Eastern Orthodox liturgies are pretty much the same as Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies, which were not affected by the Vatican II revolution as the Roman Rite was.
@@standev1 Written like a true Catholic, but not as a Christian. To Catholics, they are the only Church. I always find such provincialism, such as your comment and the video clip, amazingly myoptic, Hurray for ignorance!
Although it is often portrayed as such, this is not an issue of condemnation of either Catholics or the Orthodox. With orders given to Pope directly, God, through Our Lady, wishes to teach both Catholics and the Orthodox some valuable lessons. So far, Pope has failed to answer the call to show up in the classroom, and the other has not done enough to remind the Pope that the class cannot commence without him. Currently, both sides suffer from wounds of false dignity and pride.
+Zvonimir Tosic Oh my goodness, *thank you!* I don't see why there should be so much abject, bitter *hatred* between Orthodox and Catholics. Christ said in the Gospel of John: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. *By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.*" How can we call ourselves Christians - Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise - if we have nothing but hatred and slander for each other? You said it quite clearly. There's no love. There's no humility. Just pride. (As for me, forgive me, a sinner, for saying so.)
The most valuable lesson is that there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and Catholic faith. As Catholics, we have a solemn obligation to condemn and reject the EO heresies (see Tridentine creed, n.13-14)
Mihajlo Vujanac I am orthodox Christian and from Russia but I am not russian! We are not Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Bolgars, Ukrainians or Ethiopians - we are orthodox Christians.
@Ronovich Valdez even as a Catholic you have to admit that it, in fact is just as universal as the Western Church. They may have separated from the Western church, and became independent churches of a greater Orthodoxy, but they still carry on the Apostalic tradition. They just don't except the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The customs may differ regionally, but so do many Western traditions. The Orthodox churches are seperated brethren, but still just as legitamate.
@@hammerheadms The Orthodox are apostolic, but are in schism. And also, they are in no way universal as the Catholic Church is. "for on the day on which the Russian and Greek Churches formally break with one another the whole world will see that the Ecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches." Vladimir Solovyov 1889 in "Russia and the universal church". 129 years later, in 2018, Moscow and Constantinople broke and still are in schism with one another.
I have another interesting thing. Maybe we should think about our resemblances? Well, I mean, as I know Orthodox and Catholic have a few of this: 1) the common belief in Holy Trinity 2) the common belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, both God and Man, the second person of Holy Trinity 3) the common belief that eucharistic bread and eucharistic vine are true body and blood of the Savior 4) the common veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, saints etc i.e. This points I take from book "the Orthodox Church" by metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). Who could tell something about this? Any opinion?
+Александр Черных Yes, we do have that in common; though there might be some Theological differences beyond the simple beliefs. Another notable similarity is that we both hold to the belief in Church Authority; though we disagree on the Papacy. There's a half-hour video by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware detailing the differences and similarities between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that I watched. It seems very informative. I'm particularly curious about one thing, though- does the Eastern Orthodox Church use (or at least accept) the "Shield of Faith"? ("The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is not the Father; the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God") Oh- one more question- a personal curiosity, if you happen to know. What Liturgy does the Roman Orthodox Church use? Is it the same as the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or is it more similar to an old Latin Catholic Mass?
+Michael Rex about "the Shield of Faith". No, we don't have smt like that. But we accept the meaning of this Shield. Orthodoxy Holy Fathers (like st. Basil the Great, st. Gregory of Nissa etc) have written, that "God is trinity and in the same time - a unity". They explain this like that: Divinity of God is an essence of His nature, but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are hypostasis. It mean that despite a commnon divine essence - they still have a differencies: the Father is "beginningless", the Son is "consubstational to Father" and the Holy Spirit is "proceeding from the Father". That is why the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and so on. As I think - this is a miracle. Because cathegory of "hypostasis" in orthodox theology allow from one side be a part of a common but from another side - not lost an individual characteristics. So, I repite, Orthodox Chuch don't have a "Shild of Faith" like catholics but we accept all what this shield symbolized. About Roman Orthodox Church: I don't know exactly, but suppose that they use a Western Orthodox Rite: like tridentine mass without catholics elements (also it calls "Liturgy of st. Gregory)
His example of Papal authority in the Jerusalem council as recorded in the Book of Acts proves the Orthodox position - it was James not Peter who made the decree.
+Noah Johnson Dear Mr. Johnson, We see in verse 7 of Acts 15 that it was Peter’s decision which brought an end to the dispute: “And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them...” With Peter’s decision, the matter was settled. All debate stopped. “And all the multitude held their peace.” (v. 12) The remainder of the account follows naturally upon the reception of Peter’s teaching. Paul and Barnabus relate signs from the Holy Ghost which they experienced in their first missionary journey in confirmation of this teaching, and James puts forward a practical proposal for its harmonious enactment, which is ratified by the entirety of the Council of Jerusalem. As scriptural scholars point out, it is clear from James’ own expression that the ruling which he suggests is pursuant to the decision just issued by Peter. He begins his address to the Council by referring to Peter’s authoritative declaration (in the Greek, “exegesato”), and continues to give his own opinion (in the Greek, “akouoo,” a word without connotations of authority, which he uses in relation to his own statements) toward its promulgation. John Salza writes: “James says ‘Simon HATH RELATED ....’ The Greek word for ‘hath related’ is EXEGESATO, which refers to a definitive declaration that requires obedience on the part of the listener. We see this same world in John 1:18, where Jesus declares the Father: ‘No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath DECLARED him.’ Just as Jesus declares the Father’s teaching, Peter declares Jesus’ teaching. Thus, James views Peter’s teaching as an authoritative declaration for the entire Church, and he submits to Peter’s authority. When James says, ‘Brethren, HEAR ME,’ the use of the Greek word (AKOUOO) simply means ‘I would like your attention.’ We see the same word in the immediately preceding verse, where it says ‘and they HEARD Barnabas and Paul’ (v. 12).” (The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, p. 150, emphasis in original, substituting all caps for italics.) The Christian doctrine of Petrine supremacy is clearly taught in both the Scriptures and the ancient Church Fathers - even eastern Fathers. St. John Chrysostom, the fourth-century Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote: "And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (In Joan Hom)
TheFatimaCenter the doctrine of Petrine supremacy the way it is understood in the West is NOT traditional. I am sure you guys know how anything can be interpreted this or that way in the Scripture to accommodate a certain doctrine. Since this strictly vertical and totalitarian Church structure is only found in the Roman Church (four other patriarchates and numerous churches in the East never worked that way), and Roman Church then spread this very Roman Empire tradition to its European domains, one can clearly see that this is a Western interpretation not rooted in real universal tradition. There is Canon 35 of Apostolic Canon and it describes the Orthodox Church structure. If Petrine supremacy was indeed the most important dogma of salvation, our Fathers the Apostles would make sure to clearly write about that in the first church canon law. But such does not exist anywhere else except the Roman Catholic Church and not until the new times it was actually set as a dogma. It is a VERY new dogma. Orthodox believe that the Church is the image of God, and because God is a holy Trinity - therefore the true Church is a Council. That is why we have a synodal structure. It may seem illogical to the Western mind, but is the dogma of Trinity anywhere logical? We just repeat what God revealed to us about Himself. The description of the Jerusalem Council perfectly describes the Orthodox Church structure. There is an elder - Peter. While he has this position, it is clearly not the position of supremacy, but rather of an honor, of eldership. That is why he speaks with this authority to call onto all to settle the matter. But it is James who comes up with the exact canon of what gentiles should do. Other apostles add to the discussion. So, we see that they all work together out of their specific positions and services but still as equals. Peter does not and cannot have the word of absolute power. Otherwise, you would have to say that God the Father has absolute power over God Son and God the Holy Spirit, but then there is no equality in the Trinity. The Trinity operates on the notions of eldership and obedience out of love (not supremacy) as the Council of true equals - so does the true Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. But Jesus Christ is not all by Himself, he is not like a separate being - He is the second hypostasis of the Council of Trinity and now forever is included into the Holy Trinity with His body and they all operate TOGETHER. So, if there are Three inseparable Faces of God, then why you have only one separate “vicar”? This logic reveals that such church does not understand the Trinitology which really is the very basics of the Christian tradition and faith.
JAReyes 14 Its only ortodoxs only but patriarh in russia serbia ,greck ,rumunia ,bulgaria is a cherch of ortofox so you haw serbian ,russin or bulgarian ortodox cherh in terirory of thet leqnd but liturgy is same in evry ortodox cherch or practic so you can pray in eny of cherch you are with brothers in the christe ws catolick you can understend thet we are the brothers no one haw primacy in cherch its holy cherch of crist not a roman catolic heretic
@@standev1 wrong attitude. Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant we are all STILL parts of the same mystical body. Lost brethren. Charity, and forgiveness are the ONLY ways to heals the rifts between us.
@@hammerheadms EO and Protestants are NOT parts of the Catholic Church. The only way to heal the rift is for them to convert to Catholicism and become Catholics. There is no other way.
@@standev1 I didn't say they were Protestants. I said ALL CHRISTIANS are parts of the mystical body. THAT is God's way! He didn't create denominations or schisms. He created perfection, and THAT was perverted by the pride of man. That pride is not exclusive to other faiths. The Catholic church is also guilty of lack of humility when the schisms happened. Even the Papacy acknowledges that the Catholic church does not hold a monopoly on the outflow of God's grace. Your response must reflect God's love and mercy, otherwise it is foolish vanity. Please remember that ALL things (good, bad, or indifferent) happen for the good of God. Nothing that happens does so without the will of The Lord being enacted. No matter how despicable that might appear to us. All who profess a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, and in one substance also with The Holy Spirit, One God always and forever, are inheritants of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let God be the judge of who is in the in error. Not you. Not me. Not any person.
@@hammerheadms "I said ALL CHRISTIANS are parts of the mystical body" And this is false as well. The mystical body of Christ is the Holy Catholic Church. Only Catholics are its members. "Your response must reflect God's love" Love requires truth. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith. Therefore I cannot lie to non-Catholics just to be nice.
Many things changed during pandemics, but I remember that before it I could often hear people speaking Russian (Ukrainian may be) in the streets or in the buses or trams... They should have the possibility of going to a Catholic church if there's no orthodox one around, and we should have the same possibility when we are in Russia or in Ukraine...
Please note that it would be a grave sin against the First Commandment to have any part in the false worship offered by Orthodox churches. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you. It's strange that I remember something like that from religion lessons at school. I really thouht that my teacher knew a lot.
So to be fair, aside from the Pope and a few other small issues, us Catholics and Orthodox christians are pretty much the same? I dunno, but I'm happy to share the belief in the one true God and his Son Jesus Christ! I love yall my brothers and sisters!
There are no small issues in our duty of fidelity to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. We either profess the Faith whole and entire, and maintain our place within the Church, or we forfeit all hope of salvation. Being outside of the Church, the Orthodox lack Apostolic Succession (in spite of retaining valid priestly orders) and are engaged in egregious acts of false worship. But in addition to being schismatics, they are also heretics. In the very act of separating themselves from the obedience due to Our Lord’s chief Vicar in the Church, they put themselves in opposition to the dogmas of Faith regarding Petrine supremacy. Specifically, these dogmas are: - that Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the chief of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to hold a primacy of jurisdiction throughout the entire Body of the faithful; - that according to Christ’s ordinance, the successors of St. Peter would exercise the same Primacy over the whole Church and for all time; - that these successors of St. Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome; - and that the Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. Each of these four teachings is “of Faith” (de fide), and all of these dogmas have been under attack and denied by the schismatics from the beginning. With time, too, the Orthodox fell into even more errors against the Faith, so that today the Orthodox oppose (and in some matters even heretically deny) a host of Catholic teachings. These include the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin (though they admit Her complete sinlessness), the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Papal infallibility, Consecration by the Words of Institution, the nature of Purgatory (though they admit its existence), and the indissolubility of marriage. They also hold differences from the Catholic Church in regard to the doctrine of the Particular and General Judgments, and in regard to the nature of Original Sin and of Justification. The Orthodox also deny the right of the Church to baptize by pouring water as opposed to immersing the subject, and the right of the Church to give Holy Communion under one kind only. Please do not underestimate the seriousness of these pernicious errors. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter i truly apologize my friends, I hope you can forgive my ignorance. I have been going through a sort of mid-life crisis lately and I'm not sure what I am supposed to do in this world, much less how to properly give thanks and praise to our Almighty and Wonderful Father for giving the lowly me a chance at life... I'm sorry, I just don't know what to do anymore...
@@nikopawlowic6557 No need to apologize. Nothing though we are, we can do much to serve and honor God and His Holy Mother when we are united to Him by a true faith enlivened through supernatural charity. If we do nothing more than maintain ourselves in the state of grace throughout the day, and offer all of our thoughts and actions to Our Lord, we have done monumental and meritorious service. Add to this the duties of the vocation in which He has called us, and the generous application of our prayers and sacrifices which Our Lady of Fatima asks of us (particularly our daily Rosaries and our monthly First Saturday acts of reparation), and our lives will be the admiration of the angels. But everything depends upon our being grounded in the true Faith and united to the Catholic Church. God bless you!
@@TheFatimaCenter I thank you for your kindness, I wonder if perhaps you may be able to shed a bit more light on my weary mind? For the past 13 years I have been living with a moral injural after serving in the US Army. I still accept and believe in Jesus Christ as our savior, but have felt hopeless due to the scars on my mind and heart, leading me into a life of self medication just to ease the pain. I have felt for so long that I will still fail by reverting to my past torments even if I try to honestly repent, plus is this a struggle that I will deal with my whole life? I pray that my heart will one day no longer be troubled, and if you would please keep others like myself in your prayers. I thank you and may God always be with you.
@@nikopawlowic6557 Thank you for this comment. Your suffering is a common affliction among servicemen. The healing which you desire can only come through Our Lord, beginning with a thorough and trusting Confession. And upon having confessed those things which now trouble you so much, you must resolve not to look back on them at all. In a very real sense you must forgive yourself and go on, confident and joyful in the love which Our Lord has for you. Say with St. Paul, "I do not count myself to have apprehended, but one thing I do: forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before, I press towards the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3: 13-14) God bless you.
Orthodoxy has no celibacy, Roman catholic we believed from Jesus through Peter down to the Pope, Bishops and the Priest, then laymen and to the parishioners. Obedient to the Pope is obedient to Jesus as what Jesus told to Peter whatever you forgive in earth will be forgiven in heaven.
Nikola Romanos I think you may need to investigate our own Church somewhat more before making these kind of remarks. Married priests are quite common in some of the Eastern Catholic Churches and in the Orthodox Churches many priests ARE celibate, not all choose to marry before ordination. Also priests may only marry before ordination in either Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches. The matter of a married priesthood is not a major issue.
***** Indeed, it's a very poor argument and one that I've seen used before many times but it never convinces me and and I say that as a Catholic. It's one of the weaker arguments possible.
The Pope is currently trying to close down the Tridentine Rite, particularly where there is a "threat" of it being taken up by a younger generation of Catholics. We might ask if the Pope actually has the power to do this? Well yes, he does, and he also has the power to close down the Byzantine Rite. Apparently he does not have the power to prohibit the veneration of icons, but if he does it anyway then he can also order the closure of any ecclesiastical court that tries to put him on trial. I would say the primary function of the Pope is co-ordinate the teaching of the bishops, but he is obviously failing to do that concerning the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and even refuses to answer elementary questions. In view of this failure and dereliction of duty, it would be foolish to allow the Pope any authority over any of the rites of the Church. There's not much point in complaining if the Orthodox Church is wary of papal power when many Catholics are starting to think twice. What we can all do about it is to say the Rosary. It is time for the College of Bishops to have a word with the Pope. Say St John Fisher's Prayer for Holy Bishops as well, at least on Ember Saturdays.
