As someone who was briefly raised Protestant before losing his faith and now slowly discovering Catholicism, I find both it and Orthodoxy have a vastly better sense of beauty. It just seems misguided to deny such beauty as vanity or whatever when it's clearly an expression of faith, especially given Protestantism generally emphasises music and hymns, which isn't wholly different in that regard.
The retained a sense of traditionalism versus many Catholic churches that try to masquerade as Protestant. Go find a Catholic Mass in Latin and you'll have a similar appreciation for the churches, the garments, etc
@@WK-47 know that art doesn't have anything to do with faith, it's alright to just appreciate art and architecture but it's not faith. don't be like "oooh shiny shiny I like this" it doesn't lead anywhere, just lukewarm christianity edit: Orthodoxy is beautiful, I am moved by it
@@DesertsOfHighfleet I should've been clearer. It's incidental that it's beautiful. It's an expression of faith but by no means the best or only way to worship. Trying to emulate Christ in our actions and thoughts is immeasurably more important.
I am an Orthodox Christian, who’s been in many, many Catholic churches and I think one we get to know each other, the difference will be minimised and more mutual respect between us will be shown!
I am a convert to Orthodoxy, from a Methodist background. It has been a wonderful experience understanding and living out the faith passed down from the Apostles, in which I feel more connected to Christ and His Church that he founded on the Day of Pentecost. I still have respect to my brethren in the West, and hope we may iron out our disagreements in due time and unite under one common faith!
I like your presentation style: lots of information, no fluff ... this makes it a lot easier to stay focuessed, and follow through to the end. Great work!
Happy to see that you spoke about my church. I belong to the Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar. It would be good if you can do a video on Christianity in India. Unknown to many in the world, Christianity reached India through Christ's apostle St. Thomas in AD 52. A historical video on that would be informative to everyone. God bless.
@@ReadyToHarvest Can you make a video exposing the Shincheonji cult? they are spreading across the world and they need to me made more known, especially here in America ✝️🙏🙏
It’s important to understand that the Catholic Church teaches that the Communion Wafer is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, and that whenever one receives the Eucharist they receive all of Christ, not just his flesh.
Which absolutely makes it irrelevant that Christ instituted it under both kinds, commanding to eat, and DRINK. communion under one kind is a medieval theological invention, and it is directly disobeying Jesus. "Unless you eat my flesh AND drink my blood, you have no life in you" Communion under one kind while it might seem very minor, in reality it refutes papal infallibility.
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 If you eat the wafer you are eating the body and drinking the blood. Also, it’s a mostly Latin Catholic thing. If it “refutes” Papal Infallibility then why do the Eastern Catholic Churches still perform Communion under both kinds?
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 Its the opposite, actually. The Council of Trent Session XXI, Chapter I reads in the incipit: “That laymen and clerics, when not sacrificing [that is, not performing Holy Mass] are not bound, of divine right, to commune under both species” The Council of Trent teaches that laymen do not need to commune under both kinds.
For me, even if I'm not religious, this topic is quite interesting. I was baptized/confirmed in the maronite church and made my communion in a Latin church. I'm fascinated by the variety and cultural richness of Christianity in all its branches.
Seeing the positive energy and the positive feedback in the comments you‘ve induced with this video, I can just say, keep up the good work. We all want the same thing I believe. Just from a different perspective.
I'm not going to make any assumptions here and this doesn't apply to your wife. Generally, EOs from Europe know very little-to-nothing about their faith. it's more of a cultural thing.
There is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and a Ukrainian Catholic Church. Same Liturgy and traditions. Of course the latter is in union with the Bishop of Rome. I happen to be Byzantine Catholic and my parish priest is from Kyiv.
@@jesusheals3799 You never know.. while it's true that a large number of them aren't die hard, like how most Catholics and protestants raised in America aren't really die hard, you'll still find some very dedicated eastern European Christians.
I love Eastern Orthodox churches. I have not visited those kinda churches because in India, you only find Roman Catholic Churches. But I hope I visit those churches and baptise myself.
@ ⚔ കുരിശ് പോരാളി ⚔ -Crusader Vlogs I went there but never found a single Orthodox Church. All were catholic. I even visited a church in Thiruvananthapuram which resembled Notre Dame Church completely.
Opening a new temple in India is prohibited by law - only the Indians themselves can do it. And getting a visa for a priest is almost impossible. So with the Orthodox there is indeed a shortage - for the whole country 1.5 priests. There is a small temple in Delhi at the Russian Embassy. I can't say what the order of his visit is. He has the status of a house church (usually this is a part of the house consecrated for service), so there may be difficulties. This needs to be clarified. There is a small community in Goa, but there is no permanent priest. Sometimes Priest Maksimov travels there from Russia (there is a channel on UA-cam), but he goes to many places, so you need to catch him. There is no permanent church there, and the community consists mainly of Russians who are there for work. There is a small community in Andhra Pradesh. Most of the believers in this group speak Telugu, do not know English, live in villages - this can make it difficult to find their contacts. Dr. Wesley is related to this group, he was baptized into Orthodoxy there - as far as I understand, he is a well-known figure, maybe you can contact this group through him. In the state of Maharashtra, in Chanrapur, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, Clement Nekhamayia, serves. He is a native Indian, he studied Orthodoxy in Russia. Travels all over India. This is the most successful community because there are no legal barriers to preaching. I managed to find the contacts of this group: Priest Clement's Instagram: @orthodoxindia There is a video, but I can not give a link - UA-cam can remove the post. I will give the video number - just paste it in the address bar in place of any other video: jW_DWTE7T1w The video is in Russian, but there you can see a priest, a temple. In the next post, I will give a normal link to the video, if you do not see the post, then UA-cam deleted it.
Great video. I do wish there were two versions, one of which really took time to explain difference. I always learn something even if I do not understand everything you talk about
In my experience, Coptic Churches that have a Western "flair" are ones that were originally a Western Church (usually Protestant) but have been converted into a Coptic Church. This happens in Western countries were the diaspora has set down roots and need a place to worship and a church building is no longer being used by a Western Church.
The local Coptic Orthodox church building here has been at least three different denominations that I can recall and was a karate dojo before being purchased by the Copts. I find the contrast between an Oriental Orthodox service and a generically-Protestant-looking building quite interesting. They move into a new purpose-built building this year so I'm interested to see who takes over the church building after them.
Can you make a detailed video of Christianity in India especially Kerala? As an Indian Christian born in Kerala I identify as Syro Malabar Catholic but it is hard to explain the differences of many others sections of Christians and obviously most of us are unaware of the divisions of Christianity. It'll be very helpful.
Its actually very easy to understand...there is only one church that arose in kerala under Apostolic Succession from St. Thomas and carries that true heritage and thats the holy malankara orthodox syrian church which is an oriental orthodox church. All the other churches are either westernized or reformed and split from that one true church including both the syro-malabar and malankara churches who chose to follow the Roman slavery, then the marthoma church which chose to be reformed hence heretics, then there are the jacobites who chose to remain under patriarchal slavery. Then there are many smaller churches like the independent Syrian church etc
@@realzhella6817 You are from the metran kashy, no doubt about it. You must be really glad, stealing churches from the Jacobite church. I'm from the syro malankara catholic church, but I know a bad seed when I see one. Let's be clear about slavery. You are chained and forced into submission. Church is not that. Here is a more unbiased view of the history: The church of St Thomas practiced the east syrian liturgy under the Church of the East. Portuguese came and surprised here was a christian community in south india. in 1599, a certain synod took place that said all st thomas christians were under the Latin rule and burned all heretic books of the east syrian liturgy. Because they did not know much of our liturgy and preferred the western way, our ancestors were coerced. The Arch deacon at the time was the voice for the st thomas Christians as the Malpan Mar Abraham died. It was during that time the Church of the east experienced a split and two churches emerged, the church of the east and the Chaldean Catholic Church. Both side wanted to bring the St Thomas christians under to their domain, but the Portuguese blocked them from coming. However, in 1653, Arch Deacon staged a protests to the Jesuit missionaries from Portugal and thus the Coonan Cross Oath came to be. It stated the Christians won't follow them, even though it did hurt their communion with the Pope at the time as they were thought to be part of that communion with Rome through the Church of the east. The Pope heard of this and told the Jesuit Missionaries to no longer interfere and he sent Carmelite Priests instead to repair the rift. The Camelites used Paramibil Chandy, the Arch Deacon's cousin, as a way to bring the christian back to Rome. So, Chandy was able to get a majority of the churches back under the fold to Rome, whereas Arch Deacon was betrayed and received about 30 percent of the churches in Kerala. As this was going on, the Arch deacons group was anxious and needed to find a way to make his rule absolute to the community as he was not a Bishop. He sent letters to churches in the east and the Syriac orthodox church replied from Jerusalem and it was Gregorios Mor Abdeel Jaleel who brought the west syrian liturgy and traditions with him to Kerala and meet the Christians. The ishop made Arch deacon a proper metropolitan bishop and he officially named Mar Thoma the 1st. Here, there are two groups, the party that wanted to stay with the Pope became known as the Old Party as they kept the east Syrian liturgy, but was forcefully Latinized. The other party became known as the new party s they adopted the West syrian liturgy, which was somewhat familiar to them. The Christians in Kerala back then were used to Syriac, so Latin was an upset to them as it was not their preferred choice. Later on, there have been many splits from the new party, or the Jacobite Malankara Orthodox church due to personal rivalry or Foreign influences. The independen Malabar church was formed by a Bishop who was the preferred choice to lead the jacobite church, but a jealous bishop had authorties chase him off. thus, he formed the Independent Malabar church. The next split was the Mar Thomas Church, a protestantised malankara church that happened due to the influence of Angelicans and their reformed practices. A bishop and his entourage left to form that church as the Jacobit church rejected those such reformed views and renewed their relationship with the syriac orthodox church. Heading into the early 1900s, there was a new battle brewing, the bava kashy and metran kashy. The bava kashy was loyal to the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox church and the metran was loyal to Geevarghese Dionysius of Vattasseril who wanted self rule for their Malankara Church in Kerala and all of india. Geevarghese Dionysius of Vattasseril, who became the Malankara metropolitan bishop in 1908, played a significant role with the other clerical and lay leaders of Malankara in re-establishing the Catholicos of the East in India in 1912. In 1909 the relations with the Syrian Orthodox Church soured, when Patriarch Ignatius Abded Aloho II who arrived in India, began demanding registered deeds granting the patriarch temporal authority over the church. Dionysius rejected the request and thus emerged two factions in the church. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church wanted to retain its autocephaly, and appealed to Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius Abdul Masih II. He enthroned Murimattathil Paulose Ivanios as Baselios Paulose I, Catholicos of the East, on the apostolic throne of St. Thomas at St. Mary's Church in Niranam on 15 September 1912. Over time, Mor Ivanios was part of that Metran Kashy group in the Jacobite church and he supported Geevarghese Dionysius of Vattasseril. Mor ivanios suggested to the bishop about having relations with the catholic church, and it was approved by Vattasseril and many others from the synod in 1926. Soon after, only Mor ivanios and four others went and re-joined the catholic church to be known as the syro malankara catholic church as the others backed out and continued their struggle for independence, which they did in 1934. Also, the syro malankara church did not take any churches with them from the jacobite or malankara orthodox. Otherwise, we be in silly court cases like all of you currently are. Is it fair to say we are under the roman church? No. We are in communion. Know the difference. We have autonomous power within the catholic church and are practicing the liturgy similar to the Jacobite faction. Pope of Rome is he successor to St Peter and many churches, catholic and orthodox worldwide, said it was the main church and seat of st peter. Just because we are not fully in communion with each other, doesn't mean we are not all christians under Christ and can be friendly to each other.
@@realzhella6817 aah best.. what u have said is nothing but rubbish. Have some knowledge about the history and theological difference between the Churches.
Most Latin Churches (before Corona admittedly) did do Communion under both kinds. It's actually a bit of a sticking point of a lot of the laity that they aren't allowed to drink the Blood of Christ (edit: after the pandemic) and it's been years since I've done so myself. Still miss it.
In my parish is quite uncommon to commungate blood and flesh of Christ, I did 2 times, one when the Priest was at the end of the Communion and at the other the priest was doing the mass at college, It's a good priest
Catholic, my diocese has done under both kinds since at least the 1980’s. They only changed during covid lockdown, and some have gone back to both kinds, such as the parish I belong to.
Well, the previous Sunday I received the wine in an "below the radar" Episcopal Church from the cup without dipping. That's the first time since early 2020 for me.
