't have the choice, that's why they don't give details on the Eucharist. And they don't have the choice because the universal Magisterium was lost to them after the 11th century schism, leaving only the Catholic Church with the ecclesial substance of the 1st millennium hence Trent, Florence, etc.
That's why I'm Catholic, and we need to reunite sooner rather than later.
As an Anglican, a bunch of Catholic info has "being in the state of Grace" but it seems more like our sin affects our state of believing in that grace, or a "state of Faith" for salvation is by grace through faith. Maybe we mean the same thing though, but it seems odd and seems to salvation by works.
There are sins that destroy your relationship with God, 1 Jonh 5 16-17 says there is sin that leads to death and sin that doesnt lead to death. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of sins that make you not inherit the Kingdom. Jesus says that those who are not merciful will be among the damned on the Day of Judgment.
If you refuse to love God and your neighbor you can have all the faith of the world, the faith to move mountains even! But this faith without Love is nothing 1 Corinthians 13:2
Excellently researched. Good video.
Just one note: The Orthodox tend to view the so called Eucharistic miracles of Rome as an ill omen. In our Tradition, if the bread and wine show physical signs of being the Body and Blood of Christ, like in the so called Eucharistic miracles of Rome, then it is always seen as a sign of judgment and it is said to have happened because of our lack of faith.