The present discipline of the Catholic Church is admittedly a scandal, in some ways obscuring the truth of the Catholic Faith. Nevertheless, it remains the only true Church, outside of which it is impossible to be saved. In this regard, as Our Lady of Fatima warned, the entire world is being punished by the persecutions which Our Lord is permitting His Church to undergo.
GhostGrind As a member of Orthodoxy I can answer that. We fast Wednesdays and Fridays from meat, dairy and oil/wine. During lent and Christmas we fast this way for 40 days (as Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days). There are exceptions for certain days of course. We also fast during certain feast days (ie. The entrance of the Theotokos into the temple).
Question: I know Catholics are forbidden to read the Protestant versions of scripture; no Mass no Pope no Queen of Heaven... etc Are the Orthodox Russians also forbidden to read the Protestants versions of the scriptures. Rosary Scapular traditional Mass...!!
Through her marriage laws, the Church seeks to protect the faith and salvation of our souls, and to ensure a viable home-life in which our children can mature into strong Catholics. Thus for numerous very serious reasons, the Church discourages -- even forbids -- her members to enter into mixed marriages. Only for a grave reason (such as that the Catholic party's faith is so weak and fragile that he or she would likely leave the Church immediately if permission to marry were refused) can this law be dispensed. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19660318_istr-matrimoni-misti_en.html We would also caution you in regard to your prospect for temporal happiness that the Orthodox view marriage in almost the same manner as do Protestants. If you are a faithful Catholic and intend to live your entire life as such, you know that marriage is indissoluble and that you will be committed to endure whatever difficulties arise in married life. Certainly, then, you will want a spouse who views your union in the same way. Since non-Catholic sects including the Orthodox churches permit divorce and "remarriage," the Catholic party in a mixed marriage would be at great risk of being abandoned by his or her non-Catholic spouse. Please consider how terrible and arduous it would be to remain bound to fidelity to your husband for as long as he lives, even while he has taken up with another woman in a supposed second or third marriage. We would strongly encourage you to seek only a serious Catholic as a prospective spouse for yourself and father for your children. If you think you have found a good match in a man who is not a Catholic, pray and endeavor to make a serious Catholic of him before thinking of him in a romantic context. God bless you.
Why do you call it Russian Orthodoxy when the country of the Orthodox faith is Greece (Byzantium at the time) and trough the Slavonic texts of the Bulgarian church it spread among the other Slaves (along with the Cyrillic alphabet)?
The questioner asked specifically about the Orthodox church in Russia, which is of particular interest to Catholics in light of Our Lady of Fatima's message. Our Lady spoke of Russia's role as the chosen instrument by which God will punish the world for its crimes until such time as we bring about Russia's conversion to the Catholic Faith through the Pope and bishops consecrating it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Russia will then have a preeminent role in the ensuing period of Our Lady's triumph over the great evils of our time.
Because the Orthodox church fragmented into state churches, the patriarch of Constantinople has no real power over any of them, he directly controls the "greek orthodox church" but not the russians, or serbian or any other, they can ignore him and they do. The Russian orthodox were very much under the control of the Tsar and you forgot many non greeks resent the "greek hegemony".
This was so helpful and makes sense. The Pope must use his God-given authority to ensure the consecration of Russia to physically show the Orthodox the validity of the Papacy. I believe this to be true, indeed! I've been so perplexed and unsure whether I should be converting to the Orthodox Faith, but now I know to stay with the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. I pray for the repose of the souls of John Venarri and Fr. Gruner.
You have no knowledge of the early Church and this video makes no sense. The papacy is not valid, and never existed in the early Church. The 1st Vatican Council, 1870, gave the bishop in Rome authority. There never existed one bishop, prior to 1870, that had complete authority over all other bishops and churches. All the council, prior to Vatican 1, were based on a consensus of all bishops making decisions. The Orthodox still practice this way off church governing The idea of one bishop control is a heretical teaching.
The Papacy Isaiah 22:20-22 - Eliakim becomes Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom, a father to the house of Juda, with the keys of the kingdom, and the kingly power to open and shut anything in the Kingdom. Matthew - 16:18-19 - Jesus declares Peter to be the rock of His Church (singular, not plural), with the keys of the Davidic Kingdom, with the power to bind and loose anything on earth. St. Peter is mentioned 191 times in the Catholic Bible, St. John was second at 48, and the total of all the other apostles mentioned, if I remember this correctly: 130 times; either way, a significantly lower amount. Something to think about. Christ did give authority to St. Peter to Head his Church, and from there, we have our Popes (bishops) who succeeded St. Peter. God Bless us all and may we all be one someday so that we may truly bring glory to the Blessed Trinity!
@@vasilyjc1955 No council prior to the split was considered valid without the Bishop of Rome in attendance. Eastern bishops would beg the Bishop of Rome to attend their councils. This bit of history is well documented
In the Church there were all kinds of movements historically. Even Judas was an apostle, wasn't he? So there was a movement for betraying Christ! And speaking of Rasputin, at least he did not murder his fellow humans in the name of Christ like so many canonised crusader kings did. Don't you see your own double standards?
Formally Rasputin was Orthodox, just as the crusader kings were Catholic. Is killing unbelievers in the name of Christ "good morals"? And far from all crusades were defensive. The Eastern Baltic became Catholic exclusively due to offensive crusades. Besides Lithuania, which was able to defend itself and converted peacefully later.
I want to confine the discussion to Rasputin. He was sexually depraved - not even in the warped mentality of the Moscow Patriarchate can that be considered a sign of sanctity. That's all I shall say.
Antimproc Iam not defending Rasputin. I am just looking for consistency. If a 'movement' among some LAYMEN and maybe even some LOWER clergy for canonising Rasputin is a sign of the entire Orthodox Church being false, why, for example, is murdering Saint Joan of Arc by a group of HIGH-level Catholic clergy not a sign of their church's falsehood? I am not saying that the Catholic Church is automatically false because of that, I am just trying to show how odd your argument is.
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you. I was able to find a few videos of the reports (including the two you listed) but not a video of putin actually asking the Pope. But thanks for the videos
I don't see Orthodox having to convert to Catholocism or the other way around. I don't believe that there are enough differences for that to be required. The primacy and authority of the Pope is a HUGE stumbling block. Frankly, this Catholic would love to see the adjustment made to remove that barrier for our unification. Another potential stumbling block is what happened to the Catholic Church (particularly in North America) after Vatican II. Churches that look like meeting halls (or God knows what else), Communion in the hand (I loathe that), woman not covering their heads any more (I recently started covering up again). Some people show up to Mass here in Orlando dressed for the beach. I could go on. There is a loss of reverence that I think would need to be corrected here too for true unification. We will need to change OUR ways. I pray for that day.
Our Lady of Fatima promised that Russia would be converted to the Catholic Faith by means of its Consecration to Her Immaculate Heart. Meanwhile, as Fatima expert Fr. Joaquin Alonso affirmed to have also been contained in Our Lady's prophetic warning, a crisis of faith has installed itself at every level even within the Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. We all stand in need of conversion.
I'll help you: "Nowhere did Jesus say such things" he always praised the father and never claimed to be "God" or "The son of God" Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad. " This is a Hebrew quotation, which means : " Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. " The Bible, Mathew 19 : 58
+Suleyman Magnificent Dear Friend, There is abundant scriptural affirmation that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, equal to the Father, and true God: I - CHRIST IS THE TRUE SON OF GOD The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. (Ps. 2:7) And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matt. 3:16-17) Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 16:15-17) The high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. (Matt. 26:63) [An idiomatic affirmative expression. Compare Our Lord’s affirmation to Pilate that He is indeed a King, Matt. 27:11, Mk. 15:2, Lk. 23:3, Jn. 18:37] Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am. And they said: What need we any further testimony? for we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth. (Lk. 22:70-71) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14) And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God. (Jn. 1:33-34) For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. (Jn. 3:16) Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God? He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him. (Jn. 9:35-38) Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. (Jn. 20:30-31) He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things? (Rom. 8:32) God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son... (Heb. 1:1-2) By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him. In this is charity: not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins. ... And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father hath sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. (1 Jn. 4:9-10,14-15) We know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal. (1 Jn. 5:20) II - CHRIST IS TRUE GOD, EQUAL TO GOD THE FATHER In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Jn. 1:1) Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God. (Jn. 5:17-18) They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you. ... The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. (Jn 8:25, 57-58) I and the Father are one. (Jn. 10:30) Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. (Jn. 20:28-29) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally. (Col. 2:9) Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:1) In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us... (1 Jn. 3:16) And we know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal. (1 Jn. 5:20)
Where is written JESUS IS A PROPHET DON'T WORSHIP ME Go and baptized them in the name of THE FATHER THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT THREE ARE THAT TESTIFIED IN HEAVEN THE FATHER. SON AND THE. HOLY SPIRIT not Mohammed. According to ocean when CRIST was small kids he got water and soil and make one bird that after fly .That means he is life giver......... Wake up my brother. Don't you see who's GOD and who is pseudo prophet. Who's going to resurrect Mohammed According to coran CHRIST IS GOING to Mecca and resurrect him ........wake up
@@sumagillyrian6593 Jesus prove He is God Jesus Walk on water Jesus performed Mirical Jesus died on the Cross and Rose again on 3rd day, That's 12 disciples preach all around the World and Sacrifice and you can see prediction Came True Not only that Moses Met, God' You can clearly See the Historical Evidence How he saved thousand of Jew by crossing the Water you can clearly see he met God and God says I am the God I'am definitely God Exist first he doesn't have name he gave him self a Name I am Jesus said I am the Truth and way Of Life Jesus is God in Human flesh In Earth and Heaven God Choose Holy Virgin Mother Mary Mother of God God Choose Jesus is God God gave himself to Jesus Jesus gave himself to God Supposed I gift you car and you drive this car all your life you go for shopping you go for helping other thise car is with you all your life' What other people call you drive or owner, God speaking in Jesus Mouth in earth in heaven, God can do any thing and everything Holy Virgin Mother Mary Mother of God Jesus is God it's all God Alternative plan!
first of all,what I do not understand well is that the most of People connect the Orthodoxy only with Russia.What is about serbian, greek, bulgarian, romanian orthodox churches? These are autocephal churches with the same importance like russian, Patriarch of serbian or bulgarian church is on the same instance like russian Patriarch, with direct connection to bysantine old tradition.
+Nikola Acimovic it's a good mistake made by the people who made the show.... when you talk about Orthodoxy you talk about all the Orthodox churches because they are one and equal to the other. As far as this priest tells... he maybe the first but he's equal as the Other bishops as established in the Pentarchy... long time ago to maintain order and equillibrium in the Christian world...
The orthodox church is the first break from the true Catholic church. Orthodoxy could be considered the first protestant church (which incidentally the protestant churches are in full agreement with the orthodox) in that they don't believe in the papacy but rather they are all their own self proclaimed popes.
Yes, that is what I was taught in graduate school by a learned Catholic professor who studied this. However, I was also taught that in Catholic high school theology.
Very funny! A church that has not changed for 1000 years and suddenly is called rebellious and in error because it refuses to innovate and change apostolic and early Church Fathers' dogmas and beliefs. The reverse is true: Roman Catholicism is the FIRST protestant church because it proclaimed independence from all the rest of Christianity, and installed humans as leaders instead of the Holy Spirit. It's been dealing with that bumble ever since. The Orthodox Faith is the same as what was given by the Early Church. Of course the Roman Catholics keep pretending they can do whatever they want because they are the "True Church". Go ahead and keep thinking that. The True Faith is different, and the RCC has abandoned it.
If Peter had primacy of honor and power why was he not the bishop in Jerusalem? Why was James "The Just" bishop at the first council of Jerusalem and not Peter?
That Saint Peter was made the chief of the Apostles does not mean that he was the only Apostle, or that there would not be ordained other bishops as well to serve in the Church. That the Popes establish bishops to govern all of the various sees throughout the world is no argument that he lacks immediate jurisdiction universally throughout the Church.
+TheFatimaCenter, Yes, Popes reserved unto themselves rights and privileges against advice and consent of the Church in the east. The Latin Church arbitrarily split from their brethren and decided to establish papal primacy and infallibility. This is all the invention of the Catholic Church. "No argument that he lacks immediate jurisdiction universally throughout the Church???" Yes, the Catholic Church created a great schism and went it's own way. Primacy of honor? Ok. Primacy of complete power? Me thinks not.
@@aleksandarstavric2226 Thank you for your comment. Saint Peter remained the head of of the universal Church when he transferred his see from Antioch to Rome. Therefore his successor in Antioch did not succeed him in the Papacy. But when Peter was executed under Nero and was succeeded by St. Linus, this latter did succed his governance both of the Church's primary see and of the universal Church. God bless you.
@@aleksandarstavric2226 The Christian doctrine of Petrine supremacy is clearly taught in both the Scriptures and the ancient Church Fathers - even eastern Fathers. The promise of establishing the Church upon Peter is recorded in Matt. 16: 17-19, and the realization of this promise is recorded by St. John, 21: 15-17, in which Peter is placed at the head of the entire Church, both of sheep and lambs alike (that is, as the chief even among the pastors of the flock). St. John Chrysostom, the fourth-century Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote: "And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (In Joan. Hom.)
Why don't you have a ORTHODOX Priest or Bishop to say what it is that Orthodox think ? The point is; Orthodox don't need the Roman Catholic Pope in the first place. Secondly, where do you get your numbers on just how many Orthodox in Russia practice their faith in Russia. Maybe the reason might be that Russia is a Communist country. Same as in China where I lived and worked for appro. 27 years, China doesn't allow much room for religious freedom ! Sincerely yours, a previously Roman Catholic, convert to Russian Orthodox
Sorry, but what means RUSSIAN Orthodoxy. I am otrhodox and bulgarian and I don't see any difference between our Orthodoxies. In fact - we accepted christianity 150 years before russians. Actualy, we gave them the Orthodoxy ...and the alfabet too. We speak very similar languaches. There is only one Orthodoxy and it is just Orthodoxy. The same way we can talk about Greek Orthodoxy (We bulgarians took it from the greeks). The common expression EASTERN Orthodoxy is also empty and meaningless beacause there is no WESTERN or whateverelse Orthodoxy.
As Frs. Rumble and Carty explain, "There are some 16 different Orthodox Churches existing independently of one another. After the first really definite break with Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth century, the Eastern Church followed in the path of all schismatical Churches, splitting up into further divisions. Eight of these separate sections of Orthodoxy have their own Patriarchs, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, and Servia. The others lack definite rule. The term "Greek Orthodox Church" is popularly applied to any or all of these Churches; but strictly speaking it should be reserved for that section of Orthodoxy which acknowledges the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is really one of the smaller sections, for the Bulgarians, Rumanians, Russians and others of Slav nationality, are Greeks in no sense of the word. But it is clear that there is no one united Orthodox Church at all, any more than there is one united form of Protestantism. However, since the schismatic Orthodox Churches began with the rebellion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople against Rome in the ninth century, we can allude to all the Orthodox Churches as belonging to the Greek Schism."
@@TheFatimaCenter Thanks for that answer. But what I mean is that there are no differences in teaching between different orthodox churches. Each church is independent and has an autonomy. The only exclusion is Armenian church. They believe that Christ has only one nature - godly nature.
The issue was never accepting the lineage of the Bishop of Rome. The issue was the Bishop of Rome taking Christian traditions and customs getting rid of them.
The bishop of Rome let his pride overtake him and wanted to sever his ties to the one holy catholic and apostolic church given to us from the lineage of the apostles; in doing so the new Catholic church was born with many changes to the doctrines of the councils of Nicea. The eastern bishops who gave in to papacy rule only did so for military assistance fighting the Muslim Turks which by the way never came. Lastly may I remind those who look at the Orthodox as being heretical, the Orthodox wrote, translated and spread the New testament, that is a historical fact. Nevertheless you are correct the Bishop of Rome took these ancient traditions and disposed of them.