Looking at the map of historic Greek vs. Latin-speaking areas of the Roman empire, I find that Sicily, where some of my great-great-grandparents came from, has parts of it in the Greek portion and parts of it in the Latin. I think it shows how much of a convergence area Sicily is. For all I know some of my distant ancestors could have been speaking Greek up to the 800s or 900s, then maybe some dialect of Arabic (due to the emirate set up there), then after the Norman campaigns gradually shifted into a Romance language like Italian or something. Maybe this also reflects what they could have believed as the centuries went by, as Sicily, based on my guessing, wasn't really homogenously Catholic for the most part until the 1200s.
While what you're saying is true, the fact is that that it has been strictly italian for 800 years. Even you great great grandparents were regular catholics.
@@notyourbusiness8475 yes they were, and to them it would have probably seemed like their island had been predominantly Catholic since about the dawn of time.
Congratulations for this good summary. There is one thing you could have said also : the Filioque debate has been solved by theologians (both orthodox and catholics) centuries ago. The only points keeping is divided is the authority of the Pope and a few minor points in ecclesiology.
i love reading comment sections on videos about religion it makes me so happy and returns all of my faith in humanity this is because nobody is argueing at all and we are all living in peace it is so fun and postive and full of love and peace
Wow awesome video! Thanks for this content. I feel having a simplified but yet detailed understanding of our history as Christians makes for a more robust faith all around. Thanks again!
TL:DR: Basically the only Nestorians who didnt convert to Islam like the Iraqis, persians and central asians/turks/mongolians or wasnt assimilated in to the local population due to loss of contact with other christians, like the ones in western china, the western coast of India, pakistan and Sri Lanka. They are found in Kerala, India. Then with the arrival of the Europeans in the 16th century onwards, they split into various denominations of Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants etc due to political/spiritual reasons. Currently no nestorians exist anywhere anymore. The end.
Thank you! Again you’ve done a wonderful thing to distill these ideas so succinctly. I know you have your own principled belief system, but in today’s ultra contentious world it’s nice not to have parse “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” God must be thinking we are so redundant-going over and over the same ground century after century. As I write it is the week befor Christmas. Merry Christmas!
Very ilustrative...! I'm Mexican and over here, you know, as Catholics, we depend in general of the view of the Pope and... Our beliefs in the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe... Obviously there are many faces in the christian branches... One of them could be that, here in Mexico and in Latinoamérica in general, I could dare to say that, there's not much awareness about the Luther's church reform, not to mention all these other schisms that you mention and are really interesting and enlightening.... You've done a real good job...! Thanks a lot indeed...!
Excellent presentation sir. Please keep up this work. Such an interesting informative way to reach the lost and to inform all people interested in Church history. I appreciate you.
I have been waiting for a synthetic, comparative East-West video like this since UA-cam began. Thank you! This is wonderful. My only wish is that sometimes you’d slow down and elaborate on some points before moving on, but I suppose that would change the length and scope of the video.
that's just not his style. I usually make it halfway through his video before getting lost, go do a bit of reading, and then try it again. Very rapid fire and condensed, but really thorough.
@@ourladyofguadalupebotanica6732 I know what you mean by the moment when the wash of information makes the brain start to glaze over. 😂. That said, I think I’m decently well versed on the differences between the Eastern and Western churches, and on the history of their relationship, but at several points this video hit on details that made me realize there have remained clear gaps in my understanding.
I was really expecting to have a litany of "oh that's wrong" on a video like this but this was admittedly one of the most unbiased vids I have seen on the subject. Impressed.
According to the Coptic priest Fr. James in his interview with Matt Whitman on Matt Whitman's UA-cam channel the Coptic Church believe in the divinity and humanity of Christ. It was a language and political miscommunication that separated the Churches
It was not a language and political miscommunication. It’s deeply theological. If it was just semantics or political, we would not still be separated. Copts are disingenuous, as are certain ecumenist Orthodox.
@@TheRealRealOKI have little personal experience with it. I was just going off the statements of Fr. James, a Coptic priest, and my limited knowledge of early church history. I could easily see how language and cultural differences could cause confusion. If you have personal experience to the contrary you are well within your rights to feel that way.
A very good breakdown on the differences, some of which are almost "insider baseball" level. For an Independent Baptist to master these concepts is , I must say, quite impressive
For a Baptist to learn so much about Catholicism and orthodoxy and still remain a flaming heretic that denies the necessity of a successor to the Apostles as identifying the true church is simply pathetic
I love the Channel you explain the history very well, God bless you & your channel im Catholic & have ex Greek Orthodox friends who just joined my Parish.🙏🙏💯 Catholic 🗝️🗝️ Love the Channel & God bless
It is important to note that for most part, Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize the Apostolic Succession and validity of each other’s Holy Orders(Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons) and the validity of the 7 Sacraments of each other. Therein lies some hope of reconciliation. There are still many obstacles here, but it’s not beyond hope. (Cf. John 17:11). 🙏
Well not exactly. For example a Catholic to become Orthodox must be Chrismated again and sign a paper that declines the Catholic doctrines otherwise he/she doesn't belong in the Orthodox Church/Body of Chist thus he/she can't participate in the Holy Mysteries. This is not the case for the other way around as far as I know.
@Sotiris A. Indeed this is true. We in the Catholic Church encourage our Orthodox brethren to obey the authorities of their church. However, if they present themselves at Holy Communion, we do not refuse them the Sacrament.
@@stephenscull901 Obeying an authority that goes sideways ways is not what the Orthodox Church does. The history and the Holy Tradition are very good examples of that. The "authorities" should obey the Church not the other way around. If you were the One Holy Apostolic Church you wouldn't allow that. The Holy Mysteries are Sacred! You can't allow anybody to participate in them! That's one of the reasons why catechism exists.
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful , O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
The not-so-homogeneity of Catholic Church is particularly clear here in Northern Italy: in Milan they use the ambrosian rite (which can be really disorienting for the other catholics), and in Venice there's one of the only 4 patricarchs (!) of the latin Catholic churches... celebrating in Venice's St Mark Basilica, which is architectonically very, very, very eastern - almost a mosque! Thank you for your videos! :)
@@sam.mead__ There are four patriarchs in the current day Roman Catholic Church: Jerusalem, East India, Lisbon and Venice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch
Just goes to show that "universal" does not mean "uniform". Yes, the Latin Rite is dominant in Catholicism, but there's a whole bunch of other rites and traditions that exist within Catholicism, all of which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
I am a Christian of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo religion. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is an ancient church with a history of three thousand years. My heart finds rest by worshiping Lord Jesus in the Orthodox Church. I believe with all my heart that the Holy Church founded by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is Orthodox. If I had not lived in Orthodoxy, I would not have known the Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. Our Lady, the Holy Virgin Mary, intercedes. May God be praised for his noble body and his holy blood.
Eastern Catholic here. We acknowledge the Eastern Orthodox Church as a valid expression of the Church with valid sacraments. As an aside, the folks at my parish do not believe the filioque is heresy, but we believe it does not belong in the Nicene Creed. This is something we, as Orthodox in union with Rome, agree with our Holy Orthodox brothers and sisters on.
I learned alot from this. I was quite confused between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. I'm a Roman Catholic who often attends the local Ukrainian Catholic Church.
I have a friend who was born in Mexico and raised in Colorado and is now a Redemptrist in Canada who likes the Ukrainian Catholic Church (yeah lot of stuff there haha). I actually thought he was referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church which first led me to my research in it and realized that it answered questions way better than Catholic school ever did, then he told me he was talking about Eastern Catholicism. Eastern Catholicism seems to get things right, like Confession. I think that the East is a lot less punishment-based and way more spiritual considering Catholicism took on a lot more pagan and barbarian influence which could be the reason for such strictness. I found videos from the Coptic Orthodox Church to be most enlightening. However, I have a lot of reservation now towards a Church which deems the Russian Orthodox Church and its blatant anti-Semitism, homophobia, and support of the genocidal Ukraine War as a holy war. It's hard to be a Christian, there's no organization in Christianity where I feel truly at home.
The current conflict in Ukraine has roots in forced conversion of Russians into Catholicism and making Eastern rite catholic Ukrainians out of them. I noticed that many peoples who were converted by force become “more catholic than Pope” because they feel the need to prove their new identity by attacking their old identity and killing their former compatriots who resisted conversion. Eastern Orthodox churches felt Catholics attacked them from the back when they had to fight mongols and Turks.
Was raised Catholic and I've always been fascinated by schism and especially the orthodox church as I recognize we shared some similarities in the various doctrines. Now everyone has their opinion on religion, but it's amazing how the whole thing came to be, and how centuries later, religion is still big across the globe
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful , O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
@@JohnDoe-uw9nq what i said is that the difference between orthodox theology and Catholic are so ontological different that we are not talking about the same God but for different things.
I'm not Catholic. I was raised mostly Non-denominational Christian, with some Pentecostal and Christian-Judaism...I know an odd mix lol But it's kind of cool too because I can clearly see a mix of both Eastern and Western practices in the way I grew up. I grew up with the "communion" or the Eucharist with unleavened bread and either wine or grape juice. In some cases we were given the bread in our mouth and in others we took it in hand and had to wait for the blessing. I've prayed and worshipped with my hands folded, arms raised, and prostrate on the floor. I have learned from all kinds of Christian practices. I've been baptized in a baptimisal "bath" but my Mother and son have both been baptized in rivers. I was also taught Jewish festivals etc.
There's no such thing as judeo Christian. Those who didn't accept Jesus as the messiah and stay close to Moloch, and the world of the flesh, are demons.
You should do a video about the Maronite [Catholic] Church, which is Eastern rite always in communion with Rome (i.e., there is no Orthodox/Church of East side)
Actually, This fact made me keep my belief in Catholic church as a true original church instead of converting to orthodox, The Maronite church is a living proof that from the beginning all churches have agreed they are united with the church of rome and acknowledge that the pope is a primus interpares or the succession of St. Peter.
@@MyPoincare Every Orthodox church has always agreed with all of that. The Pope is in fact Primus Inter pares. His rightful place as such is still available in the Orthodox Church as long as he repents of his heresies. He has primacy among other bishops, not supremacy.
@@haroldgamarra7175 Primus Inter Pares is only a concept that I can date to the late 8th century when Iconoclasm began and the West started to become more isolated from the East. Perhaps it was coined earlier, but this is really when the term started developing. Otherwise, it's always been that Rome was the Head of the Church. This is explicit on top of the Church Fathers, but also the sessions at Chalcedon, Pope Gregory the Great, and Emperor Justinian I himself just to name a few. All of them proclaim that Rome is the Head of the Church (Justinian codified this into law, as well as Chalcedon reiterating this) and that other churches are subject to Rome (Gregory's 12th epistle). The other fact is that Rome completely overruled Constantinople in favor of the Maronite election, to begin with. The Maronite witness is by far the biggest support of Papal Supremacy.
You have done the best job I've ever heard quickly and succinctly summarizing the differences in a way that the average person can understand. Many Protestants, I don't think, understand Orthodoxy. This is true even among many well-educated Protestants. It took me a couple of years just to understand a little about how they think...it's VERY different, not only because of different definitions for theological terms but because of a more ancient/pre-Renaissance mindset with perhaps more emphasis on spiritual development as about logical/intellectual knowledge. Programs like this one help Westerners become a little more familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy and start understanding that, while Eastern Orthodoxy may superficially "look Catholic," the theology is VERY, very different.
A quick note: The Eastern churches do not have a "more ancient" mindset. That's the aesthetic that they want to portray, but it's not the reality of the faith. This is a misinterpretation done by those who are superficially exposed, or who are going through the early phase of romanticizing the East. In reality, there have been theological and ecclesiological developments that do not resemble the pre-Schism Church. And not to mention the big elephant in the room, which is that there's no "Orthodox Church" (!) but a group of churches historically plagued with in-fighting (even right now with Russian, Greek and Ukranian churches), inconsistency of beliefs among clergy and laity from different regions (some Orthodox priests cannot even tell you if you were properly baptized by a priest from another Orthodox church), lack of unified resistance to foreign invaders and political meddling, lack of any effort in evangelizing the world (a clear instruction given by Jesus Christ) and instead remaining isolated from the rest of the world... and I could keep going.
As a lifelong Protestant who came home to Orthodoxy last Pascha, I agree. Talking to my family and to protestand friends is difficult because we now have completely different frames of reference. It's not just a "more ancient mindset", but a completely different set of first principles, particularly over Sola Scriptura and Church authority. And it's even hard to bring up the fact that first principles are the difference, because that is inherently an extrascriptural discussion. Egnaging in that discussion requires surrenduring what you believe is right and have been taught your whole life (as it was in my case), and further requires admitting that those first principes are indeed up for debate, which is a very difficul hurdle to jump. Because they see us believing in things that aren't referenced in scripture, and they see Roman Catholics doing the same thing, they often think of us as similar. And we are, in a lot of ways. Orthodoxy is more similar to Roman Catholicism that in is to Protestantism. But Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are closer to each other than either is to Orthodoxy.
@@sammif23 I would strongly disagree with your assertion that Protestantism and Catholicism are closer to each other than Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. Especially eastern-rite Catholicism which is nearly indistinguishable from orthodoxy in many respects but still in full communion with the Holy See. In fact, many Eastern catholic rites were formerly Eastern Orthodox churches who have reconciled with the Holy See but maintain their distinct cultural and theological traditions
I love when I learn about things I didn't even know how little I knew about them. 😄👍 Thank you for your great video! Support informative! Best wishes from Germany 🌻
An interesting point can be added around 0:46 in that Protestants view both the Catholics and Orthodox as cut from the same cloth, so to speak, yet the Orthodox see Catholics and Protestants as cut from the same cloth.
As a complete outsider (agnostic with an interest in the beliefs of various theists) I just find looking at the branching webs within broader groups of faith so rich and layered, thank you for the informative video.
The only way into the body of Christ (the church) is to believe the gospel. That Christ died for your sin was buried and rose on the third day according to the scriptures. He was punished in your place for your sin. If you accept the gospel you will be born of God's spirit and be placed spiritually in Christ's body ( the church) not any of the institutions being discussed here. Those are a human invention. You can join any of these "churches" but will still be on the broad road to destruction. That's why Jesus said unless you are born again you will not see the Kingdom of God. Be blessed.
@@murraylloyd6011 Ok, I am content to continue doing my own observations respectfully, and if destruction awaits me for that honest choice then so be it. May your god continue to bless you, friend.
@@chillinon3263 Thanks but notice Jesus gave only one option not what we deem to be a honest option. "Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." So what He is doing is speaking the truth in love. Jesus said: He who believes not is condemned already. Notice he tells people the truth up front. He,s saying your sin already condemns you but I have made a way for you not to perish. Believe in my substitutionary sacrifice for your sin Because he loves people he doesn't pretend they are in a safe place. But then gives the solution. " Whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. We either accept or reject the gospel. I was in your position once searching but we need not search for God has made known the way to mankind to come to Him Jesus in His great love plainly tells us the way ; I am the way,the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me. The world is in turmoil time is short and now is the day of salvation.Be blessed friend.
@@murraylloyd6011 Tell me, have you only explored Christianity? Did it just happen to be the most popular faith where you were born? Can you explain to me in your own words (not quotes) how Jesus is any more special than Muhammad, said to be the final prophet of the Abrahamic faiths (only considering the big three for simplicity's sake) that guided humanity to the truth of Allah, or Siddhartha Gautama, who withstood Mara's temptations and attacks before achieving enlightenment hundreds of years before Jesus drew his first breath? I am open to the idea of god, gods, prophets or illuminated ones, but I just don't think I can hand-on-heart honestly believe Jesus is THE saviour when there are so many teachings throughout the world that claim to understand the truth of our existence without any definitive proof besides the equally strong convictions of their faithful. I am willing to concede Jesus could be the truth, there's certainly a good % of the world who'd agree with you there, but for now I've yet to hear any convincing arguments that make it clear your faith has a greater monopoly on truth than any other out there in the vast history of mankind. You are certainly welcome to try and convert me, but you're wasting your time on someone who has no interest in everlasting life or liberation from the cycle of saṃsāra. I'm very sorry if this comes off as rude, but being aggressively preached at has never worked for me. Have a good day; keep your blessings, I'm afraid they mean little to me.
Great video on a subject that is usually not discussed as it produces quite the controversy. Just a small note - there are easters Catholics that did not join the western church out of theological reasons - some have done so in order to be allowed to practice a eastern form as Austro-Hungarian empire did not give religious freedom to eastern ortodox.
The difference between orthodox church theology and western is the essence energies distinction. If one does not understand that he cant understand anything
My understanding is that even Catholic churches in the Greek-speaking world omit the filioque, as the sense of ἐκπορευόμενον is considerably stronger than "procedit". Theoretically, there was a joint statement with the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch saying that "filioque" was more a linguistic than a theological problem.
It isn't only linguistic, it's a matter of principle. The "filioque" idea was added to the Creed without a council, effectively nullifying the purpose of one. By the time the Orthodox were made aware of it, the Catholics had been using a different term and added things to the Creed that weren't there in the first place.
It was added long before the schism and Orthodox didn't break away because of it. That's just an excuse they used later on. The Church was able to add to councils already considering how the Council of Constantinople added to Nicea on the Holy Spirit.
@@VirginMostPowerfull Arrianismo en el reino visigodo en el 3 concilio de Toledo 587 cuando Recaredo rey abjuró del arrianismo y abrazo el catolicismo y acepto los 4 concilios ecuménicos ya celebrados.
'Eastern Protestants' aren't really a thing. they would simply be a member of a Protestant sect in that region of the world is all. There are ancient Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox. Protestantism is from Northern Europe originally
@@mj6493 I think Ukrainian Lutherans are very small geographically limited community due to their origins in German colonists. In order to protest, you need something to protest against. So when Lutherans protested priest celibacy for example it could only work in parts of Ukraine colonized by Catholic Germans or Polls because orthodox churches never had that requirement to begin with. Lutheran congregations existed in Russia proper too, but they were limited to invited Germans and not spreading among russian orthodox believers much.
@@askorutin2576 I am aware that especially since the reign of Catherine the Great, who was a German Lutheran (Prussian), German settlements extended far into Russia and were quite numerous until they were either expelled or exterminated by the Soviets. However, from a brief reading of the history of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, it doesn't appear that its origins are from German colonists. From the website of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference (CELC) of which the Ukrainian Lutheran Church is a part, "The Ukrainian Lutheran Church is not entirely an alien phenomenon brought about to Ukraine from foreign countries, or a phenomenon that is indifferent to Ukraine’s destiny and its future. It is neither a new sect or a religious trend in our country. The Ukrainian Lutheran Church has a substantial historic background in Ukraine as well as its devotees and martyrs, who gave their lives for Ukrainian Christian work." The Reformation spread to many countries and not necessarily via German settlers. It's a fascinating history and worth reading about. Also, your comment about Protestantism needing something to protest misses the central point of Protestantism which surprisingly is not protest. Rather, the motivation of Protestantism is reform of the Church according to the Gospel as we find it in the Holy Scriptures. That can be a motivating factor in the East as well as in the West.
Can I ask you a video about the Waldesian Church? It's a denomination born in 1200s between Franch and Italy. I am Italian and the core of this Church is in my region (Piedmont, which is near to France). Actually in my country their are merged with the methodist in one denomination "Union of Waldesin-methodist Churches"
I'm filipino and moved to us, growing up in ph I'm catholic my whole life, I can say christian in ph and us is completely different, in us many christians are individualistic and in ph they're most colectivist.
Not technically correct. I hope I can explain without being too territorial and please forgive me if I fail. There are Eastern Right Catholics, not Orthodox Roman Catholics. The Eastern Right Churches were disallowed to fully worship in the Eastern Tradition until Vatican II. The most “Orthodox” of the Eastern Right Churches is and was probably the Ukrainian Catholic Church because when they gave allegiance to the Pope to have him intercede in a horrible war with the Catholic King of Poland they got 25 dispensations which allowed them to essentially remain Orthodox. But it’s an interesting question why did Pope Leo IX excommunicate the eastern Churches but allow some then and others to follow to continue to be “Orthodox”, not to mention the complete reversal by Vatican II which allows Catholics to even receive communion in Eastern Orthodox churches, and the only requirement was recognition of Papal authority. Before the Pope all Church matters were settled by consensus of all the Bishops in Christendom and that’s why the Orthodox Churches haven’t changed because the Bishop of Rome isn’t available to provide his opinion. Christ is Born, Glorify Him.
@@philipbridler I don’t understand what “criminal cult”? The Branch Dividians were a criminal Cult. Some Fundamentalist Mormons could be considered a criminal cult because of polygamy and they are no longer associated with the broader Mormon community, but I don’t think the Catholics are a criminal cult even though they have mismanaged criminal conduct by many I don’t think it’s fair to call them a criminal cult.
Funny. The filioque and all these theological and ecclesiastical differences didn’t prevent the emperor of Constantinople, the patriarch of Constantinople and all (21) the Greek bishops (except 1) including the bishop of Kiev, and 700 members of the greek church, to accept to rejoin the Church at the Council of Ferrare-Florence.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 "Trust me bro" isn't evidence. If you're going to make such wild claims like that, then it's up to you to prove it - not everyone else.
What is that woman supposed to be doing at 7:00? She's genuflecting on her right knee and crossing herself with her left hand? Is this off Getty images or something? :)
Very cool and informative video. A lot of information packed into a relatively short period of time. I appreciated the reference to the old hymn "In Christ there is no East or West". Many years ago I made my own irreverent version of this: "...in Him no North or South/But one enormous set of teeth/in one enormous mouth."
Today, western Christianity is most definitely NOT the Roman Catholic Church! It seems to me the point of the compass matters not at all. What defines real Christianity is whether or not it's BIBLICAL.
Unless I misinterpreted Jesus's prayer in John 17:20-23, I still believe it will happen. If Jesus prayed to the Father for oneness among all those who believe in Him, the Father will answer that prayer and it will happen one way or the other. So be it ❤️🔥.
If the Catholic interpretation of the Fatima revelation is correct, then it shouldn’t be much longer. That and the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch are both open to discussion of union. This is really the closest we and the Catholics have been since the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. On that day, the Liturgy celebrated that morning in Hagia Sophia commemorated both the Pope and the Patriarchs, demonstrating total communion between the Churches of God.
Another difference is that Christians in the west tend to view the crucifixion as the most important event in the life of Jesus Christ, while those in the east tend to consider the incarnation as the central event.
The whole point of Christ coming to earth is to die for us on the cross, so that we have the only way to go to heaven, through that sacrifice, the sinless God in the flesh took all of our sins and paid the price when we should have paid the price. The self sacrifice of The Lord was why he came.
I noticed this too. Of course this is generalizing a bit, but in Orthodoxy we talk more about Christ's victory over death, his resurrection! That's not to say the crucifixion isn't discussed, but it's not the main focus like in western Christianity. Saying "Jesus died for your sins" sounds like an odd thing to say to an orthodox, very protestant! We focus more on how Jesus lived.
@Avery F The crucifixion and resurrection is definitely more important. Hesus could have descended in a mountain in a chariot of fire, but instead He decided to be born of a virgin. The prohecies follow the act, and so He was predicted to be of virgin birth. I know of at least one fully ordained preacher who believes the birth is more important, but that guy also thinks the abominable injections our government has been pushing is acceptable to consume.
In the Philippines, there's also a mini-Schism happening between Roman Catholic Church and INC (which doesn't believe in the cross, Jesus and disciple images, and Christmas.)
the "Roman" in the "Roman Catholic Church" came into more common usage only in the 19th century. Otherwise, it has always been simply the "Catholic Church." the "Eastern Catholics" may be few in number, but their presence in the "Catholic Church" is theologically and doctrinally significant. This relativizes "Latin Rite" Church doctrine, practice and forms of life.
In the 50s I have been told by my grandparents generation, the protestants in Australia would write out Roman Catholic on payslips etc in order to annoy Catholics. Alot of Catholics of the time would prefer to be referred to as Catholic, sans the Roman bit.
@@yellowpete79 lol religion your parents follow didnt even exist at time all this was going on, no offence but most Australia aint even christians so how they gonna try to piss catholics off about their religion.
A very good video. It is nice to see someone tell things like they happened. I get tired of hearing how the Catholics and the Orthodox are basically the same when in many ways they are very different. Again thank you for not saying how awful protestants are. It is nice to se a site that is open.
There are some things about the filioque that you glossed over(you had to) but it's important to note that Catholics do not teach a double procession with the filioque as the Eastern Orthodox accuse them of often.
They do. It's taught at Ferrera-Florence. Seems like most lay Catholics I talk to, actually have a more Orthodox position, but the dogmatic Latin position is double eternal procession and the Catholic apologists will make that clear.