@Wednesday's Child correct you are, Greece or the new calendarists have unfortunately embraced the heresy of ecumenism, not embracing that the body of Christ is one, can't be divided by embracing all other Faith's and denominations. I'm not sure about Cyprus. Nevertheless Russia is sticking to the non ecuminical doctrines and even though it was Greek missionaries who introduced Christianity to the Slave,; they say Vladimir forced everyone in Kiev to be baptized because Orthodoxy allowed alcohol. I must admit besides the monks on mount Athos, it's Russians now who are the protectors of the faith not the ecumenical Greeks.
***** What??? Denominational tag? Harlots??? What's going on in your head? Christ said: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. *By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.*" What does this say about you, then? St. Paul said he did not even judge himself, yet you call this woman a harlot? Very sad...
Alex Lielbardis That's a bit of a blanket statement. Roman Catholics, Protestants and other individuals can be prideful as well. So can Orthodox individuals.
Was sarcasm for first part. It is rly amusing to hear ppl being proud of things they do not actually achieve. And what i am actuality proud of is ppl who start to critical thinking and deny false knowledge and morale the global clericalism bring them.
Lion-eyes Alessi Innocenti , you shouldn't have respect for other religions, they are creation of Satan, reserve your respect and tribute only for the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church who is the one true faith and way for salvation, guided has it been by the Holy Spirit for more than 2000 years.
I want to learn, but your set up is making it as boring as it could be!!! I love my Lord. We can’t save other souls with a boring explanations! Th am you for continuing to try.
The priest did not even care to do his homework on the material before presenting it as the ultimate truth. The Orthodox Church acknowledges 7 ecumenical coucils, not 8, as he claimed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#List_of_ecumenical_councils And why assemble the councils in the first place if you can always ask the infallible pope who will answer you "ex cathedra"? As for Apostle Peter's alleged primacy of authority and infallibility: 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Galatians 2:11-14)
All human authority -- even the supreme authority of the Church -- is limited, and in some instances ought to be resisted. Papal infallibility is a rarely exercised charism, not a constant personal trait making the Pope impeccable in all his judgments and actions.
***** Then you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you assert the pope's primacy of authority as a Church dogma, not merely an organisational feature, on the other, you say that his authority ought to be resisted in some instances (the exact nature of which is only to be guessed). Well, Orthodox Christians believe that the Roman addition of the filioque clause into the creed, as well as their gradual introduction of the papal supremacy dogma, in 1054 became exactly such instances, since they contradicted the earlier Church tradition and practice. It is also interesting to note that in that issue the patriarchate of Constantinople was supported by ALL other patriarchates of the time (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem).
Only God Himself has absolute, unlimited authority, along with a claim to our absolute and unlimited obedience. All legitimate authority in this world is of God (Rom. 13:1; Boniface VIII, Unum Sanctam, Dz. 469) and must be obeyed within the limits established by God for the exercise of that authority. But should a legitimate authority-figure attempt to act in matters outside of his jurisdiction or in a manner contrary to the right use of his authority, he has no claim to the obedience of his subjects. That this principle applies even to the highest authority of the Church has been thoroughly discussed by theologians (see a summary here: www.cfnews.org/page88/files/6dc01f470b25d725254801526d8d93b0-195.html), and in recent years was confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI: “The Pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith…. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”
***** You quote, "“The Pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith…. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.” Then how about these early Church traditions ratified by ecumenical councils which imply no papal primacy of authority: Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail. www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P8.HTM The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers www.orthodoxa.org/GB/orthodoxy/canonlaw/canons2econcileGB.htm Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. sites.google.com/site/canonsoc/home/canons-of-the-ecumenical-councils/council-of-chalcedon-451-1
1. Some Eastern "Orthodox" say 8 councils others say 7. 2. There is no such things as ultimate truth in Eastern "Orthodoxy" Since they claim 'all bishops are equal' how do you determine who's a heretic? How do you decide which councils are binding? Each "bishop" in Eastern "Orthodoxy" is his own "church". 3. Regarding your quotes, you have honestly no idea what you're talking about,. That Canon did not allot junior patriarchal rights to the Bishop of Rome. It vindicated the patriarchal rights of Alexandria against the usurper, Meletius of Lycopolis. The Bishop of Alexandria complained to the Council of this usurpation. The Council then vindicated the patriarchal rights of the great Sees of Alexandria and Antioch in their own spheres, even as all admitted the patriarchal rights of Rome. 4. Did you even read the sessions of the ecumenical councils which you claim to accept? The burden is on you to actual prove that the Church in the first 1000 years absolutely rejected the Papacy. Which is impossible actual, the early Church was the Catholic Church NOT a separate Greek "Orthodox" or Russian, Bulgarian "Orthodox" sects which yet did not exist. There was a book written in the early 20th century called "Through The East To Rome" C. J. MacGillivray says that, as an Anglican clergyman, he spent some years in the East amongst the Greeks and Syrians, working for the reunion of Greeks and Anglicans. He found it impossible, and in the end became a Catholic. On page 91 of his book he writes: "To begin with, there is no such thing as the 'Orthodox Church.' There is a group of some 15 or 16 independent Churches, recognizing no common authority, but loosely connected as being all 'Orthodox.' And again, if you leave out Russia, the whole number of the Orthodox is exceedingly small; and the Russian Church was only held together by the power of the State..." Here are some Patristic quotes proving Papal supremacy, i have many many more if interested. "THERE IS NO DOUBT , AND IN FACT IT HAS BEEN KNOWN IN ALL AGES, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ , the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: WHO DOWN EVEN TO TODAY AND FOREVER BOTH LIVES AND JUDGES IN HIS SUCCESSORS, The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, ACCORDING TO DUE ORDER, IS HIS SUCCESSOR AND HOLDS HIS PLACE...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Ecumenical Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431) The council Fathers at Chalcedon writing to Pope St.Leo the Great say: "For if 'where two or three are gathered together in His name' He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him... OF WHOM YOU WERE CHIEF, AS HEAD TO THE MEMBERS, showing your good will." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451 Also "Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98 Also "Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE VINE BY THE SAVIOR. We refer to Your Holiness." -Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98 St.Cyril of Alexandria says: "That these things are really so, let us produce a witness most worthy of faith, a most holy man, and ARCHBISHOP OF THE WHOLE HABITABLE WORLD, that Celestine, who is both Father and Patriarch of the mighty City of Rome, who himself also exhorted thee by letter, bidding thee desist from that maddest of blasphemies, and thou didst not obey him."(St.Cyril of Alexandria To The Heresiarch Nestorius) [Rev. Joseph Berington and Rev. John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Volume 2, p.83] Patriarch St.Sophronius of Jerusalem in the 7th century says: "Go through all the world till you come to the Apostolic See, where is the foundation of orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that See all about our difficulties: do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and Divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically root out this new heresy." -Patriarch St.Sophronius to bishop Stephen of Dora (before sending him to Rome, 639 A.D.) [Mansi, Collectio conciliorum, 10:896] The above quotes absolutely obliterate Eastern "Orthodoxy" before it got started in 1054. Simply compare the above quotes [and there are dozens more] with the Greeks after 1054, you will see it's 2 different religions. The schismatics who reject the authority of St.Peter are no different then Core and his minions who made a schism against Moses. (Numbers 26:10) You need to humble yourself and submit to the Chair of St.Peter.
Solemn pronouncements may be issued at whatever time the need arises for clarification of the Church's teachings. The teachings themselves are not new.
Ice Age actually Pope Pious V or X made it the other liturgical rites permissible for use so long as the church recognized the supremacy of the Supreme Roman Pontiff. Only the Latin Rite was made mandatorily valid for the Roman Rite. That's why in the Eastern Rites you have different "flavors" of liturgy.
Each human being needs to find their way god. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ as stated in the new testament "you are peter.... Also the Nicene creed clearly states one holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church not the orthodox church (and if you believe in the orthodox church then more power to you). So please refrain from the nasty comments against the Roman Catholic Church. There is absolutely nothing wrong with altar girls, or people dancing (read your psalms), or having instruments (read your psalms again). Considering the orthodox rarely agree among themselves, most major heresies have come from the orthodox church, and through much of its history its been controlled and manipulated by secular (government) powers. So please lets not throw stones. It would be nice if we could come together in prayer as brothers.
More propaganda. Peter never had authority, and it was St James who pronounces the sentence of the council in Jerusalem, not Peter. Acts. 15:13-21. Peter is never called the head of the church in any sense in the Bible, nor does he himself ever appeal to any authority even in his own epistles. Papal infallibility and authority was political and is not found in the early church. Anyone who believes this priest has no knowledge of church history.
America First Revolution Not true. Peter is affirmed by Christ as the earthly head of the Church by being renamed Rock and entrusted with the keys of the kingdom, referencing Is 22:22 “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” Christ bestowed his Kingly authority upon Peter as his Royal Steward, thereby creating an office to preside over the universal Church. James presiding over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 in no way diminishes Peter’s role as Royal Steward. Peter infallibly speaks the truth about the Gentiles for the whole Church, and James, as overseer (bishop) of Jerusalem , affirms Peter’s proclamation by issuing a pastoral decree. In fact, there are numerous Patristic writings which affirm Peter’s role and the primacy of his successors, the bishops of Rome. Even the Orthodox believe the bishop of Rome is at least the first among equals. The only dispute seems to be in regards to how far Rome’s political and ecclesiastical authority should extend and the practical implications. In regards to papal infallibility, the ecumenical councils of the first millennium were deemed infallible by the Church, preserving Christianity from the errors of Arianism, Nestorianism etc and defining and defending the concept of the Trinity. All of which were necessarily ratified by Rome. But if your dispute with infallibility is that it cannot be personified in any one man other than Christ, then don’t forget that every writer of the Bible was rendered infallible by the Holy Spirit for a time. To me, infallibility makes a lot of sense and is a final safeguard by Christ to preserve the Church from “the gates of hell.” (Mt 16:18).
Krang X Well Said. The Catholic Church Desperately needs to solve the true issue, the Homosexual Problem, No homosexual priests should be permitted to join in the first place. And Straight Young Chaste Men are being filtered out in the selection processes. This is a huge issue and there is sadly evil amongst the Church within the Priesthood and Upper Levels up to this Current Pope. Dark times indeed.
Говорить тут не о чем. Россия всегда будет православной. Вы католики гворите, что ваша вера истенная, но вся ваша история (инквизиции, крестовые походы и т.д.) свидетельствуют против вас, не говоря уже про современную вашу церковь. Если такая церковь, то каковы их святые? Фатима могла быть искушена бесами, ведь у вас даже нету понятия "прелести" в вашей церковной жизни.
Unfortunately without God's intervention do not see the ROCOR given in to the Pope leading as the total leader? They really feel all bishops were at the head ( or Apostles at first) and Jesus did not take one over another, that all happened later on.
orthodoxy is Jesus' early (ancient ) church! nothing has been changed, nothing has been added! 10 century church existed without Pope. why bring him later 1000 years later!! way make new calendar in 15th century? ? just to confuse ppl
I am Serbian Orthodox. And I will continue to discourage anyone who is not Catholic to avoid Vatican's friendship like a plague. Catholic Clergy in Croatia shows the true face of Pope's authority. 1300 priests personally executed "non-believers" by most cold blooded methods. Vatican had never apologized and as far as I am concerned, they don't need to. "let the wheat grow with the tares together, and angels will sort it out"
+Ayios Georgios "Papism" doesn't exist. Neither does 'Romanism'. They are all derogatory, meaningless straw men. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church exists. Wheat and tares. Read Jude. You think we worship the Pope like Protestants think we worship the Theotokos.
Linman. Right now the Papists are collaborating with the Western puppet leader of Ukraine to destabilize the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Papist visions of domination have no end.
Serbian Orthodox brother! In my younger days I travelled though your God-loving land and visited the monasteries of Decani, Zica, Manasija (where I left my heart especially), Gornjac, Liubostina, Gracanitsa and many others. The beautiful impression they made on me and my travelling companions is indelible. God save Serbia. Pomogai vam Bog! I still have a chotki that the Gospozha Hegumenissa of Manasija gave me.
"If you accept that one (the primacy of the Pope) than all the others will fall in place". Uh, no. That's just one among many problems the Orthodox have with Catholicism. I could write an essay listing the many things. Sorry to disappoint, but it's not that simple, nor will it ever be. orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=catholic
+roxanneisaac Actually, yes, because of Papal Authority and Infallibility and the other Ecumenical Councils. Look at the history of Eastern Rite Catholicism and Its return from schism.
Why should it be you with us or against. Why should we convert? We do not ask you to convert but you want it from us. That I call hostility. That is what we see in you thru history. Conquest and proceqution.
The Orthodox Church will never be " commanded" by the Pope of Rome. This is one of the central issues. There are other theological problems as well, but the aforementioned issue leads to most of the others. What he is saying... will not happen. Glory to Jesus Christ. Long live His Orthodox Catholic Church
The most conspicuous difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (history lasts for a long time and I don't want to give any one epoque undue emphasis) is that Orthodoxy is growing by leaps and bounds at the moment while Catholicism is emptying out like a sinking ship. Why is that I wonder? Under Bergolio et al. having a pope does appear to be an unmixed blessing by any means. The pope, however, is not the successor of St Peter because St Peter was the bishop of Antioch, not Rome, which is now recognized, and I don't think this is controversial, by the majority of theologians on both sides. The Orthodox have never subscribed to the Immaculate Conception theory and in fact they can't because they do not formulate their theology of original sin in a way that makes the theory possible, meaningful or necessary. Peter Moghila included it in his catechism but his catechism is an anomaly, long discarded and never authoritative. Don't draw unwarranted conclusions from it. I think I can assure everybody that Russians will not even notice if the Catholic Church consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart. They would consider that an internal matter for the Catholic Church to determine and one that doesn't have any relevance to them, so why not go ahead and do it and stop arguing about it? If it's as good as it's supposed to be nobody will object and if it isn't no big loss.
The Fatima Center does not seem to understand the following facts: 1.. Saint Andrew The Apostle & First Called Disciple of Christ himself personally consecrated The Kyivan Rus and her Churches to Christ in the fist century AD... The Churches which arose from this consecration through Apostolic Succession are The Ukrainian Orthodox & Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches; The Russian Orthodox and Ruthenian Catholic Churches. 2. The Uniate Churches (Eastern Catholics) separated from their Orthodox bretheren on the basis of politics and not theology - which for the most part they maintain in common with the Orthodox Churches with whom they share common origins. 3. The first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the unified Church were held free of the imposition of unilateral Papal Infallibility on theological questions - a right 'adopted' or 'usurped' from the collegiate Bishops by the bishop of Rome much, much later - and never accepted by the four other founding Bishoprics of the Church (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem). 4. The theoology of the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not approve the dogmas and doctrines later imposed upon the western Church - which included the Filioque; Purgatory; Immaculate Conception; Celibacy of Priests (not monastics); The Eucharist etc... These were later innovations which did not form part of the Theology of at least the 1000 years of Christianity. The Orthodox still maintain those earliest teachings, amongst others. Orthodox Theology of today was once Catholic Theology. The 'Conversion' of Russia, as it is spoken of by those Catholics who adhere to the truth of the 'messages' of the Fatima apparitions took place in 988 AD in Kyiv by Prince Volodymyr The Great... well before the Great Schism of 1054. So this begs the question... to what exactly do Fatima Catholics want Russia to convert to??? Anathemas and excommunications have long been removed and canonical status/ apostolic succession mutually recognised. This is why the Orthodoxy has never appointed a Patriarch of Rome, or recognised traditionalist catholics as "Western Orthodox" uniates. Sadly, Catholics have taken such steps in the east. To most Orthodox and Eastern Catholics - the very suggestion that Saint Andrew's consecration, and Prince Volodymyrs' conversion activities were somehow insufficient and must be repeated by a Roman Bishop at the behest of a Potuguese apparition is theologically wrong, and very offensive...
SuperFree06 I am a traditional catholic, meaning pre vat2 catholic. The remnant of us that are traditional is maybe 5%, the rest belong to the new church, cult of man, conciliar church, church of the new advent, which the popes have called the fake catholic church since v 2. The traditionalists belief, in which Fr Gruner has spent his life working on is the apparitions of Our Lady in 1917. Like he said in this video, we dont know if catholics will become orthodox or vice versa, it doesnt matter, we will be one church again, either way. But the main purposed of Jesus, through Our Lady, wants Russia to be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, is first thing, do give her the respect that she deserves, and then that Russia is the vehicle chosen by God in which to convert the world back to Him. So i look at it as an honor that God has chosen Russia to lead the rest of us back to God. Part of the messages was to do it quickly to stop Russia from being inundated by the communists, which were zionists in disguise, and caused so much genocide in the country, and then when they were finished with Russia, the moved on to other countries to destroy them, including the US, which is where i live. The communist/zionists want to rule the world under their one world government, and are trying to destroy all of the countries and their religions to make a one world religion, which is happening before our eyes right now in Rome. They successfully infiltrated the vatican, changed the rules on the sly, a lot of people left the church, the ones who stayed are brainwashed into thinking that their lack of doctrine is normal now. Please, dont any orthodox out there believe that this is a punishment to Russia or to the orthodox, Russia is meant to be a vehicle to the world to bring all christians together, but that cant happen until Russia is properly consecrated to Mary's Immaculate Heart. And seeing as none of the popes have seen fit to do it in the past 70 years or more, and jorge bergolio who is a freemason/zionist, he will never do it, God is going to punish us with WW3 and the 3 days of darkness which will kill 3/4 of the people in the world. After that Russia will be consecrated to Mary, and will help usher in the age of peace and help bring all christians into one fold again. God bless.
Tankcolo, thank you for your compliment, i am very humbled by your kind words, and yes of course you can use what i wrote, thank you again and God bless.
ROCOR has and does pray for Russia and unity, and in 2007 it happened. I just have to say my husband found it wrong and many did and we just do not know what on earth to think? Do not care where US and Russia are headed right now.
+MontChevalier On the contrary, there has never been a consecration of Russia according to Our Lady of Fatima's request. It is no surprise therefore that we have not seen the effects which She promised would follow that consecration.
+MontChevalier Agreed, to the sentiments of your conclusion, but we would choose a different wording. There is within the Catholic Church at present a deceitful movement propagating a claim that the Consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima has been accomplished. At the highest levels from which this claim emanates, we fear that various churchmen are indeed knowingly lying to the world. At lower levels among those who blindly follow and repeat the "official" line, we suppose there to be less culpability, though still a grave negligence. In both cases, yes, absolutely, a crime against humanity, which has already cost BILLIONS of innocent lives through abortion alone, in addition to the countless lives lost through the wars and persecutions of the past 87 years (the bloodiest in all of history) since the time when the formal request for the Consecration of Russia was given -- all of which Our Lady would have prevented according to Her promise. Even now, each passing day brings us closer to the sudden destruction of billions more lives in the prophesied annihilation of nations if we do not break through the silence and deceptions surrounding the Fatima Message in time. About this situation, Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote: "Knowing that the world can be utterly destroyed by the terrible weapons of mass destruction today and knowing too that this can be averted by prayer and penance as the Most Holy Virgin reminded us at Fatima, it is my sacred obligation to utilize these twin means of salvation, prayer and penance. Neglecting them I incur guilt in the destruction of the peoples. The omission of prayer and penance -- I say this in all seriousness -- is a crime against humanity."
***** If the consecration hasn't happened, then we can't expect anything from Traitor Francis. He's not going to do it. He's too busy defending muslims invading Europe. In 1950s Austria, Czech, Bavaria and various other countries had 90% Catholicism. Now they're under 50%. And the Catholic Church's response is: bring in the migrants. As if they've pretty much given up the fight. A stance like this will only serve to make people less Catholic. And the situation of Catholicism in the Americas is not growing, but decreasing. People are unhappy being Catholic in the Americas. And since the Church only cares about its paycheck, the list of parishioners goes from old people to dead and empty in just another 10 to 20 years. If the Church wants to put old people ahead of the young, then it can die with the old.
Vasileios - ca. AD 48: Council of Jerusalem or First Apostolic Council: ‘Alexandrian’ (Greek Orthodox) vs ‘Occidental’(Roman Catholic) texts as in Acts,15. The Alexandrian text is the authentic one.
So silly, Orthodox never believed in the immaculate conception of Mary, and the Orthodox would have never given up a teaching if it was the truth even if Rome shared the same belief. Case in point, all the teachings that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism today share between one another. Also, Russia convert from what to exactly what? You do realize that Russia is by and large a Christian country, and they do venerate the Theotokos regularly. So conversion from what again to what exactly? Such silly comments in this video, smh😒
It is true that the Eastern Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception, but their belief in Our Lady's immunity from sin in Her conception is manifest from many examples: Origen calls Her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (Hom. i in diversa); Theodotus of Ancyra writes that She was “a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God” (Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.); St. Sabae affirms Mary to have been pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon); St. Proclus that she was formed without any stain (Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort., I, 3); Theodorus of Jerusalem that She was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (in Mansi, XII, 1140); St. Ephraem of Syria writes: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" (Precationes ad Deiparam in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37). In another place he calls Her as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (Carmina Nisibena).
Regarding the conversion of Russia prophesied by Our Lady of Fatima, if any clarification is needed, She speaks of the nation’s conversion to the Catholic Faith. As Pope Pius IX warned in his encyclical Singulari Quidem, “There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord..., and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.”
We human beings have to make things so complex don't we? We are each claiming to have the one whole truth delivered by the creator of the universe. And yet most just believe what they are programed in early childhood. Commune with God in your daily prayers and meditations, that is truly the only way you will find what you seek, you will not know the creator by endless discussion. Close your eyes and go within, and ask that the one who is the source of who you are to guide you to truth.
Our Lord established His Church in this world, giving it authority to teach in His Name. Such a divinely authorized teaching organ is necessary to the act of faith (without which it is impossible for us to be pleasing to God -- Heb. 11:6). As the First Vatican Council explains, "Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself Who reveals them."
The pope HAD primacy. They lost that when they fell into heresy. They left the Seven Ecumenical Councils and added all kinds of strange doctrines. They have to renounce all heresies if there is any hope for union. There are many theological issues and it appears Rome only falls further away over time.
Primacy of honor without primacy of authority is ridiculous. There is no reason for honor without the corresponding authority. So the fact that Orthodox recognize the primacy of honor of the Chair of Peter means they are hypocritically denying the obvious primacy of authority that corresponds to that primacy of honor.
Poor Fr needs to read Acts again. “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” It wasn't Peter speaking judgment but the Bishop of Jerusalem.
Previously to that in Acts, Peter had already decided that the Savior came for everyone through that dream that God gave him. That which you quote is a minor decision about gentiles having to follow the old hebrew customs or not.
Michael Rex Naaaah, havent just been that "one" dont try to fool me. the expansionist mind of the roman catholic church has been so evil that following the pope by own free volition without beeing born into it is like shooting oneself in the head.
Michael Rex Most current was in the balkans in the 90s. if you're looking for a read here you go: www.reformation.org/vatican-against-orthodox-church.html
The Orthodox Church is wrong, it has always been a caesaropapist state church where the Roman Emperor was the head. That is why there were many heretical schisms like Arianism and Iconoclasm, both enforced on the church by heretical emperors. Ironically is was the "Catholic" west that resisted iconoclasm and fought to have the icons restored. Secondly it fragmented into many Autocephalous state churches, started by people like the Bulgarians who opportunistically wanted to free themselves from the byzantine greek hegemony. There is no longer any real unity and the state churchs can and do ignore Constantinople. Lastly the Muslims overran and destroyed the byzantine empire. Why did god not save them? , like he saved the catholic west at lepanto in 1571? Constantine won fighting under the sign of Christ and yet Byzantium was destroyed by Islam. A true christian knows war is punishment for sin, it is clear god abandoned the greek "orthodox" to their fate. Punishment for their schism. You also forget that the last two emperors reunited with Rome at the council of florence in 1444 and after the Muslims took constantinople they appointed a fanatically anti catholic, anti western monk as patriarch, and Turkish Muslims have therefore enforced the schism. Most catholics are rightfully skeptical about a church whoose head bishop was appointed by a MUSLIM sultan. You say orthodoxy is right and yet the hagia sofia is a mosque, im sorry but your wrong.
Hospitalier Knight Youre right that during the iconoclasm heresy the "Orthodox" west defended the use of icons and were crucial in ending iconoclasm, though the Popes did not remain Orthodox in the following centuries. Also Prior to the Great Schism the Church ( east and west) was a collection of local churches headed by the ancient patriarchates with the Bishop of Rome as the "first among equals" meaning the Pope of Rome was given highest honor based on the historical importance of Rome and Church doctrine was formulated by all bishops acting together in Council. The Orthodox Church was never headed by the Emperor. and the Popes never spoke with unilateral authority on doctrine or controlled what was done or taught in the other Patriarchates ( all of the Patriarchates had Apostolic Authority) thanks.
Sarban mosque worse museum bad. there is no Antioch or Constantinople today because they rebelled against peter. Alexandria is Muslim. Jerusalem is Jewish. Only Rome prevails over the gates of hell just like Christ said
Hospitaller Knight The Eastern half of the empire was preserved and remained Orthodox from the time of the Apostles, unlike the west which was invaded by the Franks. It was Charlemagne, the Frankish ego maniac that established modern day Roman Catholicism. Soon after Charlemagne, you had the inquisitions, the 1st Reich, the crusades, unification of church and state, heresies like the filioque, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and papal worship, indulgences used to build the Vatican, forced conversions, persecutions of all other sects, and many other ungodly acts which defined Roman Catholicism. Thankfully, the Eastern half of the empire remained free from the Frankish influence. Charlemagne attempted to build the "holy Roman empire". There was nothing holy about it, and it wasn't even Roman. The Eastern half of the empire has been battered and bruised like Christ was battered and bruised. The Eastern half of the empire faced persecutions and martyrdoms from the Frankish papists (Roman Catholics), from Muslims, and from Communists. We in the East understand what it means to "take up thy cross and follow me". The western Frankish papists on the other hand expected people to bow down and worship the pope. This was the ungodly church that Charlemagne founded. The Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ Himself, the true Orthodox Church, unchanged from the time of the Apostles. Ironically, it was on Christmas Day in the year 800 AD that the ego manic Charlemagne became emperor and pope of his Frankish empire. It wasn't so much a Christmas present, but a curse from which Roman Catholicism has never recovered from. It was the Frankish Roman Catholic Papists that tried to destroy Constantinople on the way to the Crusades. You Papists should change the name of your "church" to the Church of Charlemagne. He created a carnally minded church that interfered in the secular world, and even today the pope still interferes in political matters, which makes a mockery of the verse: "my kingdom is not of this world". Christ's kingdom was meant to be a spiritual kingdom, not a carnally minded kingdom where the church and state were unified. Too bad you had Charlemagne destroy Christianity in the west. It's time for you Papists to look to the East for the true Orthodox Church founded by Christ.
Peter was also reprimanded by Paul for playing a "political game" rather than behaving as our Lord Jesus Christ called us to do. Is it a possibility the Church of Rome followed suit in playing "political games" as well?
Sorry, but till 1054 where the so called schisma (whivh it was not) occurred the bishop of rome had never a supremacy over the whole church only over his patriachate! So the orthodox churches did not change and going before 1054 would mean to abandon the supremacy of the pope!
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS EXERCISED UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN THE CHURCH, BEGINNING FROM THE TIME OF ST. PETER: 1. Admitted by Eastern Sources (cited in “Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy,” by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess, Queenship Publishing Co., 1997): Emperor Valentinian III (AD 445): "The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler." Emperor Justinian I (AD 520-533): "Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy Priests of God.... " "For we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all holy churches." St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople (AD 650): "The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." "For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world." St. Theodore of Studios to the Emperor Michael and Constantinople (c. AD 800): "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by the tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the chair...." St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (AD 758-828): "Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Roman Pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."
7 ecumenical councils, not 8. Big differences in theology too. Orthodox honor Gregory Palamas bishop of Thessalonica as a saint, Papal church counts him a heretic due to polar opposite beliefs regarding the uncreated light of the Transfiguration. A note on the hard feelings in the East towards Rome: it stems from the history of Orthodox villages/churches being forced into accepting the Pope. These are called Uniates and have the outward appearance of Orthodox but theology is Roman. Thats just for starters. If it was difficult in 1400's to form a union how much more difficult now, after so much water has gone under the bridge (e.g. the Stasi)? The current heads of both Rome and Constantinople are watered down versions of what they should be, for sure. But I still don't think it will ever happen. The Orthodox monadtics and laity will never have it.
With all respect, that is a ridiculous statement. If The Russian Orthodox Church, which is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church ( same as Romanian, Greek, American, etc) is KGB, then the Roman Catholics must be Mafia. I suggest you read up on the history of the Church in Russia, from its baptism a thousand years ago, through its suffering under communism, to its current state in which more than a thousand Churches are being built each year. Millions of Orthodox Christians died for their faith.
Russia was consecrated when it was founded in Kiev in 988 AD. There is no need of Latin meddling in the affairs of the Local Church - over which Rome has no prerogative of jurisdiction. Roman claims of universal authority are innovative and against the Tradition of the Church ( pre-schism). A Latin Pope has no mission in Russia because the Patriarch of Moscow is the county’s sovereign primate. Latins need to learn to respect the authority of Local Churches, not only in Russia but in all Orthodox lands. The Council of Florence was a false union firmly rejected by the Orthodox laity and never resuscitated. Good riddance!
Wretched! Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem both indefensible from a scriptural and historical viewpoint. Pray for the poor people trapped in these cults!
Ayios Georgios It's the CONCEPT that's important here. And I'm not pious at all, I'm a rotten sinner, and always will be. How good I have Christ to make me righteous before the Father.
This wonderful priest spent his entire life trying to tell the world about Fatima
Eastern Orthodox liturgies are pretty much the same as Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies, which were not affected by the Vatican II revolution as the Roman Rite was.
Not exactly
If you are Orthodox, give thanks to God every day for the grace. It is a privilege.
Rather, pray to Our Lady that She may guide you from errors to the one true Catholic faith outside of which none at all can be saved.
@@standev1 Written like a true Catholic, but not as a Christian. To Catholics, they are the only Church. I always find such provincialism, such as your comment and the video clip, amazingly myoptic, Hurray for ignorance!
@@standev1 saint mark one of the apostles founded the great coptic orthodox church
Do protestants also have graces given to them because they left the church too?
Although it is often portrayed as such, this is not an issue of condemnation of either Catholics or the Orthodox. With orders given to Pope directly, God, through Our Lady, wishes to teach both Catholics and the Orthodox some valuable lessons.
So far, Pope has failed to answer the call to show up in the classroom, and the other has not done enough to remind the Pope that the class cannot commence without him. Currently, both sides suffer from wounds of false dignity and pride.
+Zvonimir Tosic Oh my goodness, *thank you!* I don't see why there should be so much abject, bitter *hatred* between Orthodox and Catholics. Christ said in the Gospel of John: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. *By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.*" How can we call ourselves Christians - Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise - if we have nothing but hatred and slander for each other? You said it quite clearly. There's no love. There's no humility. Just pride. (As for me, forgive me, a sinner, for saying so.)