@Pegasi I can throw another wrench in this argument. I'm a Lutheran, we affirm the filioque, and the eternality of the procession from the son, but we deny that the son is a cause of the Spirit. The procession from the Son is eternal but mediated from the Father.
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 That's just you not using these terms with their proper definitions as set forth before the Latins and the Greeks by the Cappadocian fathers. It's like saying I can call a shark yellow if I say that yellow is actually blue.
There was another schism in Russian Orthodox Church. In 1652 patriarch Nicon decided to reform ROC and make more similar to Greek OC. As a result now we have orthodox christians and orthodox orthodox christians (Old Ritualists or Old Believers). Some of them often have no priests and churches and they don't pray, because they believe, that after the reforms The God's Grace left the church.
I am interested in the Eastern Protestants. I know of a few in my church that came from Syria and others but I love a general overview of them and whatever information comes up
Generally speaking, I don't think protestant is quite eastern or western, just because in protestantism so many adaptations can be made depending on the local, is quite more maleable than the Catholic or Orthodox, I'm not saying that as a compliment, the Catholic Church just do adaptations to do the same teachings and the came could be said about the orthodox if they made the effort to convert glocally like the catholics did, protestants can adapt even some parts of the faith when not the whole faith, the boxer rebellion happened for a cause
I'm not saying about all the protestants tho, the high chuch traditionalist protestants and some protestant churchs who came from calvinism are more traditional in their teachings than the new branches or protestantism
The history of the split of the oriental orthodox and the churches in the east I think give huge credence to the E.O. claims of being the original church and it being Rome who separated. 1 - At the time of the schism is was literally Rome vs. the other Patriarchs. If the pope was really seen as supreme this issue would have separated the patriarchs, or we might have seen it as Constantinople vs all the others, as they submitted to Rome. But we don’t see that. We see all the patriarchs in union in calling out Rome. 2 - As noted, these eastern churches look, believe, and practice nearly identically, even though they haven’t been in communion since before the great schism. Meaning it is Rome who has drastically changed in the years since. As the other though separated by space and time, have remained so unchanged, that they look almost identical.
You're missing a lot. That's disingenuous. Why and when did "Rome" "separate" from the EO? Maybe it's better you say the EO refused to help the Roman Christians. The Pope returned after the sacking of Rome by the Gauls to rebuild the cradle of Christianity. The EO continued to refuse to help Rome from the invading hoards of Visigoths, Vandels and Ostrogoths in the following centuries. After 700 years of barbaric invasions in Western Latin Christianity without help from her Eastern brothers, Venetian merchants who were funding the Crusaders pilgrimages took advantage of the Mohammadan pagan invasion of Constantinople and looted the city. That vindictive tragedy finally broke the East and West with thr Great Schism. See. There's more to events than your over simplification orf Christianity origins apologetics. Eastern Orthedox are brothers to Rome (which includes all her different Rites. We have so much more in common theologically then the Prot's man-made-up religion. They will continue to separate themselves into more "Denominations." We need to be unified as One Church.
"1 - At the time of the schism is was literally Rome vs. the other Patriarchs. If the pope was really seen as supreme this issue would have separated the patriarchs, or we might have seen it as Constantinople vs all the others, as they submitted to Rome. But we don’t see that. We see all the patriarchs in the union in calling out Rome" At the time of the Schism, it was literally just Constantinople vs Rome. The other Patriarchates were either tied down or under Islamic occupation and had scarce contact to really weigh in, or even know that it happened. Jerusalem to my knowledge is the only one I think that really sided with Constantinople but that was decades after the initial split. Alexandria though kept Communion with Rome until the 14th century. Also, Constantinople also had repeated instances of appointing other patriarchs directly from Constantinople, despite not actually having the occupation of that See. So talk about loading the dice in your favor. Antioch is a further hot mess when the Maronites were rediscovered and challenged Constantinople's appointment of their See and pledged communion with Rome instead. Also once again when the Melkites broke with EO in the 18th century to reconvene with Rome. In the 13th century, Patriarch John Bekkos of Constantinople was initially anti-union with Rome. He was actually thrown in prison by the Emperor for speaking out against a possible union with Rome. He eventually ended up reading more about the Eastern Fathers and found that the Eastern church's claims of Rome were exaggerated, and sought union. Because anti-unionists were popular amongst the mobs (Likely due to the Sack of Constantinople being in recent memory) he was actually imprisoned again, this time ironically, supporting a union. He would remain imprisoned until his death and never recanted this view. Finally, we can find plenty of support for Papal Supremacy at Chalcedon, Gregory the Great, and Emperor Justinian I. All of which proclaim that either Rome is the head of the Church, or that other churches are subject to Rome. No patriarchs seemed to be calling out when those instances happened. "2 - As noted, these eastern churches look, believe, and practice nearly identically, even though they haven’t been in communion since before the great schism. Meaning it is Rome who has drastically changed in the years since. As the other though separated by space and time, have remained so unchanged, that they look almost identical." This is because, during the 8th century, the West got isolated from most of the Eastern due to the rise of Iconoclasm in the east. This relationship would never be mended again even after the 7th Ecumenical Council. Rome and Constantinople were not on good speaking terms since then. We thusly start seeing a difference in how liturgies are developed. It also doesn't really help, that again, some Patriarchs were appointed and housed in Constantinople, some never stepping foot in their Sees. So of course the tradition is likely going to be the same.
My family has always been Lutheran protestant since at least the 1870s when they immigrated to the US from Germany. That said, I’ve prayed in all of those ways lol Very interesting video. I always wondered about the difference. There’s a beautiful Orthodox Church not far from me. Also a beautiful Mormon temple. And soon a Mosque. Actually there’s a lot of diverse religious buildings in my city. I like seeing all the different architectural styles.
@@ReadyToHarvest Understood, and I'm just genuinely curious because your content is very good. But when you list Albanian, Polish, Slovak, etc. there are maybe several hundred thousand of them in total. I would assume that the Churches with the biggest number would be included by default.
@@WhiteBoardFinance I do think that's the assumption generally, but I have never run my channel that way. For example, I make a lot of videos all about one denomination. What is Assemblies of God? What are Reformed Baptists? Paradoxically, I don't have one on the Catholic Church (Largest church, with over a Billion members) or the largest Presbyterian denomination in the USA (Presbyterian Church USA) but I do have videos on several denominations with fewer than 10,000 members. Likewise, when talking about traditions like Orthodoxy, just because one branch comes from a country with a lot of people (E.g. Russia) I don't feel that necessarily means I have to always talk about them just because they are big. I don't let bigness get in the way of talking about what is more interesting, or more important. In the end, it could work in your favor, because I may have an overview video about the Serbian Orthodox Church before I make one about the Russian Orthodox Church. We'll see. 🙂
This was great! From an inside point of view the video does skip some of differences wed say are important, such as different views of prayer & the communion of infants & children.
In my own time spent with the Orthodox Church (Antioch) I found their theology to be kinder and less punitive than Catholicism, but I found Catholic practice, the pastoral side, to be kinder and less angry than Orthodox priests were.
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful , O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
I'm Roman Catholic but the drip of Eastern Christians is really something. From their religious garments to their architecture. Very beautiful.
As someone who was briefly raised Protestant before losing his faith and now slowly discovering Catholicism, I find both it and Orthodoxy have a vastly better sense of beauty.
It just seems misguided to deny such beauty as vanity or whatever when it's clearly an expression of faith, especially given Protestantism generally emphasises music and hymns, which isn't wholly different in that regard.
The retained a sense of traditionalism versus many Catholic churches that try to masquerade as Protestant.
Go find a Catholic Mass in Latin and you'll have a similar appreciation for the churches, the garments, etc
@@WK-47 know that art doesn't have anything to do with faith, it's alright to just appreciate art and architecture but it's not faith.
don't be like "oooh shiny shiny I like this" it doesn't lead anywhere, just lukewarm christianity
edit: Orthodoxy is beautiful, I am moved by it
@@DesertsOfHighfleet I should've been clearer. It's incidental that it's beautiful. It's an expression of faith but by no means the best or only way to worship. Trying to emulate Christ in our actions and thoughts is immeasurably more important.
@@WK-47 yes! exactly,
thank you for replying
I am an Orthodox Christian, who’s been in many, many Catholic churches and I think one we get to know each other, the difference will be minimised and more mutual respect between us will be shown!
Amen brother, pray for Catholic and Orthodox unity
Unity can be reached only if catholics will decline their heresys.
Calling yourself an orthodox doesn't mean you are one.
If you truly want mutual understanding then study history. You'll realize that until the Pope decline all the heresies he believes we cannot be one
@@marcokite Ahem... with whom actually? 😅
I am a convert to Orthodoxy, from a Methodist background. It has been a wonderful experience understanding and living out the faith passed down from the Apostles, in which I feel more connected to Christ and His Church that he founded on the Day of Pentecost.
I still have respect to my brethren in the West, and hope we may iron out our disagreements in due time and unite under one common faith!
I like your presentation style: lots of information, no fluff ... this makes it a lot easier to stay focuessed, and follow through to the end. Great work!
I totally agree. Excellent presentation with solid information.
Happy to see that you spoke about my church.
I belong to the Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar.
It would be good if you can do a video on Christianity in India.
Unknown to many in the world, Christianity reached India through Christ's apostle St. Thomas in AD 52.
A historical video on that would be informative to everyone.
God bless.
Yes, absolutely
I had the chance to meet an oriental orthodox indian priest and learnt about christianity in India! May God bless all :)
That’s wonderful
Syrian or Syriac?
@@bigrob7426 syrian
I don’t know how you did it but you managed to produce about as non-biased a video on this subject as could be done. Nice!
Glad you liked it!
NiceNE.
@@ReadyToHarvest Taliban are STUDENTS. Boko jihadi are honorary 33°
@@ReadyToHarvest Can you make a video exposing the Shincheonji cult? they are spreading across the world and they need to me made more known, especially here in America ✝️🙏🙏
It's not that hard to do, people are just emotional for no reason
Thank you for making these videos. I enjoy that they aren’t very partisan.
I agree!
It’s important to understand that the Catholic Church teaches that the Communion Wafer is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, and that whenever one receives the Eucharist they receive all of Christ, not just his flesh.
Which absolutely makes it irrelevant that Christ instituted it under both kinds, commanding to eat, and DRINK. communion under one kind is a medieval theological invention, and it is directly disobeying Jesus. "Unless you eat my flesh AND drink my blood, you have no life in you"
Communion under one kind while it might seem very minor, in reality it refutes papal infallibility.
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 If you eat the wafer you are eating the body and drinking the blood. Also, it’s a mostly Latin Catholic thing. If it “refutes” Papal Infallibility then why do the Eastern Catholic Churches still perform Communion under both kinds?
@@micahcollins6412 the issue is trent making it "law of the church" to commune laity under both kinds.
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 Its the opposite, actually. The Council of Trent Session XXI, Chapter I reads in the incipit:
“That laymen and clerics, when not sacrificing [that is, not performing Holy Mass] are not bound, of divine right, to commune under both species”
The Council of Trent teaches that laymen do not need to commune under both kinds.
Catholics are memes
For me, even if I'm not religious, this topic is quite interesting. I was baptized/confirmed in the maronite church and made my communion in a Latin church. I'm fascinated by the variety and cultural richness of Christianity in all its branches.
Superb. A brief, factual presentation. Extensive research required to pull this together. Thank you for your work.
Seeing the positive energy and the positive feedback in the comments you‘ve induced with this video, I can just say, keep up the good work. We all want the same thing I believe. Just from a different perspective.
All religions teaches love for others but only Islam teaches to kill others (all) who does not believe in Allah..
As a Romanian Orthodox Christian I wish the best to my fellow Orthodox brothers and sisters!
As a catholic, i wish you all the best too! May all our churches lead us to heaven.
@@vaclavkopriva962 We need to be United against the 21st century Muslim invaders!
Thanks! I wish the best for you and your loved ones as well. God bless you and your loved ones 🙏❤
@@MaximusAugustusOrthodox such civilized talks.
@@nusantaramapper7580 allow me to ruin that
Really helpful. My wife is from Ukraine and is Orthodox and I've been trying to understand their perspective more.
A great introduction for Westerners in a single, clear, English-language volume is Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church.
I'm not going to make any assumptions here and this doesn't apply to your wife.
Generally, EOs from Europe know very little-to-nothing about their faith. it's more of a cultural thing.