The most valuable lesson is that there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and Catholic faith. As Catholics, we have a solemn obligation to condemn and reject the EO heresies (see Tridentine creed, n.13-14)
standev1
But this does not mean we must lose love and compassion for them. Remember that Christ corrected with love and not anger and vitriol.
@@standev1 HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHHHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA🙂
RIP both you gentleman
orthodoxy ia not only russian
Mihajlo Vujanac I am orthodox Christian and from Russia but I am not russian!
We are not Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Bolgars, Ukrainians or Ethiopians - we are orthodox Christians.
@Ronovich Valdez even as a Catholic you have to admit that it, in fact is just as universal as the Western Church. They may have separated from the Western church, and became independent churches of a greater Orthodoxy, but they still carry on the Apostalic tradition. They just don't except the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The customs may differ regionally, but so do many Western traditions. The Orthodox churches are seperated brethren, but still just as legitamate.
@@hammerheadms The Orthodox are apostolic, but are in schism. And also, they are in no way universal as the Catholic Church is. "for on the day
on which the Russian and Greek Churches formally break with one another the whole world will see that the Ecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches." Vladimir Solovyov 1889 in "Russia and the universal church". 129 years later, in 2018, Moscow and Constantinople broke and still are in schism with one another.
I have another interesting thing. Maybe we should think about our resemblances? Well, I mean, as I know Orthodox and Catholic have a few of this:
1) the common belief in Holy Trinity
2) the common belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, both God and Man, the second person of Holy Trinity
3) the common belief that eucharistic bread and eucharistic vine are true body and blood of the Savior
4) the common veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, saints etc i.e.
This points I take from book "the Orthodox Church" by metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). Who could tell something about this? Any opinion?
+Александр Черных
Yes, we do have that in common; though there might be some Theological differences beyond the simple beliefs.
Another notable similarity is that we both hold to the belief in Church Authority; though we disagree on the Papacy.
There's a half-hour video by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware detailing the differences and similarities between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that I watched. It seems very informative.
I'm particularly curious about one thing, though- does the Eastern Orthodox Church use (or at least accept) the "Shield of Faith"? ("The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is not the Father; the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God")
Oh- one more question- a personal curiosity, if you happen to know. What Liturgy does the Roman Orthodox Church use? Is it the same as the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or is it more similar to an old Latin Catholic Mass?
+Michael Rex about "the Shield of Faith". No, we don't have smt like that. But we accept the meaning of this Shield. Orthodoxy Holy Fathers (like st. Basil the Great, st. Gregory of Nissa etc) have written, that "God is trinity and in the same time - a unity". They explain this like that: Divinity of God is an essence of His nature, but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are hypostasis. It mean that despite a commnon divine essence - they still have a differencies: the Father is "beginningless", the Son is "consubstational to Father" and the Holy Spirit is "proceeding from the Father". That is why the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and so on. As I think - this is a miracle. Because cathegory of "hypostasis" in orthodox theology allow from one side be a part of a common but from another side - not lost an individual characteristics. So, I repite, Orthodox Chuch don't have a "Shild of Faith" like catholics but we accept all what this shield symbolized.
About Roman Orthodox Church: I don't know exactly, but suppose that they use a Western Orthodox Rite: like tridentine mass without catholics elements (also it calls "Liturgy of st. Gregory)
Александр Черных
Okay. Thank you.
It is number 2) where Orthodox do not accept Jesus eternally exists with the Father as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Thank you Fr. Gruner and Mr. Vennari, this is certainly spiritual nourishment to me, and I appreciate your evangelization.
SO RELEVANT RIGHT NOW
On Judgment Day, Christ Jesus will judge, the ONLY Righteous One in Head of ALL authorities and principalities. The Lord Reigns!!
His example of Papal authority in the Jerusalem council as recorded in the Book of Acts proves the Orthodox position - it was James not Peter who made the decree.
+Noah Johnson
Dear Mr. Johnson, We see in verse 7 of Acts 15 that it was Peter’s decision which brought an end to the dispute: “And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them...”
With Peter’s decision, the matter was settled. All debate stopped. “And all the multitude held their peace.” (v. 12)
The remainder of the account follows naturally upon the reception of Peter’s teaching. Paul and Barnabus relate signs from the Holy Ghost which they experienced in their first missionary journey in confirmation of this teaching, and James puts forward a practical proposal for its harmonious enactment, which is ratified by the entirety of the Council of Jerusalem.
As scriptural scholars point out, it is clear from James’ own expression that the ruling which he suggests is pursuant to the decision just issued by Peter. He begins his address to the Council by referring to Peter’s authoritative declaration (in the Greek, “exegesato”), and continues to give his own opinion (in the Greek, “akouoo,” a word without connotations of authority, which he uses in relation to his own statements) toward its promulgation. John Salza writes:
“James says ‘Simon HATH RELATED ....’ The Greek word for ‘hath related’ is EXEGESATO, which refers to a definitive declaration that requires obedience on the part of the listener. We see this same world in John 1:18, where Jesus declares the Father: ‘No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath DECLARED him.’ Just as Jesus declares the Father’s teaching, Peter declares Jesus’ teaching. Thus, James views Peter’s teaching as an authoritative declaration for the entire Church, and he submits to Peter’s authority. When James says, ‘Brethren, HEAR ME,’ the use of the Greek word (AKOUOO) simply means ‘I would like your attention.’ We see the same word in the immediately preceding verse, where it says ‘and they HEARD Barnabas and Paul’ (v. 12).” (The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, p. 150, emphasis in original, substituting all caps for italics.)
The Christian doctrine of Petrine supremacy is clearly taught in both the Scriptures and the ancient Church Fathers - even eastern Fathers.
St. John Chrysostom, the fourth-century Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote:
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (In Joan Hom)
TheFatimaCenter the doctrine of Petrine supremacy the way it is understood in the West is NOT traditional. I am sure you guys know how anything can be interpreted this or that way in the Scripture to accommodate a certain doctrine. Since this strictly vertical and totalitarian Church structure is only found in the Roman Church (four other patriarchates and numerous churches in the East never worked that way), and Roman Church then spread this very Roman Empire tradition to its European domains, one can clearly see that this is a Western interpretation not rooted in real universal tradition. There is Canon 35 of Apostolic Canon and it describes the Orthodox Church structure. If Petrine supremacy was indeed the most important dogma of salvation, our Fathers the Apostles would make sure to clearly write about that in the first church canon law. But such does not exist anywhere else except the Roman Catholic Church and not until the new times it was actually set as a dogma. It is a VERY new dogma.
Orthodox believe that the Church is the image of God, and because God is a holy Trinity - therefore the true Church is a Council. That is why we have a synodal structure. It may seem illogical to the Western mind, but is the dogma of Trinity anywhere logical? We just repeat what God revealed to us about Himself.
The description of the Jerusalem Council perfectly describes the Orthodox Church structure. There is an elder - Peter. While he has this position, it is clearly not the position of supremacy, but rather of an honor, of eldership. That is why he speaks with this authority to call onto all to settle the matter. But it is James who comes up with the exact canon of what gentiles should do. Other apostles add to the discussion. So, we see that they all work together out of their specific positions and services but still as equals. Peter does not and cannot have the word of absolute power. Otherwise, you would have to say that God the Father has absolute power over God Son and God the Holy Spirit, but then there is no equality in the Trinity. The Trinity operates on the notions of eldership and obedience out of love (not supremacy) as the Council of true equals - so does the true Church.
The Church is the Body of Christ. But Jesus Christ is not all by Himself, he is not like a separate being - He is the second hypostasis of the Council of Trinity and now forever is included into the Holy Trinity with His body and they all operate TOGETHER. So, if there are Three inseparable Faces of God, then why you have only one separate “vicar”? This logic reveals that such church does not understand the Trinitology which really is the very basics of the Christian tradition and faith.
its not Russian Orthodox, its Greek Orthodox!!!
i'm Catholic btw
JAReyes 14 - Greek Orthodox, indeed. I’m Greek, BTW...
JAReyes 14 Its only ortodoxs only but patriarh in russia serbia ,greck ,rumunia ,bulgaria is a cherch of ortofox so you haw serbian ,russin or bulgarian ortodox cherh in terirory of thet leqnd but liturgy is same in evry ortodox cherch or practic so you can pray in eny of cherch you are with brothers in the christe ws catolick you can understend thet we are the brothers no one haw primacy in cherch its holy cherch of crist not a roman catolic heretic
Byzantium Orthodoxy
DEVS VVLT AND PROUD CATHOLIC!!!
I think we are too late now. If we aren't, please explain.
May father Grunner rest in the peace of Our Lord
at the end of the day we’re all siblings in Christ
No, we are not. People trapped in the EO heresy need to be converted and only then they will become our brothers in Christ.
@@standev1 wrong attitude. Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant we are all STILL parts of the same mystical body. Lost brethren. Charity, and forgiveness are the ONLY ways to heals the rifts between us.
@@hammerheadms EO and Protestants are NOT parts of the Catholic Church. The only way to heal the rift is for them to convert to Catholicism and become Catholics. There is no other way.
@@standev1 I didn't say they were Protestants. I said ALL CHRISTIANS are parts of the mystical body. THAT is God's way! He didn't create denominations or schisms. He created perfection, and THAT was perverted by the pride of man. That pride is not exclusive to other faiths. The Catholic church is also guilty of lack of humility when the schisms happened. Even the Papacy acknowledges that the Catholic church does not hold a monopoly on the outflow of God's grace. Your response must reflect God's love and mercy, otherwise it is foolish vanity. Please remember that ALL things (good, bad, or indifferent) happen for the good of God. Nothing that happens does so without the will of The Lord being enacted. No matter how despicable that might appear to us. All who profess a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, and in one substance also with The Holy Spirit, One God always and forever, are inheritants of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let God be the judge of who is in the in error. Not you. Not me. Not any person.
@@hammerheadms "I said ALL CHRISTIANS are parts of the mystical body"
And this is false as well. The mystical body of Christ is the Holy Catholic Church. Only Catholics are its members.
"Your response must reflect God's love"
Love requires truth. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith. Therefore I cannot lie to non-Catholics just to be nice.
Many things changed during pandemics, but I remember that before it I could often hear people speaking Russian (Ukrainian may be) in the streets or in the buses or trams... They should have the possibility of going to a Catholic church if there's no orthodox one around, and we should have the same possibility when we are in Russia or in Ukraine...
Please note that it would be a grave sin against the First Commandment to have any part in the false worship offered by Orthodox churches. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you. It's strange that I remember something like that from religion lessons at school. I really thouht that my teacher knew a lot.
why were Muslims mentioned at the start?
So to be fair, aside from the Pope and a few other small issues, us Catholics and Orthodox christians are pretty much the same? I dunno, but I'm happy to share the belief in the one true God and his Son Jesus Christ! I love yall my brothers and sisters!
There are no small issues in our duty of fidelity to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. We either profess the Faith whole and entire, and maintain our place within the Church, or we forfeit all hope of salvation.
Being outside of the Church, the Orthodox lack Apostolic Succession (in spite of retaining valid priestly orders) and are engaged in egregious acts of false worship. But in addition to being schismatics, they are also heretics. In the very act of separating themselves from the obedience due to Our Lord’s chief Vicar in the Church, they put themselves in opposition to the dogmas of Faith regarding Petrine supremacy. Specifically, these dogmas are:
- that Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the chief of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to hold a primacy of jurisdiction throughout the entire Body of the faithful;
- that according to Christ’s ordinance, the successors of St. Peter would exercise the same Primacy over the whole Church and for all time;
- that these successors of St. Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome;
- and that the Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
Each of these four teachings is “of Faith” (de fide), and all of these dogmas have been under attack and denied by the schismatics from the beginning.
With time, too, the Orthodox fell into even more errors against the Faith, so that today the Orthodox oppose (and in some matters even heretically deny) a host of Catholic teachings. These include the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin (though they admit Her complete sinlessness), the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Papal infallibility, Consecration by the Words of Institution, the nature of Purgatory (though they admit its existence), and the indissolubility of marriage. They also hold differences from the Catholic Church in regard to the doctrine of the Particular and General Judgments, and in regard to the nature of Original Sin and of Justification. The Orthodox also deny the right of the Church to baptize by pouring water as opposed to immersing the subject, and the right of the Church to give Holy Communion under one kind only.
Please do not underestimate the seriousness of these pernicious errors. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter i truly apologize my friends, I hope you can forgive my ignorance. I have been going through a sort of mid-life crisis lately and I'm not sure what I am supposed to do in this world, much less how to properly give thanks and praise to our Almighty and Wonderful Father for giving the lowly me a chance at life... I'm sorry, I just don't know what to do anymore...
@@nikopawlowic6557 No need to apologize. Nothing though we are, we can do much to serve and honor God and His Holy Mother when we are united to Him by a true faith enlivened through supernatural charity. If we do nothing more than maintain ourselves in the state of grace throughout the day, and offer all of our thoughts and actions to Our Lord, we have done monumental and meritorious service. Add to this the duties of the vocation in which He has called us, and the generous application of our prayers and sacrifices which Our Lady of Fatima asks of us (particularly our daily Rosaries and our monthly First Saturday acts of reparation), and our lives will be the admiration of the angels. But everything depends upon our being grounded in the true Faith and united to the Catholic Church. God bless you!
@@TheFatimaCenter I thank you for your kindness, I wonder if perhaps you may be able to shed a bit more light on my weary mind? For the past 13 years I have been living with a moral injural after serving in the US Army. I still accept and believe in Jesus Christ as our savior, but have felt hopeless due to the scars on my mind and heart, leading me into a life of self medication just to ease the pain. I have felt for so long that I will still fail by reverting to my past torments even if I try to honestly repent, plus is this a struggle that I will deal with my whole life? I pray that my heart will one day no longer be troubled, and if you would please keep others like myself in your prayers. I thank you and may God always be with you.
@@nikopawlowic6557 Thank you for this comment. Your suffering is a common affliction among servicemen. The healing which you desire can only come through Our Lord, beginning with a thorough and trusting Confession. And upon having confessed those things which now trouble you so much, you must resolve not to look back on them at all. In a very real sense you must forgive yourself and go on, confident and joyful in the love which Our Lord has for you. Say with St. Paul, "I do not count myself to have apprehended, but one thing I do: forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before, I press towards the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3: 13-14) God bless you.
Orthodoxy has no celibacy, Roman catholic we believed from Jesus through Peter down to the Pope, Bishops and the Priest, then laymen and to the parishioners. Obedient to the Pope is obedient to Jesus as what Jesus told to Peter whatever you forgive in earth will be forgiven in heaven.
Nikola Romanos I think you may need to investigate our own Church somewhat more before making these kind of remarks. Married priests are quite common in some of the Eastern Catholic Churches and in the Orthodox Churches many priests ARE celibate, not all choose to marry before ordination. Also priests may only marry before ordination in either Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches. The matter of a married priesthood is not a major issue.
***** Indeed, it's a very poor argument and one that I've seen used before many times but it never convinces me and and I say that as a Catholic. It's one of the weaker arguments possible.
St. Peter himself was married....
we are all one
The Pope is currently trying to close down the Tridentine Rite, particularly where there is a "threat" of it being taken up by a younger generation of Catholics. We might ask if the Pope actually has the power to do this? Well yes, he does, and he also has the power to close down the Byzantine Rite. Apparently he does not have the power to prohibit the veneration of icons, but if he does it anyway then he can also order the closure of any ecclesiastical court that tries to put him on trial. I would say the primary function of the Pope is co-ordinate the teaching of the bishops, but he is obviously failing to do that concerning the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and even refuses to answer elementary questions. In view of this failure and dereliction of duty, it would be foolish to allow the Pope any authority over any of the rites of the Church. There's not much point in complaining if the Orthodox Church is wary of papal power when many Catholics are starting to think twice. What we can all do about it is to say the Rosary. It is time for the College of Bishops to have a word with the Pope. Say St John Fisher's Prayer for Holy Bishops as well, at least on Ember Saturdays.
Mary is the mom of Jesus and Jesus is a part of god send on earth so Mary is important too coz Jesus was born by her by the holy spirit
I know Catholics don't fast but Orthodox do. What are the fasting rules for orthodox?
The present discipline of the Catholic Church is admittedly a scandal, in some ways obscuring the truth of the Catholic Faith. Nevertheless, it remains the only true Church, outside of which it is impossible to be saved. In this regard, as Our Lady of Fatima warned, the entire world is being punished by the persecutions which Our Lord is permitting His Church to undergo.
GhostGrind Catholics do fast google it 😂
GhostGrind As a member of Orthodoxy I can answer that. We fast Wednesdays and Fridays from meat, dairy and oil/wine. During lent and Christmas we fast this way for 40 days (as Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days). There are exceptions for certain days of course. We also fast during certain feast days (ie. The entrance of the Theotokos into the temple).
Question: I know Catholics are forbidden to read the Protestant versions of scripture; no Mass no Pope no Queen of Heaven... etc Are the Orthodox Russians also forbidden to read the Protestants versions of the scriptures.
Rosary Scapular traditional Mass...!!
Can a traditional Catholic woman marry a Russian orthodox man? Will the Church of Rome recognize and bless their marriage or is this a stretch??
Through her marriage laws, the Church seeks to protect the faith and salvation of our souls, and to ensure a viable home-life in which our children can mature into strong Catholics. Thus for numerous very serious reasons, the Church discourages -- even forbids -- her members to enter into mixed marriages. Only for a grave reason (such as that the Catholic party's faith is so weak and fragile that he or she would likely leave the Church immediately if permission to marry were refused) can this law be dispensed. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19660318_istr-matrimoni-misti_en.html
We would also caution you in regard to your prospect for temporal happiness that the Orthodox view marriage in almost the same manner as do Protestants. If you are a faithful Catholic and intend to live your entire life as such, you know that marriage is indissoluble and that you will be committed to endure whatever difficulties arise in married life. Certainly, then, you will want a spouse who views your union in the same way. Since non-Catholic sects including the Orthodox churches permit divorce and "remarriage," the Catholic party in a mixed marriage would be at great risk of being abandoned by his or her non-Catholic spouse. Please consider how terrible and arduous it would be to remain bound to fidelity to your husband for as long as he lives, even while he has taken up with another woman in a supposed second or third marriage.
We would strongly encourage you to seek only a serious Catholic as a prospective spouse for yourself and father for your children. If you think you have found a good match in a man who is not a Catholic, pray and endeavor to make a serious Catholic of him before thinking of him in a romantic context. God bless you.
The Russian Orthodox usually stick with their own, it's forbidden to marry outside of their Eastern faith
@@TheFatimaCenter OK. Thanks for the response. I will make sure to only date traditional Catholic men. 😘 God bless you for your honesty.
@@ChicagoIL50 OK. Thanks for your response. I do t know if he is religious. I plan on asking him soon. 😊
Yes let god take care of the process.😀
Why do you call it Russian Orthodoxy when the country of the Orthodox faith is Greece (Byzantium at the time) and trough the Slavonic texts of the Bulgarian church it spread among the other Slaves (along with the Cyrillic alphabet)?
The questioner asked specifically about the Orthodox church in Russia, which is of particular interest to Catholics in light of Our Lady of Fatima's message. Our Lady spoke of Russia's role as the chosen instrument by which God will punish the world for its crimes until such time as we bring about Russia's conversion to the Catholic Faith through the Pope and bishops consecrating it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Russia will then have a preeminent role in the ensuing period of Our Lady's triumph over the great evils of our time.
***** Ok, Thank you!
Because the Orthodox church fragmented into state churches, the patriarch of Constantinople has no real power over any of them, he directly controls the "greek orthodox church" but not the russians, or serbian or any other, they can ignore him and they do. The Russian orthodox were very much under the control of the Tsar and you forgot many non greeks resent the "greek hegemony".
Tsveti Speaks Do you know Ethiopia n Orthodox
Because Greece and Greeks are irrelevant.
This was so helpful and makes sense. The Pope must use his God-given authority to ensure the consecration of Russia to physically show the Orthodox the validity of the Papacy. I believe this to be true, indeed! I've been so perplexed and unsure whether I should be converting to the Orthodox Faith, but now I know to stay with the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. I pray for the repose of the souls of John Venarri and Fr. Gruner.
You have no knowledge of the early Church and this video makes no sense. The papacy is not valid, and never existed in the early Church. The 1st Vatican Council, 1870, gave the bishop in Rome authority. There never existed one bishop, prior to 1870, that had complete authority over all other bishops and churches. All the council, prior to Vatican 1, were based on a consensus of all bishops making decisions. The Orthodox still practice this way off church governing The idea of one bishop control is a heretical teaching.
The Papacy
Isaiah 22:20-22 - Eliakim becomes Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom, a father to the house of Juda, with the keys of the kingdom, and the kingly power to open and shut anything in the Kingdom.
Matthew - 16:18-19 - Jesus declares Peter to be the rock of His Church (singular, not plural), with the keys of the Davidic Kingdom, with the power to bind and loose anything on earth.
St. Peter is mentioned 191 times in the Catholic Bible, St. John was second at 48, and the total of all the other apostles mentioned, if I remember this correctly: 130 times; either way, a significantly lower amount. Something to think about. Christ did give authority to St. Peter to Head his Church, and from there, we have our Popes (bishops) who succeeded St. Peter. God Bless us all and may we all be one someday so that we may truly bring glory to the Blessed Trinity!
@@vasilyjc1955 No council prior to the split was considered valid without the Bishop of Rome in attendance. Eastern bishops would beg the Bishop of Rome to attend their councils. This bit of history is well documented
Just remember that there is a serious movement in the Russian Orthodox Church for the canonisation of Grigori Rasputin. That says it all, doesn't it?
In the Church there were all kinds of movements historically. Even Judas was an apostle, wasn't he? So there was a movement for betraying Christ! And speaking of Rasputin, at least he did not murder his fellow humans in the name of Christ like so many canonised crusader kings did. Don't you see your own double standards?
No. I have no double standards. Rasputin was neither a man of good morals, nor was he Orthodox.
Formally Rasputin was Orthodox, just as the crusader kings were Catholic. Is killing unbelievers in the name of Christ "good morals"? And far from all crusades were defensive. The Eastern Baltic became Catholic exclusively due to offensive crusades. Besides Lithuania, which was able to defend itself and converted peacefully later.
I want to confine the discussion to Rasputin. He was sexually depraved - not even in the warped mentality of the Moscow Patriarchate can that be considered a sign of sanctity. That's all I shall say.
Antimproc Iam not defending Rasputin. I am just looking for consistency. If a 'movement' among some LAYMEN and maybe even some LOWER clergy for canonising Rasputin is a sign of the entire Orthodox Church being false, why, for example, is murdering Saint Joan of Arc by a group of HIGH-level Catholic clergy not a sign of their church's falsehood? I am not saying that the Catholic Church is automatically false because of that, I am just trying to show how odd your argument is.
I heard Putin asked Pope Francis to consecrate Russia to mother Mary's immaculate heart but the Pope didn't want to talk about it... Is this true?
Yes, here are two reports of that event. God bless you.
ua-cam.com/video/zIEQ3XEhdB4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/-QmRyAJfJBg/v-deo.html
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you. I was able to find a few videos of the reports (including the two you listed) but not a video of putin actually asking the Pope. But thanks for the videos
I don't see Orthodox having to convert to Catholocism or the other way around. I don't believe that there are enough differences for that to be required. The primacy and authority of the Pope is a HUGE stumbling block. Frankly, this Catholic would love to see the adjustment made to remove that barrier for our unification. Another potential stumbling block is what happened to the Catholic Church (particularly in North America) after Vatican II. Churches that look like meeting halls (or God knows what else), Communion in the hand (I loathe that), woman not covering their heads any more (I recently started covering up again). Some people show up to Mass here in Orlando dressed for the beach. I could go on. There is a loss of reverence that I think would need to be corrected here too for true unification. We will need to change OUR ways. I pray for that day.
Our Lady of Fatima promised that Russia would be converted to the Catholic Faith by means of its Consecration to Her Immaculate Heart. Meanwhile, as Fatima expert Fr. Joaquin Alonso affirmed to have also been contained in Our Lady's prophetic warning, a crisis of faith has installed itself at every level even within the Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. We all stand in need of conversion.
"We all stand in need of conversion." Very true.
I have a question:
Where did Jesus say in the Bible (any version) that "I am God" or where he says "Worship me"
I'll help you:
"Nowhere did Jesus say such things" he always praised the father and never claimed to be "God" or "The son of God"
Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad. "
This is a Hebrew quotation, which means :
" Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. "
The Bible, Mathew 19 : 58
+Suleyman Magnificent
Dear Friend, There is abundant scriptural affirmation that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, equal to the Father, and true God:
I - CHRIST IS THE TRUE SON OF GOD
The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. (Ps. 2:7)
And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matt. 3:16-17)
Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 16:15-17)
The high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. (Matt. 26:63) [An idiomatic affirmative expression. Compare Our Lord’s affirmation to Pilate that He is indeed a King, Matt. 27:11, Mk. 15:2, Lk. 23:3, Jn. 18:37]
Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am. And they said: What need we any further testimony? for we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth. (Lk. 22:70-71)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14)
And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God. (Jn. 1:33-34)
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. (Jn. 3:16)
Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God? He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him. (Jn. 9:35-38)
Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. (Jn. 20:30-31)
He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things? (Rom. 8:32)
God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son... (Heb. 1:1-2)
By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him. In this is charity: not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins. ... And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father hath sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. (1 Jn. 4:9-10,14-15)
We know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal. (1 Jn. 5:20)
II - CHRIST IS TRUE GOD, EQUAL TO GOD THE FATHER
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Jn. 1:1)
Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God. (Jn. 5:17-18)
They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you. ... The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
(Jn 8:25, 57-58)
I and the Father are one. (Jn. 10:30)
Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. (Jn. 20:28-29)
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally. (Col. 2:9)
Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:1)
In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us... (1 Jn. 3:16)
And we know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal. (1 Jn. 5:20)
Where is written JESUS IS A PROPHET DON'T WORSHIP ME Go and baptized them in the name of THE FATHER THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
THREE ARE THAT TESTIFIED IN HEAVEN THE FATHER. SON AND THE. HOLY SPIRIT not Mohammed. According to ocean when CRIST was small kids he got water and soil and make one bird that after fly .That means he is life giver......... Wake up my brother. Don't you see who's GOD and who is pseudo prophet. Who's going to resurrect Mohammed According to coran CHRIST IS GOING to Mecca and resurrect him ........wake up
@@sumagillyrian6593
Jesus prove He is God
Jesus Walk on water
Jesus performed Mirical
Jesus died on the Cross and Rose again on 3rd day,
That's 12 disciples preach all around the World and Sacrifice and you can see prediction Came True
Not only that Moses Met, God'
You can clearly See the Historical Evidence How he saved thousand of Jew by crossing the Water you can clearly see he met God and God says I am the God I'am definitely God Exist first he doesn't have name he gave him self a Name I am
Jesus said I am the Truth and way Of Life Jesus is God in Human flesh
In Earth and Heaven
God Choose Holy Virgin Mother Mary Mother of God
God Choose Jesus is God
God gave himself to Jesus
Jesus gave himself to God
Supposed I gift you car and you drive this car all your life you go for shopping you go for helping other thise car is with you all your life'
What other people call you drive or owner, God speaking in Jesus Mouth in earth in heaven,
God can do any thing and everything
Holy Virgin Mother Mary Mother of
God
Jesus is God
it's all God Alternative plan!
first of all,what I do not understand well is that the most of People connect the Orthodoxy only with Russia.What is about serbian, greek, bulgarian, romanian orthodox churches? These are autocephal churches with the same importance like russian, Patriarch of serbian or bulgarian church is on the same instance like russian Patriarch, with direct connection to bysantine old tradition.
+Nikola Acimovic it's a good mistake made by the people who made the show.... when you talk about Orthodoxy you talk about all the Orthodox churches because they are one and equal to the other. As far as this priest tells... he maybe the first but he's equal as the Other bishops as established in the Pentarchy... long time ago to maintain order and equillibrium in the Christian world...
The orthodox church is the first break from the true Catholic church. Orthodoxy could be considered the first protestant church (which incidentally the protestant churches are in full agreement with the orthodox) in that they don't believe in the papacy but rather they are all their own self proclaimed popes.
Yes, that is what I was taught in graduate school by a learned Catholic professor who studied this. However, I was also taught that in Catholic high school theology.
Very funny! A church that has not changed for 1000 years and suddenly is called rebellious and in error because it refuses to innovate and change apostolic and early Church Fathers' dogmas and beliefs. The reverse is true: Roman Catholicism is the FIRST protestant church because it proclaimed independence from all the rest of Christianity, and installed humans as leaders instead of the Holy Spirit. It's been dealing with that bumble ever since. The Orthodox Faith is the same as what was given by the Early Church. Of course the Roman Catholics keep pretending they can do whatever they want because they are the "True Church". Go ahead and keep thinking that. The True Faith is different, and the RCC has abandoned it.
If Peter had primacy of honor and power why was he not the bishop in Jerusalem? Why was James "The Just" bishop at the first council of Jerusalem and not Peter?
That Saint Peter was made the chief of the Apostles does not mean that he was the only Apostle, or that there would not be ordained other bishops as well to serve in the Church. That the Popes establish bishops to govern all of the various sees throughout the world is no argument that he lacks immediate jurisdiction universally throughout the Church.
+TheFatimaCenter,
Yes, Popes reserved unto themselves rights and privileges against advice and consent of the Church in the east. The Latin Church arbitrarily split from their brethren and decided to establish papal primacy and infallibility. This is all the invention of the Catholic Church. "No argument that he lacks immediate jurisdiction universally throughout the Church???" Yes, the Catholic Church created a great schism and went it's own way. Primacy of honor? Ok. Primacy of complete power? Me thinks not.
@@aleksandarstavric2226 Thank you for your comment. Saint Peter remained the head of of the universal Church when he transferred his see from Antioch to Rome. Therefore his successor in Antioch did not succeed him in the Papacy. But when Peter was executed under Nero and was succeeded by St. Linus, this latter did succed his governance both of the Church's primary see and of the universal Church. God bless you.
@@aleksandarstavric2226 The Christian doctrine of Petrine supremacy is clearly taught in both the Scriptures and the ancient Church Fathers - even eastern Fathers.
The promise of establishing the Church upon Peter is recorded in Matt. 16: 17-19, and the realization of this promise is recorded by St. John, 21: 15-17, in which Peter is placed at the head of the entire Church, both of sheep and lambs alike (that is, as the chief even among the pastors of the flock).
St. John Chrysostom, the fourth-century Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote:
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (In Joan. Hom.)
Why did the pope and catholic church allow Hitler to kill millions of Jews and Stalin and Putin kill millions of Ukrainian people.
Why don't you have a ORTHODOX Priest or Bishop to say what it is that Orthodox think ?
The point is; Orthodox don't need the Roman Catholic Pope in the first place.
Secondly, where do you get your numbers on just how many Orthodox in Russia practice their faith in Russia.
Maybe the reason might be that Russia is a Communist country. Same as in China where I lived and worked for appro.
27 years, China doesn't allow much room for religious freedom !