@@jesusheals3799 Kind of like Roman Catholics in the US and Latin America
There is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and a Ukrainian Catholic Church. Same Liturgy and traditions. Of course the latter is in union with the Bishop of Rome. I happen to be Byzantine Catholic and my parish priest is from Kyiv.
@@jesusheals3799 You never know.. while it's true that a large number of them aren't die hard, like how most Catholics and protestants raised in America aren't really die hard, you'll still find some very dedicated eastern European Christians.
I love Eastern Orthodox churches. I have not visited those kinda churches because in India, you only find Roman Catholic Churches.
But I hope I visit those churches and baptise myself.
welcome brother
@ ⚔ കുരിശ് പോരാളി ⚔ -Crusader Vlogs I went there but never found a single Orthodox Church. All were catholic.
I even visited a church in Thiruvananthapuram which resembled Notre Dame Church completely.
Opening a new temple in India is prohibited by law - only the Indians themselves can do it. And getting a visa for a priest is almost impossible. So with the Orthodox there is indeed a shortage - for the whole country 1.5 priests.
There is a small temple in Delhi at the Russian Embassy. I can't say what the order of his visit is. He has the status of a house church (usually this is a part of the house consecrated for service), so there may be difficulties. This needs to be clarified.
There is a small community in Goa, but there is no permanent priest. Sometimes Priest Maksimov travels there from Russia (there is a channel on UA-cam), but he goes to many places, so you need to catch him. There is no permanent church there, and the community consists mainly of Russians who are there for work.
There is a small community in Andhra Pradesh. Most of the believers in this group speak Telugu, do not know English, live in villages - this can make it difficult to find their contacts. Dr. Wesley is related to this group, he was baptized into Orthodoxy there - as far as I understand, he is a well-known figure, maybe you can contact this group through him.
In the state of Maharashtra, in Chanrapur, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, Clement Nekhamayia, serves. He is a native Indian, he studied Orthodoxy in Russia. Travels all over India. This is the most successful community because there are no legal barriers to preaching.
I managed to find the contacts of this group: Priest Clement's Instagram: @orthodoxindia
There is a video, but I can not give a link - UA-cam can remove the post. I will give the video number - just paste it in the address bar in place of any other video: jW_DWTE7T1w
The video is in Russian, but there you can see a priest, a temple.
In the next post, I will give a normal link to the video, if you do not see the post, then UA-cam deleted it.
ua-cam.com/video/jW_DWTE7T1w/v-deo.html
East Orthodox is the best form of Xtianity ❤
Btw, you can check Kerala Orthodox churches.
Dude, this was awesome. Great job.
Great video. I do wish there were two versions, one of which really took time to explain difference. I always learn something even if I do not understand everything you talk about
Covers both types of delusions
@@VINvIN344 right, the master of delusions has spoken!
One of your BEST videos yet. Very thoughtful and thought provoking. Merry Christmas!
Thank you Matthew, same to you!
In my experience, Coptic Churches that have a Western "flair" are ones that were originally a Western Church (usually Protestant) but have been converted into a Coptic Church. This happens in Western countries were the diaspora has set down roots and need a place to worship and a church building is no longer being used by a Western Church.
The local Coptic Orthodox church building here has been at least three different denominations that I can recall and was a karate dojo before being purchased by the Copts. I find the contrast between an Oriental Orthodox service and a generically-Protestant-looking building quite interesting. They move into a new purpose-built building this year so I'm interested to see who takes over the church building after them.
@@lelandunruh7896 I was referring to the Oriental Orthodox, as this is the one that is ment 99% of the time.
@@nathanjohnwade2289 Yes, I understood you.
Can you make a detailed video of Christianity in India especially Kerala?
As an Indian Christian born in Kerala I identify as Syro Malabar Catholic but it is hard to explain the differences of many others sections of Christians and obviously most of us are unaware of the divisions of Christianity. It'll be very helpful.
മലയാളി ഡാ..Love and Support from Chittilapilly-Thrissur.. 💯❤️🔥 💪💪💪💪💪🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Namaste in the Name! I'm ethnically Greek Orthodox of Tamil ancestry on my Cretan mother's side. We love Mar Thoma!
Its actually very easy to understand...there is only one church that arose in kerala under Apostolic Succession from St. Thomas and carries that true heritage and thats the holy malankara orthodox syrian church which is an oriental orthodox church. All the other churches are either westernized or reformed and split from that one true church including both the syro-malabar and malankara churches who chose to follow the Roman slavery, then the marthoma church which chose to be reformed hence heretics, then there are the jacobites who chose to remain under patriarchal slavery. Then there are many smaller churches like the independent Syrian church etc
@@realzhella6817 You are from the metran kashy, no doubt about it. You must be really glad, stealing churches from the Jacobite church. I'm from the syro malankara catholic church, but I know a bad seed when I see one. Let's be clear about slavery. You are chained and forced into submission. Church is not that. Here is a more unbiased view of the history:
The church of St Thomas practiced the east syrian liturgy under the Church of the East. Portuguese came and surprised here was a christian community in south india. in 1599, a certain synod took place that said all st thomas christians were under the Latin rule and burned all heretic books of the east syrian liturgy. Because they did not know much of our liturgy and preferred the western way, our ancestors were coerced. The Arch deacon at the time was the voice for the st thomas Christians as the Malpan Mar Abraham died. It was during that time the Church of the east experienced a split and two churches emerged, the church of the east and the Chaldean Catholic Church. Both side wanted to bring the St Thomas christians under to their domain, but the Portuguese blocked them from coming. However, in 1653, Arch Deacon staged a protests to the Jesuit missionaries from Portugal and thus the Coonan Cross Oath came to be. It stated the Christians won't follow them, even though it did hurt their communion with the Pope at the time as they were thought to be part of that communion with Rome through the Church of the east. The Pope heard of this and told the Jesuit Missionaries to no longer interfere and he sent Carmelite Priests instead to repair the rift. The Camelites used Paramibil Chandy, the Arch Deacon's cousin, as a way to bring the christian back to Rome. So, Chandy was able to get a majority of the churches back under the fold to Rome, whereas Arch Deacon was betrayed and received about 30 percent of the churches in Kerala. As this was going on, the Arch deacons group was anxious and needed to find a way to make his rule absolute to the community as he was not a Bishop. He sent letters to churches in the east and the Syriac orthodox church replied from Jerusalem and it was Gregorios Mor Abdeel Jaleel who brought the west syrian liturgy and traditions with him to Kerala and meet the Christians. The ishop made Arch deacon a proper metropolitan bishop and he officially named Mar Thoma the 1st. Here, there are two groups, the party that wanted to stay with the Pope became known as the Old Party as they kept the east Syrian liturgy, but was forcefully Latinized. The other party became known as the new party s they adopted the West syrian liturgy, which was somewhat familiar to them. The Christians in Kerala back then were used to Syriac, so Latin was an upset to them as it was not their preferred choice. Later on, there have been many splits from the new party, or the Jacobite Malankara Orthodox church due to personal rivalry or Foreign influences. The independen Malabar church was formed by a Bishop who was the preferred choice to lead the jacobite church, but a jealous bishop had authorties chase him off. thus, he formed the Independent Malabar church. The next split was the Mar Thomas Church, a protestantised malankara church that happened due to the influence of Angelicans and their reformed practices. A bishop and his entourage left to form that church as the Jacobit church rejected those such reformed views and renewed their relationship with the syriac orthodox church. Heading into the early 1900s, there was a new battle brewing, the bava kashy and metran kashy. The bava kashy was loyal to the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox church and the metran was loyal to Geevarghese Dionysius of Vattasseril who wanted self rule for their Malankara Church in Kerala and all of india. Geevarghese Dionysius of Vattasseril, who became the Malankara metropolitan bishop in 1908, played a significant role with the other clerical and lay leaders of Malankara in re-establishing the Catholicos of the East in India in 1912. In 1909 the relations with the Syrian Orthodox Church soured, when Patriarch Ignatius Abded Aloho II who arrived in India, began demanding registered deeds granting the patriarch temporal authority over the church. Dionysius rejected the request and thus emerged two factions in the church. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church wanted to retain its autocephaly, and appealed to Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius Abdul Masih II. He enthroned Murimattathil Paulose Ivanios as Baselios Paulose I, Catholicos of the East, on the apostolic throne of St. Thomas at St. Mary's Church in Niranam on 15 September 1912. Over time, Mor Ivanios was part of that Metran Kashy group in the Jacobite church and he supported Geevarghese Dionysius of Vattasseril. Mor ivanios suggested to the bishop about having relations with the catholic church, and it was approved by Vattasseril and many others from the synod in 1926. Soon after, only Mor ivanios and four others went and re-joined the catholic church to be known as the syro malankara catholic church as the others backed out and continued their struggle for independence, which they did in 1934. Also, the syro malankara church did not take any churches with them from the jacobite or malankara orthodox. Otherwise, we be in silly court cases like all of you currently are. Is it fair to say we are under the roman church? No. We are in communion. Know the difference. We have autonomous power within the catholic church and are practicing the liturgy similar to the Jacobite faction. Pope of Rome is he successor to St Peter and many churches, catholic and orthodox worldwide, said it was the main church and seat of st peter. Just because we are not fully in communion with each other, doesn't mean we are not all christians under Christ and can be friendly to each other.
@@realzhella6817 aah best.. what u have said is nothing but rubbish. Have some knowledge about the history and theological difference between the Churches.
Wow. Not only was the content informative but it was superbly delivered.
Great respect and Kudos to you, young man!
Most Latin Churches (before Corona admittedly) did do Communion under both kinds. It's actually a bit of a sticking point of a lot of the laity that they aren't allowed to drink the Blood of Christ (edit: after the pandemic) and it's been years since I've done so myself. Still miss it.
In my parish is quite uncommon to commungate blood and flesh of Christ, I did 2 times, one when the Priest was at the end of the Communion and at the other the priest was doing the mass at college, It's a good priest
Catholic, my diocese has done under both kinds since at least the 1980’s. They only changed during covid lockdown, and some have gone back to both kinds, such as the parish I belong to.
I remember taking both when I was younger not sure why they stopped
I guess it depends by region/country. In Croatia, Communion under both kinds is relatively rare, as far as I'm aware.
Well, the previous Sunday I received the wine in an "below the radar" Episcopal Church from the cup without dipping. That's the first time since early 2020 for me.
Looking at the map of historic Greek vs. Latin-speaking areas of the Roman empire, I find that Sicily, where some of my great-great-grandparents came from, has parts of it in the Greek portion and parts of it in the Latin. I think it shows how much of a convergence area Sicily is. For all I know some of my distant ancestors could have been speaking Greek up to the 800s or 900s, then maybe some dialect of Arabic (due to the emirate set up there), then after the Norman campaigns gradually shifted into a Romance language like Italian or something. Maybe this also reflects what they could have believed as the centuries went by, as Sicily, based on my guessing, wasn't really homogenously Catholic for the most part until the 1200s.
There is Eastern Catholic Church in Sicily, : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Albanian_Catholic_Church
While what you're saying is true, the fact is that that it has been strictly italian for 800 years. Even you great great grandparents were regular catholics.
@@notyourbusiness8475 yes they were, and to them it would have probably seemed like their island had been predominantly Catholic since about the dawn of time.
There were Greek language schools in southern Italy, perhaps Sicily?, until Mussolini shut them down in the 1920s.
Naples, Italy was once a Greek colony.
Neopolis ( new city)
Sicily was subjugated by Greeks, Spanish and Moroccans.
Congratulations for this good summary. There is one thing you could have said also : the Filioque debate has been solved by theologians (both orthodox and catholics) centuries ago. The only points keeping is divided is the authority of the Pope and a few minor points in ecclesiology.
What did they end up settling on? I've been reading up on both churches as I'm in between both.
This is completely false, nothing was settled.
i love reading comment sections on videos about religion it makes me so happy and returns all of my faith in humanity this is because nobody is argueing at all and we are all living in peace it is so fun and postive and full of love and peace
Wow awesome video! Thanks for this content. I feel having a simplified but yet detailed understanding of our history as Christians makes for a more robust faith all around. Thanks again!
Please do an extended video about the St. Thomas Christians from India :)
Oh I would love to see that
@@dmaster2 Make that two of us!