Sincerely yours,
a previously Roman Catholic, convert to Russian Orthodox
Russia was a communistic country but now it is a capitalistic country like in the West
Sorry, but what means RUSSIAN Orthodoxy. I am otrhodox and bulgarian and I don't see any difference between our Orthodoxies. In fact - we accepted christianity 150 years before russians. Actualy, we gave them the Orthodoxy ...and the alfabet too. We speak very similar languaches. There is only one Orthodoxy and it is just Orthodoxy. The same way we can talk about Greek Orthodoxy (We bulgarians took it from the greeks). The common expression EASTERN Orthodoxy is also empty and meaningless beacause there is no WESTERN or whateverelse Orthodoxy.
As Frs. Rumble and Carty explain, "There are some 16 different Orthodox Churches existing independently of one another. After the first really definite break with Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth century, the Eastern Church followed in the path of all schismatical Churches, splitting up into further divisions. Eight of these separate sections of Orthodoxy have their own Patriarchs, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, and Servia. The others lack definite rule. The term "Greek Orthodox Church" is popularly applied to any or all of these Churches; but strictly speaking it should be reserved for that section of Orthodoxy which acknowledges the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is really one of the smaller sections, for the Bulgarians, Rumanians, Russians and others of Slav nationality, are Greeks in no sense of the word. But it is clear that there is no one united Orthodox Church at all, any more than there is one united form of Protestantism. However, since the schismatic Orthodox Churches began with the rebellion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople against Rome in the ninth century, we can allude to all the Orthodox Churches as belonging to the Greek Schism."
@@TheFatimaCenter Thanks for that answer. But what I mean is that there are no differences in teaching between different orthodox churches. Each church is independent and has an autonomy. The only exclusion is Armenian church. They believe that Christ has only one nature - godly nature.
The issue was never accepting the lineage of the Bishop of Rome. The issue was the Bishop of Rome taking Christian traditions and customs getting rid of them.
The bishop of Rome let his pride overtake him and wanted to sever his ties to the one holy catholic and apostolic church given to us from the lineage of the apostles; in doing so the new Catholic church was born with many changes to the doctrines of the councils of Nicea. The eastern bishops who gave in to papacy rule only did so for military assistance fighting the Muslim Turks which by the way never came. Lastly may I remind those who look at the Orthodox as being heretical, the Orthodox wrote, translated and spread the New testament, that is a historical fact. Nevertheless you are correct the Bishop of Rome took these ancient traditions and disposed of them.
@Wednesday's Child correct you are, Greece or the new calendarists have unfortunately embraced the heresy of ecumenism, not embracing that the body of Christ is one, can't be divided by embracing all other Faith's and denominations. I'm not sure about Cyprus. Nevertheless Russia is sticking to the non ecuminical doctrines and even though it was Greek missionaries who introduced Christianity to the Slave,; they say Vladimir forced everyone in Kiev to be baptized because Orthodoxy allowed alcohol. I must admit besides the monks on mount Athos, it's Russians now who are the protectors of the faith not the ecumenical Greeks.
I am proud to be an orthodox
+RestoredToTruth Isn't your judgement of +listeners a bit... prideful? :-)
***** What??? Denominational tag? Harlots??? What's going on in your head?
Christ said: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. *By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.*" What does this say about you, then? St. Paul said he did not even judge himself, yet you call this woman a harlot? Very sad...
Alex Lielbardis That's a bit of a blanket statement. Roman Catholics, Protestants and other individuals can be prideful as well. So can Orthodox individuals.
Millo Cotton Please explain what exactly you mean.
Was sarcasm for first part. It is rly amusing to hear ppl being proud of things they do not actually achieve.
And what i am actuality proud of is ppl who start to critical thinking and deny false knowledge and morale the global clericalism bring them.
Orthodoxy is the true, one true faith
You mean the church that allows for divorce and remarriage, the church that cant even agree on many theological ideas? Right....
Judge not lest ye be Judge my Friend. Minister to them, to but do not condemn. Teach them what is right, not deny them for being wrong.
The Catholic Church is the one true church.
Lion-eyes Alessi Innocenti , you shouldn't have respect for other religions, they are creation of Satan, reserve your respect and tribute only for the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church who is the one true faith and way for salvation, guided has it been by the Holy Spirit for more than 2000 years.
abhishek ganguly the only separated is the orthodox.
I want to learn, but your set up is making it as boring as it could be!!! I love my Lord. We can’t save other souls with a boring explanations! Th am you for continuing to try.
The priest did not even care to do his homework on the material before presenting it as the ultimate truth. The Orthodox Church acknowledges 7 ecumenical coucils, not 8, as he claimed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#List_of_ecumenical_councils
And why assemble the councils in the first place if you can always ask the infallible pope who will answer you "ex cathedra"?
As for Apostle Peter's alleged primacy of authority and infallibility:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Galatians 2:11-14)
All human authority -- even the supreme authority of the Church -- is limited, and in some instances ought to be resisted. Papal infallibility is a rarely exercised charism, not a constant personal trait making the Pope impeccable in all his judgments and actions.
***** Then you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you assert the pope's primacy of authority as a Church dogma, not merely an organisational feature, on the other, you say that his authority ought to be resisted in some instances (the exact nature of which is only to be guessed).
Well, Orthodox Christians believe that the Roman addition of the filioque clause into the creed, as well as their gradual introduction of the papal supremacy dogma, in 1054 became exactly such instances, since they contradicted the earlier Church tradition and practice.
It is also interesting to note that in that issue the patriarchate of Constantinople was supported by ALL other patriarchates of the time (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem).
Only God Himself has absolute, unlimited authority, along with a claim to our absolute and unlimited obedience. All legitimate authority in this world is of God (Rom. 13:1; Boniface VIII, Unum Sanctam, Dz. 469) and must be obeyed within the limits established by God for the exercise of that authority. But should a legitimate authority-figure attempt to act in matters outside of his jurisdiction or in a manner contrary to the right use of his authority, he has no claim to the obedience of his subjects. That this principle applies even to the highest authority of the Church has been thoroughly discussed by theologians (see a summary here: www.cfnews.org/page88/files/6dc01f470b25d725254801526d8d93b0-195.html), and in recent years was confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI: “The Pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith…. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”
***** You quote, "“The Pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith…. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.” Then how about these early Church traditions ratified by ecumenical councils which imply no papal primacy of authority:
Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.
www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P8.HTM
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers
www.orthodoxa.org/GB/orthodoxy/canonlaw/canons2econcileGB.htm
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of
Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
sites.google.com/site/canonsoc/home/canons-of-the-ecumenical-councils/council-of-chalcedon-451-1
1. Some Eastern "Orthodox" say 8 councils others say 7.
2. There is no such things as ultimate truth in Eastern "Orthodoxy" Since they claim 'all bishops are equal' how do you determine who's a heretic? How do you decide which councils are binding? Each "bishop" in Eastern "Orthodoxy" is his own "church".
3. Regarding your quotes, you have honestly no idea what you're talking about,.
That Canon did not allot junior patriarchal rights to the Bishop of Rome. It vindicated the patriarchal rights of Alexandria against the usurper, Meletius of Lycopolis. The Bishop of Alexandria complained to the Council of this usurpation. The Council then vindicated the patriarchal rights of the great Sees of Alexandria and Antioch in their own spheres, even as all admitted the patriarchal rights of Rome.
4. Did you even read the sessions of the ecumenical councils which you claim to accept? The burden is on you to actual prove that the Church in the first 1000 years absolutely rejected the Papacy. Which is impossible actual, the early Church was the Catholic Church NOT a separate Greek "Orthodox" or Russian, Bulgarian "Orthodox" sects which yet did not exist.
There was a book written in the early 20th century called "Through The East To Rome" C. J. MacGillivray says that, as an Anglican clergyman, he spent some years in the East amongst the Greeks and Syrians, working for the reunion of Greeks and Anglicans. He found it impossible, and in the end became a Catholic. On page 91 of his book he writes: "To begin with, there is no such thing as the 'Orthodox Church.' There is a group of some 15 or 16 independent Churches, recognizing no common authority, but loosely connected as being all 'Orthodox.' And again, if you leave out Russia, the whole number of the Orthodox is exceedingly small; and the Russian Church was only held together by the power of the State..."
Here are some Patristic quotes proving Papal supremacy, i have many many more if interested.
"THERE IS NO DOUBT , AND IN FACT IT HAS BEEN KNOWN IN ALL AGES, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ , the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: WHO DOWN EVEN TO TODAY AND FOREVER BOTH LIVES AND JUDGES IN HIS SUCCESSORS, The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, ACCORDING TO DUE ORDER, IS HIS SUCCESSOR AND HOLDS HIS PLACE...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Ecumenical Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431)
The council Fathers at Chalcedon writing to Pope St.Leo the Great say:
"For if 'where two or three are gathered together in His name' He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him... OF WHOM YOU WERE CHIEF, AS HEAD TO THE MEMBERS, showing your good will." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451
Also
"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98
Also
"Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE VINE BY THE SAVIOR. We refer to Your Holiness." -Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98
St.Cyril of Alexandria says:
"That these things are really so, let us produce a witness most worthy of faith, a most holy man, and ARCHBISHOP OF THE WHOLE HABITABLE WORLD, that Celestine, who is both Father and Patriarch of the mighty City of Rome, who himself also exhorted thee by letter, bidding thee desist from that maddest of blasphemies, and thou didst not obey him."(St.Cyril of Alexandria To The Heresiarch Nestorius) [Rev. Joseph Berington and Rev. John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Volume 2, p.83]
Patriarch St.Sophronius of Jerusalem in the 7th century says:
"Go through all the world till you come to the Apostolic See, where is the foundation of orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that See all about our difficulties: do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and Divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically root out this new heresy." -Patriarch St.Sophronius to bishop Stephen of Dora (before sending him to Rome, 639 A.D.) [Mansi, Collectio conciliorum, 10:896]
The above quotes absolutely obliterate Eastern "Orthodoxy" before it got started in 1054. Simply compare the above quotes [and there are dozens more] with the Greeks after 1054, you will see it's 2 different religions.
The schismatics who reject the authority of St.Peter are no different then Core and his minions who made a schism against Moses. (Numbers 26:10)
You need to humble yourself and submit to the Chair of St.Peter.
a question: why did it take 1800+ years for Rome to come up with papal infallibility and the doctrine of the immaculate conception?
Solemn pronouncements may be issued at whatever time the need arises for clarification of the Church's teachings. The teachings themselves are not new.
@@TheFatimaCenter even though one of your own Saints Thomas Aquinas was against the Doctrine?
Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy ...that’s the comparison
jjgreek1 we are not Greeks or Russians, dear brother! Firstly we are Christians!
Roman catholic is the one God made, it's right.
LOL so simple. But it's just the truth.
Ice Age
That doesn't make sense.
until it fell from God's Grace in 1054 and was excommunicated the Pope was by the other 4 major patriarchates.'
Ice Age actually Pope Pious V or X made it the other liturgical rites permissible for use so long as the church recognized the supremacy of the Supreme Roman Pontiff. Only the Latin Rite was made mandatorily valid for the Roman Rite. That's why in the Eastern Rites you have different "flavors" of liturgy.
There are actually 27 rites in the church
Each human being needs to find their way god. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ as stated in the new testament "you are peter.... Also the Nicene creed clearly states one holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church not the orthodox church (and if you believe in the orthodox church then more power to you). So please refrain from the nasty comments against the Roman Catholic Church. There is absolutely nothing wrong with altar girls, or people dancing (read your psalms), or having instruments (read your psalms again). Considering the orthodox rarely agree among themselves, most major heresies have come from the orthodox church, and through much of its history its been controlled and manipulated by secular (government) powers. So please lets not throw stones. It would be nice if we could come together in prayer as brothers.
would you believe me if i said that the orthodox church considers itself Catholic. it's the name thats different
More propaganda. Peter never had authority, and it was St James who pronounces the sentence of the council in Jerusalem, not Peter. Acts. 15:13-21. Peter is never called the head of the church in any sense in the Bible, nor does he himself ever appeal to any authority even in his own epistles. Papal infallibility and authority was political and is not found in the early church. Anyone who believes this priest has no knowledge of church history.
America First Revolution Not true. Peter is affirmed by Christ as the earthly head of the Church by being renamed Rock and entrusted with the keys of the kingdom, referencing Is 22:22 “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” Christ bestowed his Kingly authority upon Peter as his Royal Steward, thereby creating an office to preside over the universal Church.
James presiding over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 in no way diminishes Peter’s role as Royal Steward. Peter infallibly speaks the truth about the Gentiles for the whole Church, and James, as overseer (bishop) of Jerusalem , affirms Peter’s proclamation by issuing a pastoral decree.
In fact, there are numerous Patristic writings which affirm Peter’s role and the primacy of his successors, the bishops of Rome. Even the Orthodox believe the bishop of Rome is at least the first among equals. The only dispute seems to be in regards to how far Rome’s political and ecclesiastical authority should extend and the practical implications.
In regards to papal infallibility, the ecumenical councils of the first millennium were deemed infallible by the Church, preserving Christianity from the errors of Arianism, Nestorianism etc and defining and defending the concept of the Trinity. All of which were necessarily ratified by Rome. But if your dispute with infallibility is that it cannot be personified in any one man other than Christ, then don’t forget that every writer of the Bible was rendered infallible by the Holy Spirit for a time. To me, infallibility makes a lot of sense and is a final safeguard by Christ to preserve the Church from “the gates of hell.” (Mt 16:18).
Krang X Well Said. The Catholic Church Desperately needs to solve the true issue, the Homosexual Problem, No homosexual priests should be permitted to join in the first place. And Straight Young Chaste Men are being filtered out in the selection processes. This is a huge issue and there is sadly evil amongst the Church within the Priesthood and Upper Levels up to this Current Pope. Dark times indeed.
America First Revolution .What kind of Christian Are you ? Didn’t Christ himself say to Peter:”You are the rock upon which I will build my church?
Говорить тут не о чем. Россия всегда будет православной. Вы католики гворите, что ваша вера истенная, но вся ваша история (инквизиции, крестовые походы и т.д.) свидетельствуют против вас, не говоря уже про современную вашу церковь. Если такая церковь, то каковы их святые? Фатима могла быть искушена бесами, ведь у вас даже нету понятия "прелести" в вашей церковной жизни.
Unfortunately without God's intervention do not see the ROCOR given in to the Pope leading as the total leader? They really feel all bishops were at the head ( or Apostles at first) and Jesus did not take one over another, that all happened later on.
Thank you! You're thinking rationally, after all (thank God).
orthodoxy is Jesus' early (ancient ) church! nothing has been changed, nothing has been added!
10 century church existed without Pope. why bring him later 1000 years later!! way make new calendar in 15th century? ? just to confuse ppl
John Johnson and what about felioque and primacy of the Pope?)
So many triggered Orthodox in the comments. Not a huge fan of how we have to call the schismatics "orthodox" when that's precisely what they aren't
I am Serbian Orthodox. And I will continue to discourage anyone who is not Catholic to avoid Vatican's friendship like a plague. Catholic Clergy in Croatia shows the true face of Pope's authority. 1300 priests personally executed "non-believers" by most cold blooded methods. Vatican had never apologized and as far as I am concerned, they don't need to. "let the wheat grow with the tares together, and angels will sort it out"
+Ayios Georgios "Papism" doesn't exist. Neither does 'Romanism'. They are all derogatory, meaningless straw men.
The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church exists. Wheat and tares. Read Jude.
You think we worship the Pope like Protestants think we worship the Theotokos.
srbine ne seri puno
Linman. Right now the Papists are collaborating with the Western puppet leader of Ukraine to destabilize the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Papist visions of domination have no end.