Yes please
TL:DR: Basically the only Nestorians who didnt convert to Islam like the Iraqis, persians and central asians/turks/mongolians or wasnt assimilated in to the local population due to loss of contact with other christians, like the ones in western china, the western coast of India, pakistan and Sri Lanka. They are found in Kerala, India. Then with the arrival of the Europeans in the 16th century onwards, they split into various denominations of Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants etc due to political/spiritual reasons. Currently no nestorians exist anywhere anymore. The end.
@@vincentfox4929 So, the Thomas Christians were Nestorian? Interesting.
Thank you! Again you’ve done a wonderful thing to distill these ideas so succinctly. I know you have your own principled belief system, but in today’s ultra contentious world it’s nice not to have parse “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” God must be thinking we are so redundant-going over and over the same ground century after century. As I write it is the week befor Christmas. Merry Christmas!
Very ilustrative...! I'm Mexican and over here, you know, as Catholics, we depend in general of the view of the Pope and... Our beliefs in the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe... Obviously there are many faces in the christian branches... One of them could be that, here in Mexico and in Latinoamérica in general, I could dare to say that, there's not much awareness about the Luther's church reform, not to mention all these other schisms that you mention and are really interesting and enlightening....
You've done a real good job...!
Thanks a lot indeed...!
Y sin embargo las iglesias evangélicas, mal llamadas "cristianas" parecen ser cada vez más populares, sobre todo en pequeñas comunidades rurales.
@@enzocompanbadillo5365They learned to read the Word.😁
I really enjoyed this video to watch! God bless you all and your loved ones 🙏❤
Excellent presentation sir. Please keep up this work. Such an interesting informative way to reach the lost and to inform all people interested in Church history. I appreciate you.
Arguably the greatest Christian theological historian on UA-cam right now. And this guy is young!
Sorry, that would be Scott Hahn
@@dougy6237 ok, I'll check him out.
I have been waiting for a synthetic, comparative East-West video like this since UA-cam began. Thank you! This is wonderful. My only wish is that sometimes you’d slow down and elaborate on some points before moving on, but I suppose that would change the length and scope of the video.
that's just not his style. I usually make it halfway through his video before getting lost, go do a bit of reading, and then try it again. Very rapid fire and condensed, but really thorough.
@@ourladyofguadalupebotanica6732 I know what you mean by the moment when the wash of information makes the brain start to glaze over. 😂. That said, I think I’m decently well versed on the differences between the Eastern and Western churches, and on the history of their relationship, but at several points this video hit on details that made me realize there have remained clear gaps in my understanding.
✅️
The amount of work that you put into these videos continues to impress. Thank you!
Yeah... if it only included a geography lesson too?!
I was really expecting to have a litany of "oh that's wrong" on a video like this but this was admittedly one of the most unbiased vids I have seen on the subject. Impressed.
Thank you for your work on this channel. It is super helpful.
According to the Coptic priest Fr. James in his interview with Matt Whitman on Matt Whitman's UA-cam channel the Coptic Church believe in the divinity and humanity of Christ. It was a language and political miscommunication that separated the Churches
It was not a language and political miscommunication. It’s deeply theological. If it was just semantics or political, we would not still be separated. Copts are disingenuous, as are certain ecumenist Orthodox.
@@TheRealRealOKI have little personal experience with it. I was just going off the statements of Fr. James, a Coptic priest, and my limited knowledge of early church history. I could easily see how language and cultural differences could cause confusion. If you have personal experience to the contrary you are well within your rights to feel that way.
@@emilierose9402 It’s not how I personally feel about it, it’s just a fact.
A very good breakdown on the differences, some of which are almost "insider baseball" level. For an Independent Baptist to master these concepts is , I must say, quite impressive
You must say?
@@SpartanChief2277 Yes, he must. Mustn't you?
@@heimatliebe116 I would say, I need not must it.
@@SpartanChief2277 Needless to say, I mustn't either.
For a Baptist to learn so much about Catholicism and orthodoxy and still remain a flaming heretic that denies the necessity of a successor to the Apostles as identifying the true church is simply pathetic
I love the Channel you explain the history very well, God bless you & your channel im Catholic & have ex Greek Orthodox friends who just joined my Parish.🙏🙏💯 Catholic 🗝️🗝️ Love the Channel & God bless
It is important to note that for most part, Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize the Apostolic Succession and validity of each other’s Holy Orders(Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons) and the validity of the 7 Sacraments of each other. Therein lies some hope of reconciliation. There are still many obstacles here, but it’s not beyond hope. (Cf. John 17:11). 🙏
Well not exactly. For example a Catholic to become Orthodox must be Chrismated again and sign a paper that declines the Catholic doctrines otherwise he/she doesn't belong in the Orthodox Church/Body of Chist thus he/she can't participate in the Holy Mysteries. This is not the case for the other way around as far as I know.
@Sotiris A. Indeed this is true. We in the Catholic Church encourage our Orthodox brethren to obey the authorities of their church. However, if they present themselves at Holy Communion, we do not refuse them the Sacrament.
@@stephenscull901 Obeying an authority that goes sideways ways is not what the Orthodox Church does. The history and the Holy Tradition are very good examples of that. The "authorities" should obey the Church not the other way around.
If you were the One Holy Apostolic Church you wouldn't allow that. The Holy Mysteries are Sacred! You can't allow anybody to participate in them! That's one of the reasons why catechism exists.
Orthodox do NOT believe Rome has valid sacraments or Apostolic Succession. Rome lost those things when she schismed.
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful ,
O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
I really enjoy your videos! Keep it up! Thanks for producing this solid content. God bless
Thanks Asa!
The not-so-homogeneity of Catholic Church is particularly clear here in Northern Italy: in Milan they use the ambrosian rite (which can be really disorienting for the other catholics), and in Venice there's one of the only 4 patricarchs (!) of the latin Catholic churches... celebrating in Venice's St Mark Basilica, which is architectonically very, very, very eastern - almost a mosque!
Thank you for your videos! :)
That comment regarding Venice makes no sense
@@fritz404 Why?
@SPscorevideos could you please explain what you mean by the "4 patricarchs (!) of the latin Catholic churches"? Thanks!
It's not like a mosque, mosques are like it
@@sam.mead__ There are four patriarchs in the current day Roman Catholic Church: Jerusalem, East India, Lisbon and Venice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch
In my hometown there is a greek orthodox church that meets in a school (however there are moving into there own building very close to where I live).
Just goes to show that "universal" does not mean "uniform". Yes, the Latin Rite is dominant in Catholicism, but there's a whole bunch of other rites and traditions that exist within Catholicism, all of which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
I am a Christian of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo religion. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is an ancient church with a history of three thousand years. My heart finds rest by worshiping Lord Jesus in the Orthodox Church. I believe with all my heart that the Holy Church founded by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is Orthodox. If I had not lived in Orthodoxy, I would not have known the Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. Our Lady, the Holy Virgin Mary, intercedes. May God be praised for his noble body and his holy blood.
Thank you for your faithful labors. The Lord be with you.
Excellent content as usual. Thank you.
Eastern Catholic here. We acknowledge the Eastern Orthodox Church as a valid expression of the Church with valid sacraments. As an aside, the folks at my parish do not believe the filioque is heresy, but we believe it does not belong in the Nicene Creed. This is something we, as Orthodox in union with Rome, agree with our Holy Orthodox brothers and sisters on.
On Orthodox architecture: churches are built in the shape of a cross with the top (the place of the altar) facing east.
..and Catholic until 16 th century WAY
very happy you used a picture of peterborough cathedral at 10:58 the school i went to was affiliated with it
Such an amazingly complex topic. While it is not possible to make it simple, I appreciate you making it understandable!
Once again excellent video Josh
Thank you!
I learned alot from this. I was quite confused between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. I'm a Roman Catholic who often attends the local Ukrainian Catholic Church.
I have a friend who was born in Mexico and raised in Colorado and is now a Redemptrist in Canada who likes the Ukrainian Catholic Church (yeah lot of stuff there haha). I actually thought he was referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church which first led me to my research in it and realized that it answered questions way better than Catholic school ever did, then he told me he was talking about Eastern Catholicism. Eastern Catholicism seems to get things right, like Confession. I think that the East is a lot less punishment-based and way more spiritual considering Catholicism took on a lot more pagan and barbarian influence which could be the reason for such strictness. I found videos from the Coptic Orthodox Church to be most enlightening. However, I have a lot of reservation now towards a Church which deems the Russian Orthodox Church and its blatant anti-Semitism, homophobia, and support of the genocidal Ukraine War as a holy war. It's hard to be a Christian, there's no organization in Christianity where I feel truly at home.
I'm Byzantine Catholic. There's 22 other Eastern Catholic Churches.
I'm Maronite Catholic
Yo...I'm from Syro Malabar church, another Eastern Catholic church.
The current conflict in Ukraine has roots in forced conversion of Russians into Catholicism and making Eastern rite catholic Ukrainians out of them. I noticed that many peoples who were converted by force become “more catholic than Pope” because they feel the need to prove their new identity by attacking their old identity and killing their former compatriots who resisted conversion. Eastern Orthodox churches felt Catholics attacked them from the back when they had to fight mongols and Turks.
Was raised Catholic and I've always been fascinated by schism and especially the orthodox church as I recognize we shared some similarities in the various doctrines. Now everyone has their opinion on religion, but it's amazing how the whole thing came to be, and how centuries later, religion is still big across the globe
A big mind control money grabbing scheme
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful ,
O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
Actually the difference is ontological between the two in a sense we are talking about two different Deities
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας what?!?
@@JohnDoe-uw9nq what i said is that the difference between orthodox theology and Catholic are so ontological different that we are not talking about the same God but for different things.
Excellent presentation. Crystal clear, coherent and not overwhelming. Superior to Religion for Breakfast.
I'm not Catholic. I was raised mostly Non-denominational Christian, with some Pentecostal and Christian-Judaism...I know an odd mix lol But it's kind of cool too because I can clearly see a mix of both Eastern and Western practices in the way I grew up. I grew up with the "communion" or the Eucharist with unleavened bread and either wine or grape juice. In some cases we were given the bread in our mouth and in others we took it in hand and had to wait for the blessing. I've prayed and worshipped with my hands folded, arms raised, and prostrate on the floor. I have learned from all kinds of Christian practices. I've been baptized in a baptimisal "bath" but my Mother and son have both been baptized in rivers. I was also taught Jewish festivals etc.
There's no such thing as judeo Christian. Those who didn't accept Jesus as the messiah and stay close to Moloch, and the world of the flesh, are demons.
All religions teaches love for others but only Islam teaches to kill others (all) who does not believe in Allah..
Me too lol. You're not alone. 😂❤
You should do a video about the Maronite [Catholic] Church, which is Eastern rite always in communion with Rome (i.e., there is no Orthodox/Church of East side)
Always in communion? Even when they were thought extinguished?
@@haroldgamarra7175 That's why it needs a video of its own.
Actually, This fact made me keep my belief in Catholic church as a true original church instead of converting to orthodox, The Maronite church is a living proof that from the beginning all churches have agreed they are united with the church of rome and acknowledge that the pope is a primus interpares or the succession of St. Peter.
@@MyPoincare Every Orthodox church has always agreed with all of that. The Pope is in fact Primus Inter pares. His rightful place as such is still available in the Orthodox Church as long as he repents of his heresies. He has primacy among other bishops, not supremacy.
@@haroldgamarra7175 Primus Inter Pares is only a concept that I can date to the late 8th century when Iconoclasm began and the West started to become more isolated from the East. Perhaps it was coined earlier, but this is really when the term started developing.
Otherwise, it's always been that Rome was the Head of the Church. This is explicit on top of the Church Fathers, but also the sessions at Chalcedon, Pope Gregory the Great, and Emperor Justinian I himself just to name a few. All of them proclaim that Rome is the Head of the Church (Justinian codified this into law, as well as Chalcedon reiterating this) and that other churches are subject to Rome (Gregory's 12th epistle).
The other fact is that Rome completely overruled Constantinople in favor of the Maronite election, to begin with. The Maronite witness is by far the biggest support of Papal Supremacy.
apologies if I just missed it but I didn't spot any mention of Western-Rite Orthodoxy (sort of a mirror of the Eastern-Rite Catholics)
It's in there.
@@ReadyToHarvest then I did miss it… in which case my apologies!
You have done the best job I've ever heard quickly and succinctly summarizing the differences in a way that the average person can understand. Many Protestants, I don't think, understand Orthodoxy. This is true even among many well-educated Protestants. It took me a couple of years just to understand a little about how they think...it's VERY different, not only because of different definitions for theological terms but because of a more ancient/pre-Renaissance mindset with perhaps more emphasis on spiritual development as about logical/intellectual knowledge. Programs like this one help Westerners become a little more familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy and start understanding that, while Eastern Orthodoxy may superficially "look Catholic," the theology is VERY, very different.
A quick note: The Eastern churches do not have a "more ancient" mindset. That's the aesthetic that they want to portray, but it's not the reality of the faith. This is a misinterpretation done by those who are superficially exposed, or who are going through the early phase of romanticizing the East. In reality, there have been theological and ecclesiological developments that do not resemble the pre-Schism Church.
And not to mention the big elephant in the room, which is that there's no "Orthodox Church" (!) but a group of churches historically plagued with in-fighting (even right now with Russian, Greek and Ukranian churches), inconsistency of beliefs among clergy and laity from different regions (some Orthodox priests cannot even tell you if you were properly baptized by a priest from another Orthodox church), lack of unified resistance to foreign invaders and political meddling, lack of any effort in evangelizing the world (a clear instruction given by Jesus Christ) and instead remaining isolated from the rest of the world... and I could keep going.
As a lifelong Protestant who came home to Orthodoxy last Pascha, I agree. Talking to my family and to protestand friends is difficult because we now have completely different frames of reference. It's not just a "more ancient mindset", but a completely different set of first principles, particularly over Sola Scriptura and Church authority. And it's even hard to bring up the fact that first principles are the difference, because that is inherently an extrascriptural discussion. Egnaging in that discussion requires surrenduring what you believe is right and have been taught your whole life (as it was in my case), and further requires admitting that those first principes are indeed up for debate, which is a very difficul hurdle to jump. Because they see us believing in things that aren't referenced in scripture, and they see Roman Catholics doing the same thing, they often think of us as similar. And we are, in a lot of ways. Orthodoxy is more similar to Roman Catholicism that in is to Protestantism. But Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are closer to each other than either is to Orthodoxy.
@@sammif23 I would strongly disagree with your assertion that Protestantism and Catholicism are closer to each other than Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. Especially eastern-rite Catholicism which is nearly indistinguishable from orthodoxy in many respects but still in full communion with the Holy See. In fact, many Eastern catholic rites were formerly Eastern Orthodox churches who have reconciled with the Holy See but maintain their distinct cultural and theological traditions
Very true!
@@sammif23 Sam, that is absurd. Orthodoxy is far closer to Catholicism than protestantism is lol.
I love when I learn about things I didn't even know how little I knew about them. 😄👍
Thank you for your great video! Support informative! Best wishes from Germany 🌻
An interesting point can be added around 0:46 in that Protestants view both the Catholics and Orthodox as cut from the same cloth, so to speak, yet the Orthodox see Catholics and Protestants as cut from the same cloth.
I must say, I was surprised to see a mention of us Western Rite here. You sir did your research!
I have several friends who left the Charismatic Episcopal Church to join the Western Rite (they started St. Patrick's in Bealeton, Virginia).
@@DnDarrenJ My priest used to be episcopal as well (from my understanding). Both my parish and their’s probably use the same liturgy.
@@DnDarrenJ I go to that church 😳 weirdly small world. 😂
As a complete outsider (agnostic with an interest in the beliefs of various theists) I just find looking at the branching webs within broader groups of faith so rich and layered, thank you for the informative video.
The only way into the body of Christ (the church) is to believe the gospel.
That Christ died for your sin was buried and rose on the third day according to the scriptures. He was punished in your place for your sin. If you accept the gospel you will be born of God's spirit and be placed spiritually in Christ's body ( the church) not any of the institutions being discussed here. Those are a human invention. You can join any of these "churches" but will still be on the broad road to destruction.
That's why Jesus said unless you are born again you will not see the Kingdom of God. Be blessed.
@@murraylloyd6011 Ok, I am content to continue doing my own observations respectfully, and if destruction awaits me for that honest choice then so be it.
May your god continue to bless you, friend.
@@chillinon3263 Thanks but notice Jesus gave only one option not what we deem to be a honest option. "Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." So what He is doing is speaking the truth in love. Jesus said: He who believes not is condemned already. Notice he tells people the truth up front. He,s saying your sin already condemns you but I have made a way for you not to perish. Believe in my substitutionary sacrifice for your sin Because he loves people he doesn't pretend they are in a safe place. But then gives the solution. " Whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. We either accept or reject the gospel. I was in your position once searching but we need not search for God has made known the way to mankind to come to Him
Jesus in His great love plainly tells us the way ; I am the way,the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me. The world is in turmoil time is short and now is the day of salvation.Be blessed friend.
@@murraylloyd6011 Tell me, have you only explored Christianity?
Did it just happen to be the most popular faith where you were born?
Can you explain to me in your own words (not quotes) how Jesus is any more special than Muhammad, said to be the final prophet of the Abrahamic faiths (only considering the big three for simplicity's sake) that guided humanity to the truth of Allah, or Siddhartha Gautama, who withstood Mara's temptations and attacks before achieving enlightenment hundreds of years before Jesus drew his first breath?
I am open to the idea of god, gods, prophets or illuminated ones, but I just don't think I can hand-on-heart honestly believe Jesus is THE saviour when there are so many teachings throughout the world that claim to understand the truth of our existence without any definitive proof besides the equally strong convictions of their faithful.
I am willing to concede Jesus could be the truth, there's certainly a good % of the world who'd agree with you there, but for now I've yet to hear any convincing arguments that make it clear your faith has a greater monopoly on truth than any other out there in the vast history of mankind.
You are certainly welcome to try and convert me, but you're wasting your time on someone who has no interest in everlasting life or liberation from the cycle of saṃsāra.
I'm very sorry if this comes off as rude, but being aggressively preached at has never worked for me. Have a good day; keep your blessings, I'm afraid they mean little to me.
(I am also aware that not all religions believe in Religious Exclusivism but for the sake of ideas of "truthy-ness" I'm approaching from that angle)
Great video on a subject that is usually not discussed as it produces quite the controversy.
Just a small note - there are easters Catholics that did not join the western church out of theological reasons - some have done so in order to be allowed to practice a eastern form as Austro-Hungarian empire did not give religious freedom to eastern ortodox.
Is the Orthodox church pictured at 11:10 St Nicholas Orthodox Church in Mogadore, OH?
YOur presentation and preparation is always very professional.
The difference between orthodox church theology and western is the essence energies distinction. If one does not understand that he cant understand anything
My understanding is that even Catholic churches in the Greek-speaking world omit the filioque, as the sense of ἐκπορευόμενον is considerably stronger than "procedit". Theoretically, there was a joint statement with the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch saying that "filioque" was more a linguistic than a theological problem.
It isn't only linguistic, it's a matter of principle. The "filioque" idea was added to the Creed without a council, effectively nullifying the purpose of one. By the time the Orthodox were made aware of it, the Catholics had been using a different term and added things to the Creed that weren't there in the first place.
It was added long before the schism and Orthodox didn't break away because of it. That's just an excuse they used later on. The Church was able to add to councils already considering how the Council of Constantinople added to Nicea on the Holy Spirit.
@@VirginMostPowerfull Arrianismo en el reino visigodo en el 3 concilio de Toledo 587 cuando Recaredo rey abjuró del arrianismo y abrazo el catolicismo y acepto los 4 concilios ecuménicos ya celebrados.
@@VirginMostPowerfullTypical RC rewriting of history.
@@teds7379 You can literally research the history of the schism yourself. You're the only one who's attempting to rewrite history here
Thanks for including us eastern catholics!
Always amazing information. I learn so much from your analyses.
Thanks for summarizing the key points of Eastern and Western Churches.
great overview of this topic. Liked it a lot
I was anticipating your mentioning of Eastern Protestants. A lot of people forget about them.
'Eastern Protestants' aren't really a thing. they would simply be a member of a Protestant sect in that region of the world is all. There are ancient Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox. Protestantism is from Northern Europe originally
Are you talking about Russian Molokans or Paulicians in Byzantium?
@@askorutin2576 Probably thinking of groups like the Ukrainian Lutherans mentioned in the video.
@@mj6493 I think Ukrainian Lutherans are very small geographically limited community due to their origins in German colonists. In order to protest, you need something to protest against. So when Lutherans protested priest celibacy for example it could only work in parts of Ukraine colonized by Catholic Germans or Polls because orthodox churches never had that requirement to begin with. Lutheran congregations existed in Russia proper too, but they were limited to invited Germans and not spreading among russian orthodox believers much.
@@askorutin2576 I am aware that especially since the reign of Catherine the Great, who was a German Lutheran (Prussian), German settlements extended far into Russia and were quite numerous until they were either expelled or exterminated by the Soviets. However, from a brief reading of the history of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, it doesn't appear that its origins are from German colonists. From the website of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference (CELC) of which the Ukrainian Lutheran Church is a part, "The Ukrainian Lutheran Church is not entirely an alien phenomenon brought about to Ukraine from foreign countries, or a phenomenon that is indifferent to Ukraine’s destiny and its future. It is neither a new sect or a religious trend in our country. The Ukrainian Lutheran Church has a substantial historic background in Ukraine as well as its devotees and martyrs, who gave their lives for Ukrainian Christian work." The Reformation spread to many countries and not necessarily via German settlers. It's a fascinating history and worth reading about.
Also, your comment about Protestantism needing something to protest misses the central point of Protestantism which surprisingly is not protest. Rather, the motivation of Protestantism is reform of the Church according to the Gospel as we find it in the Holy Scriptures. That can be a motivating factor in the East as well as in the West.
Would you consider doing a video on The Maronite Church?
Can I ask you a video about the Waldesian Church? It's a denomination born in 1200s between Franch and Italy. I am Italian and the core of this Church is in my region (Piedmont, which is near to France). Actually in my country their are merged with the methodist in one denomination "Union of Waldesin-methodist Churches"
This was a really helpful, thorough yet concise video explaining the divide. Great post.
I'm filipino and moved to us, growing up in ph I'm catholic my whole life, I can say christian in ph and us is completely different, in us many christians are individualistic and in ph they're most colectivist.
i live here in the US and 3 of our priests are from your country. They are all great Priests keep up the good faith over there.
As a Roman Catholic, this was extremely fascinating. I knew there were Orthodox Catholics, but had no idea of the complexity of the split.
Not technically correct. I hope I can explain without being too territorial and please forgive me if I fail. There are Eastern Right Catholics, not Orthodox Roman Catholics. The Eastern Right Churches were disallowed to fully worship in the Eastern Tradition until Vatican II. The most “Orthodox” of the Eastern Right Churches is and was probably the Ukrainian Catholic Church because when they gave allegiance to the Pope to have him intercede in a horrible war with the Catholic King of Poland they got 25 dispensations which allowed them to essentially remain Orthodox. But it’s an interesting question why did Pope Leo IX excommunicate the eastern Churches but allow some then and others to follow to continue to be “Orthodox”, not to mention the complete reversal by Vatican II which allows Catholics to even receive communion in Eastern Orthodox churches, and the only requirement was recognition of Papal authority. Before the Pope all Church matters were settled by consensus of all the Bishops in Christendom and that’s why the Orthodox Churches haven’t changed because the Bishop of Rome isn’t available to provide his opinion. Christ is Born, Glorify Him.
Yikes. Telling people that you're a member or a criminal cult may not be a great idea.
@@philipbridler I don’t understand what “criminal cult”? The Branch Dividians were a criminal Cult. Some Fundamentalist Mormons could be considered a criminal cult because of polygamy and they are no longer associated with the broader Mormon community, but I don’t think the Catholics are a criminal cult even though they have mismanaged criminal conduct by many I don’t think it’s fair to call them a criminal cult.
@@philipbridler What do you mean criminal cult?!
You’ve seen Brant Pitre’s videos yet? I highly recommend. Great teacher
My GF (and hopefully future wife) was born into an Eastern Catholic Church. Wild. Love me some Byzantines.
Funny. The filioque and all these theological and ecclesiastical differences didn’t prevent the emperor of Constantinople, the patriarch of Constantinople and all (21) the Greek bishops (except 1) including the bishop of Kiev, and 700 members of the greek church, to accept to rejoin the Church at the Council of Ferrare-Florence.
I am a Roman Catholic but I like how the Orthodox Church has managed to preserve the Traditions.
Orthodoxs keep the rituals of ancient Greek theatre
@@basicinfo8786 Roman Catholic rituals are based on pagan rituals.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 evidence?
@@danhickey1227 Look it up
@@YourStylesGeneric321 "Trust me bro" isn't evidence. If you're going to make such wild claims like that, then it's up to you to prove it - not everyone else.
My head is spinning. So much information..
Great video! Could you do a video explaining the differences between mainstream Russian Orthodoxy and the Old Believers?
What is that woman supposed to be doing at 7:00? She's genuflecting on her right knee and crossing herself with her left hand? Is this off Getty images or something? :)
Very cool and informative video. A lot of information packed into a relatively short period of time. I appreciated the reference to the old hymn "In Christ there is no East or West". Many years ago I made my own irreverent version of this: "...in Him no North or South/But one enormous set of teeth/in one enormous mouth."
Only Believer & Non-Believer 😅
Today, western Christianity is most definitely NOT the Roman Catholic Church! It seems to me the point of the compass matters not at all. What defines real Christianity is whether or not it's BIBLICAL.
While it probably won't happen, I know it's a fantasy of many on both sides of the divide to eventually be in full communion with each other.
Unless I misinterpreted Jesus's prayer in John 17:20-23, I still believe it will happen. If Jesus prayed to the Father for oneness among all those who believe in Him, the Father will answer that prayer and it will happen one way or the other. So be it ❤️🔥.
One side would need to concede that they have been in error while the other has maintained the Faith. That would include rejecting some saints
If the Catholic interpretation of the Fatima revelation is correct, then it shouldn’t be much longer. That and the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch are both open to discussion of union. This is really the closest we and the Catholics have been since the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. On that day, the Liturgy celebrated that morning in Hagia Sophia commemorated both the Pope and the Patriarchs, demonstrating total communion between the Churches of God.
@@alexdiaz155 bruh, orthodox church doesn't even have communion with itself. didn't ukrainain and baltic churches reject russian patriarch recently?
@@wilhelmu not commemorating doesn't necessarily mean being in schism
Another difference is that Christians in the west tend to view the crucifixion as the most important event in the life of Jesus Christ, while those in the east tend to consider the incarnation as the central event.
The whole point of Christ coming to earth is to die for us on the cross, so that we have the only way to go to heaven, through that sacrifice, the sinless God in the flesh took all of our sins and paid the price when we should have paid the price. The self sacrifice of The Lord was why he came.
eph 2 : 8-9
john 3 : 16
Interesting, at our church , I’d say His resurrection would be more central.
I noticed this too. Of course this is generalizing a bit, but in Orthodoxy we talk more about Christ's victory over death, his resurrection! That's not to say the crucifixion isn't discussed, but it's not the main focus like in western Christianity. Saying "Jesus died for your sins" sounds like an odd thing to say to an orthodox, very protestant! We focus more on how Jesus lived.
@Avery F
The crucifixion and resurrection is definitely more important.
Hesus could have descended in a mountain in a chariot of fire, but instead He decided to be born of a virgin.
The prohecies follow the act, and so He was predicted to be of virgin birth.
I know of at least one fully ordained preacher who believes the birth is more important, but that guy also thinks the abominable injections our government has been pushing is acceptable to consume.
Knowledge like love should be free . Thank you for sharing ❤🖖!
In the Philippines, there's also a mini-Schism happening between Roman Catholic Church and INC (which doesn't believe in the cross, Jesus and disciple images, and Christmas.)
the "Roman" in the "Roman Catholic Church" came into more common usage only in the 19th century. Otherwise, it has always been simply the "Catholic Church." the "Eastern Catholics" may be few in number, but their presence in the "Catholic Church" is theologically and doctrinally significant. This relativizes "Latin Rite" Church doctrine, practice and forms of life.
In the 50s I have been told by my grandparents generation, the protestants in Australia would write out Roman Catholic on payslips etc in order to annoy Catholics. Alot of Catholics of the time would prefer to be referred to as Catholic, sans the Roman bit.
@@yellowpete79 lol religion your parents follow didnt even exist at time all this was going on, no offence but most Australia aint even christians so how they gonna try to piss catholics off about their religion.
@@bruhmcchaddeus413 Sounds like you don't know about the low level sectarianism in Australia.
A very good video. It is nice to see someone tell things like they happened. I get tired of hearing how the Catholics and the Orthodox are basically the same when in many ways they are very different. Again thank you for not saying how awful protestants are. It is nice to se a site that is open.
There are some things about the filioque that you glossed over(you had to) but it's important to note that Catholics do not teach a double procession with the filioque as the Eastern Orthodox accuse them of often.
No they do. Look up Ubi Petrus
They do. It's taught at Ferrera-Florence.
Seems like most lay Catholics I talk to, actually have a more Orthodox position, but the dogmatic Latin position is double eternal procession and the Catholic apologists will make that clear.
@Pegasi I can throw another wrench in this argument. I'm a Lutheran, we affirm the filioque, and the eternality of the procession from the son, but we deny that the son is a cause of the Spirit. The procession from the Son is eternal but mediated from the Father.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM no they believe in one procession from two Persons - not two processions.
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 That's just you not using these terms with their proper definitions as set forth before the Latins and the Greeks by the Cappadocian fathers. It's like saying I can call a shark yellow if I say that yellow is actually blue.
There was another schism in Russian Orthodox Church. In 1652 patriarch Nicon decided to reform ROC and make more similar to Greek OC. As a result now we have orthodox christians and orthodox orthodox christians (Old Ritualists or Old Believers). Some of them often have no priests and churches and they don't pray, because they believe, that after the reforms The God's Grace left the church.
wait so how do they perform the worship? individually?
@@panickedhonk yes, as i know
@@panickedhonk they're called Bespopovtsy (Priestlessers)
Quick little tid bit: The Armenian Church was not at the Council of Chalcedon due to some issues going on in the country at the time.
I am interested in the Eastern Protestants. I know of a few in my church that came from Syria and others but I love a general overview of them and whatever information comes up
Generally speaking, I don't think protestant is quite eastern or western, just because in protestantism so many adaptations can be made depending on the local, is quite more maleable than the Catholic or Orthodox, I'm not saying that as a compliment, the Catholic Church just do adaptations to do the same teachings and the came could be said about the orthodox if they made the effort to convert glocally like the catholics did, protestants can adapt even some parts of the faith when not the whole faith, the boxer rebellion happened for a cause
I'm not saying about all the protestants tho, the high chuch traditionalist protestants and some protestant churchs who came from calvinism are more traditional in their teachings than the new branches or protestantism
There is are a group of pentecostal-esque cults in Russia It was alleged that Rasputin was the leader of one such group
I wonder what the crossover might be with Calvinists and Lutherans in Hungary.
Product of imperialism. Even Prod missionaries today go after native Christians, not the Muslims.
The history of the split of the oriental orthodox and the churches in the east I think give huge credence to the E.O. claims of being the original church and it being Rome who separated.
1 - At the time of the schism is was literally Rome vs. the other Patriarchs.
If the pope was really seen as supreme this issue would have separated the patriarchs, or we might have seen it as Constantinople vs all the others, as they submitted to Rome. But we don’t see that. We see all the patriarchs in union in calling out Rome.
2 - As noted, these eastern churches look, believe, and practice nearly identically, even though they haven’t been in communion since before the great schism.
Meaning it is Rome who has drastically changed in the years since. As the other though separated by space and time, have remained so unchanged, that they look almost identical.
You're missing a lot. That's disingenuous. Why and when did "Rome" "separate" from the EO? Maybe it's better you say the EO refused to help the Roman Christians. The Pope returned after the sacking of Rome by the Gauls to rebuild the cradle of Christianity. The EO continued to refuse to help Rome from the invading hoards of Visigoths, Vandels and Ostrogoths in the following centuries.
After 700 years of barbaric invasions in Western Latin Christianity without help from her Eastern brothers, Venetian merchants who were funding the Crusaders pilgrimages took advantage of the Mohammadan pagan invasion of Constantinople and looted the city. That vindictive tragedy finally broke the East and West with thr Great Schism.
See. There's more to events than your over simplification orf Christianity origins apologetics.
Eastern Orthedox are brothers to Rome (which includes all her different Rites. We have so much more in common theologically then the Prot's man-made-up religion. They will continue to separate themselves into more "Denominations." We need to be unified as One Church.
"1 - At the time of the schism is was literally Rome vs. the other Patriarchs.
If the pope was really seen as supreme this issue would have separated the patriarchs, or we might have seen it as Constantinople vs all the others, as they submitted to Rome. But we don’t see that. We see all the patriarchs in the union in calling out Rome"
At the time of the Schism, it was literally just Constantinople vs Rome. The other Patriarchates were either tied down or under Islamic occupation and had scarce contact to really weigh in, or even know that it happened. Jerusalem to my knowledge is the only one I think that really sided with Constantinople but that was decades after the initial split. Alexandria though kept Communion with Rome until the 14th century. Also, Constantinople also had repeated instances of appointing other patriarchs directly from Constantinople, despite not actually having the occupation of that See. So talk about loading the dice in your favor.
Antioch is a further hot mess when the Maronites were rediscovered and challenged Constantinople's appointment of their See and pledged communion with Rome instead. Also once again when the Melkites broke with EO in the 18th century to reconvene with Rome.
In the 13th century, Patriarch John Bekkos of Constantinople was initially anti-union with Rome. He was actually thrown in prison by the Emperor for speaking out against a possible union with Rome. He eventually ended up reading more about the Eastern Fathers and found that the Eastern church's claims of Rome were exaggerated, and sought union. Because anti-unionists were popular amongst the mobs (Likely due to the Sack of Constantinople being in recent memory) he was actually imprisoned again, this time ironically, supporting a union. He would remain imprisoned until his death and never recanted this view.
Finally, we can find plenty of support for Papal Supremacy at Chalcedon, Gregory the Great, and Emperor Justinian I. All of which proclaim that either Rome is the head of the Church, or that other churches are subject to Rome. No patriarchs seemed to be calling out when those instances happened.
"2 - As noted, these eastern churches look, believe, and practice nearly identically, even though they haven’t been in communion since before the great schism.
Meaning it is Rome who has drastically changed in the years since. As the other though separated by space and time, have remained so unchanged, that they look almost identical."
This is because, during the 8th century, the West got isolated from most of the Eastern due to the rise of Iconoclasm in the east. This relationship would never be mended again even after the 7th Ecumenical Council. Rome and Constantinople were not on good speaking terms since then. We thusly start seeing a difference in how liturgies are developed. It also doesn't really help, that again, some Patriarchs were appointed and housed in Constantinople, some never stepping foot in their Sees. So of course the tradition is likely going to be the same.
My family has always been Lutheran protestant since at least the 1870s when they immigrated to the US from Germany.
That said, I’ve prayed in all of those ways lol
Very interesting video. I always wondered about the difference. There’s a beautiful Orthodox Church not far from me. Also a beautiful Mormon temple. And soon a Mosque. Actually there’s a lot of diverse religious buildings in my city. I like seeing all the different architectural styles.
Why do you leave out the Serbian Orthodox Church in your videos? There’s 8 million of us
I talk about the Serbian Orthodox church, I just don't feel an obligation to mention every group every time I talk about the Orthodox.
@@ReadyToHarvest Understood, and I'm just genuinely curious because your content is very good. But when you list Albanian, Polish, Slovak, etc. there are maybe several hundred thousand of them in total. I would assume that the Churches with the biggest number would be included by default.
@@WhiteBoardFinance I do think that's the assumption generally, but I have never run my channel that way. For example, I make a lot of videos all about one denomination. What is Assemblies of God? What are Reformed Baptists? Paradoxically, I don't have one on the Catholic Church (Largest church, with over a Billion members) or the largest Presbyterian denomination in the USA (Presbyterian Church USA) but I do have videos on several denominations with fewer than 10,000 members.
Likewise, when talking about traditions like Orthodoxy, just because one branch comes from a country with a lot of people (E.g. Russia) I don't feel that necessarily means I have to always talk about them just because they are big. I don't let bigness get in the way of talking about what is more interesting, or more important.
In the end, it could work in your favor, because I may have an overview video about the Serbian Orthodox Church before I make one about the Russian Orthodox Church. We'll see. 🙂
@@ReadyToHarvest Nice thanks for clarifying
This was great! From an inside point of view the video does skip some of differences wed say are important, such as different views of prayer & the communion of infants & children.
In my own time spent with the Orthodox Church (Antioch) I found their theology to be kinder and less punitive than Catholicism, but I found Catholic practice, the pastoral side, to be kinder and less angry than Orthodox priests were.
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful ,
O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
If the priests were from Syria that's just how Syrians seem to others.