Serbian Orthodox brother! In my younger days I travelled though your God-loving land and visited the monasteries of Decani, Zica, Manasija (where I left my heart especially), Gornjac, Liubostina, Gracanitsa and many others. The beautiful impression they made on me and my travelling companions is indelible. God save Serbia. Pomogai vam Bog! I still have a chotki that the Gospozha Hegumenissa of Manasija gave me.
just look at the fruits of each church I dont know how u can be an Roman priest and not grieve over the state of the church
"If you accept that one (the primacy of the Pope) than all the others will fall in place". Uh, no. That's just one among many problems the Orthodox have with Catholicism. I could write an essay listing the many things. Sorry to disappoint, but it's not that simple, nor will it ever be. orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=catholic
+roxanneisaac certainly, the papal primacy and filioque are two points.
+roxanneisaac
Actually, yes, because of Papal Authority and Infallibility and the other Ecumenical Councils. Look at the history of Eastern Rite Catholicism and Its return from schism.
Why speak only about the "Russian" Orthodox ? The Holy Catholic Apostolic ORTHODOX Church is world wide and is THE Catholic Church , THE Body.
Well seeing as Moscow and Constantinople is in Schism, seems appropriate to talk about them separately
Orthodoxy has remained true to Tradition. Roman Catholicism has gotten off the path
imedia7 so true
Should've stayed Stalinist.
God bless you priest, but you have no idea. orthodoxy is the truth
Why should it be you with us or against. Why should we convert? We do not ask you to convert but you want it from us. That I call hostility. That is what we see in you thru history. Conquest and proceqution.
The Orthodox Church will never be " commanded" by the Pope of Rome. This is one of the central issues. There are other theological problems as well, but the aforementioned issue leads to most of the others. What he is saying... will not happen. Glory to Jesus Christ. Long live His Orthodox Catholic Church
Did jesus apoint anyone as leaders of church? No
Mr Krki
Church doesn't have the need of any human "infallible" leader, as it has the Holy Spirit Who guides it into all truth. [John 16:13]
Orthoglobus
Exactly what I am trying to say.
The most conspicuous difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (history lasts for a long time and I don't want to give any one epoque undue emphasis) is that Orthodoxy is growing by leaps and bounds at the moment while Catholicism is emptying out like a sinking ship. Why is that I wonder? Under Bergolio et al. having a pope does appear to be an unmixed blessing by any means. The pope, however, is not the successor of St Peter because St Peter was the bishop of Antioch, not Rome, which is now recognized, and I don't think this is controversial, by the majority of theologians on both sides. The Orthodox have never subscribed to the Immaculate Conception theory and in fact they can't because they do not formulate their theology of original sin in a way that makes the theory possible, meaningful or necessary. Peter Moghila included it in his catechism but his catechism is an anomaly, long discarded and never authoritative. Don't draw unwarranted conclusions from it. I think I can assure everybody that Russians will not even notice if the Catholic Church consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart. They would consider that an internal matter for the Catholic Church to determine and one that doesn't have any relevance to them, so why not go ahead and do it and stop arguing about it? If it's as good as it's supposed to be nobody will object and if it isn't no big loss.
The Fatima Center does not seem to understand the following facts:
1.. Saint Andrew The Apostle & First Called Disciple of Christ himself personally consecrated The Kyivan Rus and her Churches to Christ in the fist century AD... The Churches which arose from this consecration through Apostolic Succession are The Ukrainian Orthodox & Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches; The Russian Orthodox and Ruthenian Catholic Churches.
2. The Uniate Churches (Eastern Catholics) separated from their Orthodox bretheren on the basis of politics and not theology - which for the most part they maintain in common with the Orthodox Churches with whom they share common origins.
3. The first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the unified Church were held free of the imposition of unilateral Papal Infallibility on theological questions - a right 'adopted' or 'usurped' from the collegiate Bishops by the bishop of Rome much, much later - and never accepted by the four other founding Bishoprics of the Church (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem).
4. The theoology of the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not approve the dogmas and doctrines later imposed upon the western Church - which included the Filioque; Purgatory; Immaculate Conception; Celibacy of Priests (not monastics); The Eucharist etc... These were later innovations which did not form part of the Theology of at least the 1000 years of Christianity. The Orthodox still maintain those earliest teachings, amongst others. Orthodox Theology of today was once Catholic Theology.
The 'Conversion' of Russia, as it is spoken of by those Catholics who adhere to the truth of the 'messages' of the Fatima apparitions took place in 988 AD in Kyiv by Prince Volodymyr The Great... well before the Great Schism of 1054.
So this begs the question... to what exactly do Fatima Catholics want Russia to convert to??? Anathemas and excommunications have long been removed and canonical status/ apostolic succession mutually recognised. This is why the Orthodoxy has never appointed a Patriarch of Rome, or recognised traditionalist catholics as "Western Orthodox" uniates. Sadly, Catholics have taken such steps in the east.
To most Orthodox and Eastern Catholics - the very suggestion that Saint Andrew's consecration, and Prince Volodymyrs' conversion activities were somehow insufficient and must be repeated by a Roman Bishop at the behest of a Potuguese apparition is theologically wrong, and very offensive...
Your last paragraph makes a fantastic point SuperFree. Thanks for sharing.
SuperFree06 I am a traditional catholic, meaning pre vat2 catholic. The remnant of us that are traditional is maybe 5%, the rest belong to the new church, cult of man, conciliar church, church of the new advent, which the popes have called the fake catholic church since v 2. The traditionalists belief, in which Fr Gruner has spent his life working on is the apparitions of Our Lady in 1917. Like he said in this video, we dont know if catholics will become orthodox or vice versa, it doesnt matter, we will be one church again, either way. But the main purposed of Jesus, through Our Lady, wants Russia to be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, is first thing, do give her the respect that she deserves, and then that Russia is the vehicle chosen by God in which to convert the world back to Him. So i look at it as an honor that God has chosen Russia to lead the rest of us back to God. Part of the messages was to do it quickly to stop Russia from being inundated by the communists, which were zionists in disguise, and caused so much genocide in the country, and then when they were finished with Russia, the moved on to other countries to destroy them, including the US, which is where i live. The communist/zionists want to rule the world under their one world government, and are trying to destroy all of the countries and their religions to make a one world religion, which is happening before our eyes right now in Rome. They successfully infiltrated the vatican, changed the rules on the sly, a lot of people left the church, the ones who stayed are brainwashed into thinking that their lack of doctrine is normal now. Please, dont any orthodox out there believe that this is a punishment to Russia or to the orthodox, Russia is meant to be a vehicle to the world to bring all christians together, but that cant happen until Russia is properly consecrated to Mary's Immaculate Heart. And seeing as none of the popes have seen fit to do it in the past 70 years or more, and jorge bergolio who is a freemason/zionist, he will never do it, God is going to punish us with WW3 and the 3 days of darkness which will kill 3/4 of the people in the world. After that Russia will be consecrated to Mary, and will help usher in the age of peace and help bring all christians into one fold again. God bless.
Nancy Gardner
That was beautiful written Nancy. Is it okay i use it when i write with the orthodox?
What would it MEAN for Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
Tankcolo, thank you for your compliment, i am very humbled by your kind words, and yes of course you can use what i wrote, thank you again and God bless.
ROCOR has and does pray for Russia and unity, and in 2007 it happened. I just have to say my husband found it wrong and many did and we just do not know what on earth to think? Do not care where US and Russia are headed right now.
Twaddle.
It has been decades since the consecration of Russia. And lo, Russia is still not Catholic.
+MontChevalier
On the contrary, there has never been a consecration of Russia according to Our Lady of Fatima's request. It is no surprise therefore that we have not seen the effects which She promised would follow that consecration.
***** Well then the Catholic Church lied when they promised to consecrate Russia. Whoever had the idea to consecrate the world should be murdered.
+MontChevalier
Agreed, to the sentiments of your conclusion, but we would choose a different wording. There is within the Catholic Church at present a deceitful movement propagating a claim that the Consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima has been accomplished. At the highest levels from which this claim emanates, we fear that various churchmen are indeed knowingly lying to the world. At lower levels among those who blindly follow and repeat the "official" line, we suppose there to be less culpability, though still a grave negligence. In both cases, yes, absolutely, a crime against humanity, which has already cost BILLIONS of innocent lives through abortion alone, in addition to the countless lives lost through the wars and persecutions of the past 87 years (the bloodiest in all of history) since the time when the formal request for the Consecration of Russia was given -- all of which Our Lady would have prevented according to Her promise. Even now, each passing day brings us closer to the sudden destruction of billions more lives in the prophesied annihilation of nations if we do not break through the silence and deceptions surrounding the Fatima Message in time. About this situation, Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote: "Knowing that the world can be utterly destroyed by the terrible weapons of mass destruction today and knowing too that this can be averted by prayer and penance as the Most Holy Virgin reminded us at Fatima, it is my sacred obligation to utilize these twin means of salvation, prayer and penance. Neglecting them I incur guilt in the destruction of the peoples. The omission of prayer and penance -- I say this in all seriousness -- is a crime against humanity."
***** If the consecration hasn't happened, then we can't expect anything from Traitor Francis. He's not going to do it. He's too busy defending muslims invading Europe. In 1950s Austria, Czech, Bavaria and various other countries had 90% Catholicism. Now they're under 50%. And the Catholic Church's response is: bring in the migrants. As if they've pretty much given up the fight.
A stance like this will only serve to make people less Catholic. And the situation of Catholicism in the Americas is not growing, but decreasing. People are unhappy being Catholic in the Americas. And since the Church only cares about its paycheck, the list of parishioners goes from old people to dead and empty in just another 10 to 20 years. If the Church wants to put old people ahead of the young, then it can die with the old.
Can the so called roman ''catholics'' tell us what happened at 48 AC in Jerusalem?
Vasileios - ca. AD 48: Council of Jerusalem or First Apostolic Council: ‘Alexandrian’ (Greek Orthodox) vs ‘Occidental’(Roman Catholic) texts as in Acts,15. The Alexandrian text is the authentic one.
So silly, Orthodox never believed in the immaculate conception of Mary, and the Orthodox would have never given up a teaching if it was the truth even if Rome shared the same belief. Case in point, all the teachings that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism today share between one another. Also, Russia convert from what to exactly what? You do realize that Russia is by and large a Christian country, and they do venerate the Theotokos regularly. So conversion from what again to what exactly? Such silly comments in this video, smh😒
It is true that the Eastern Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception, but their belief in Our Lady's immunity from sin in Her conception is manifest from many examples:
Origen calls Her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (Hom. i in diversa);
Theodotus of Ancyra writes that She was “a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God” (Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.);
St. Sabae affirms Mary to have been pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon);
St. Proclus that she was formed without any stain (Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort., I, 3);
Theodorus of Jerusalem that She was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (in Mansi, XII, 1140);
St. Ephraem of Syria writes: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" (Precationes ad Deiparam in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
In another place he calls Her as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (Carmina Nisibena).
Regarding the conversion of Russia prophesied by Our Lady of Fatima, if any clarification is needed, She speaks of the nation’s conversion to the Catholic Faith. As Pope Pius IX warned in his encyclical Singulari Quidem, “There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord..., and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.”
orthodox is the truly one religion
Funny, considering the fact that you guys excommunicate each other for like..... annually.
We human beings have to make things so complex don't we? We are each claiming to have the one whole truth delivered by the creator of the universe. And yet most just believe what they are programed in early childhood. Commune with God in your daily prayers and meditations, that is truly the only way you will find what you seek, you will not know the creator by endless discussion. Close your eyes and go within, and ask that the one who is the source of who you are to guide you to truth.
Our Lord established His Church in this world, giving it authority to teach in His Name. Such a divinely authorized teaching organ is necessary to the act of faith (without which it is impossible for us to be pleasing to God -- Heb. 11:6). As the First Vatican Council explains, "Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself Who reveals them."
Sounds like you're a devout Church of Nice member. Wouldn't work for me.
I hear that all the time and it's just not true.
Hmm.....
Ask the source within who you are and go within? What if the sinful part of me shows up?
The pope HAD primacy. They lost that when they fell into heresy. They left the Seven Ecumenical Councils and added all kinds of strange doctrines. They have to renounce all heresies if there is any hope for union. There are many theological issues and it appears Rome only falls further away over time.
One day, Schismatic "Orthodox" "CHRISTIANS" will find the truth thru Our Lady of Fatima.
Primacy of honor without primacy of authority is ridiculous. There is no reason for honor without the corresponding authority. So the fact that Orthodox recognize the primacy of honor of the Chair of Peter means they are hypocritically denying the obvious primacy of authority that corresponds to that primacy of honor.
Orthodox is the true faith...
Poor Fr needs to read Acts again. “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” It wasn't Peter speaking judgment but the Bishop of Jerusalem.
Previously to that in Acts, Peter had already decided that the Savior came for everyone through that dream that God gave him. That which you quote is a minor decision about gentiles having to follow the old hebrew customs or not.
He thinks people in the orthodox will forget the roman catholic crusades on them??? and say ohh yeah we are now catholic... -.-
+Srbskiiinat
One Venetian Crusade that deviated from its intended course against the will of the Papacy... Regrettable, but not the Church's fault.
Michael Rex Naaaah, havent just been that "one" dont try to fool me. the expansionist mind of the roman catholic church has been so evil that following the pope by own free volition without beeing born into it is like shooting oneself in the head.
Srbskiiinat
Examples, please.
Michael Rex Most current was in the balkans in the 90s. if you're looking for a read here you go: www.reformation.org/vatican-against-orthodox-church.html
Srbskiiinat
Thank you.
The Orthodox Church is wrong, it has always been a caesaropapist state church where the Roman Emperor was the head. That is why there were many heretical schisms like Arianism and Iconoclasm, both enforced on the church by heretical emperors. Ironically is was the "Catholic" west that resisted iconoclasm and fought to have the icons restored.
Secondly it fragmented into many Autocephalous state churches, started by people like the Bulgarians who opportunistically wanted to free themselves from the byzantine greek hegemony. There is no longer any real unity and the state churchs can and do ignore Constantinople.
Lastly the Muslims overran and destroyed the byzantine empire. Why did god not save them? , like he saved the catholic west at lepanto in 1571? Constantine won fighting under the sign of Christ and yet Byzantium was destroyed by Islam. A true christian knows war is punishment for sin, it is clear god abandoned the greek "orthodox" to their fate. Punishment for their schism.
You also forget that the last two emperors reunited with Rome at the council of florence in 1444 and after the Muslims took constantinople they appointed a fanatically anti catholic, anti western monk as patriarch, and Turkish Muslims have therefore enforced the schism. Most catholics are rightfully skeptical about a church whoose head bishop was appointed by a MUSLIM sultan. You say orthodoxy is right and yet the hagia sofia is a mosque, im sorry but your wrong.
"War is punishment for a sin". Then the catholics have many sins.
The Hagia Sofia is a museum not a mosque.
Hospitalier Knight Youre right that during the iconoclasm heresy the "Orthodox" west defended the use of icons and were crucial in ending iconoclasm, though the Popes did not remain Orthodox in the following centuries. Also Prior to the Great Schism the Church ( east and west) was a collection of local churches headed by the ancient patriarchates with the Bishop of Rome as the "first among equals" meaning the Pope of Rome was given highest honor based on the historical importance of Rome and Church doctrine was formulated by all bishops acting together in Council. The Orthodox Church was never headed by the Emperor. and the Popes never spoke with unilateral authority on doctrine or controlled what was done or taught in the other Patriarchates ( all of the Patriarchates had Apostolic Authority) thanks.
Sarban
mosque worse
museum bad. there is no Antioch or Constantinople today because they rebelled against peter. Alexandria is Muslim. Jerusalem is Jewish. Only Rome prevails over the gates of hell just like Christ said
Hospitaller Knight
The Eastern half of the empire was preserved and remained Orthodox from the time of the Apostles, unlike the west which was invaded by the Franks. It was Charlemagne, the Frankish ego maniac that established modern day Roman Catholicism. Soon after Charlemagne, you had the inquisitions, the 1st Reich, the crusades, unification of church and state, heresies like the filioque, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and papal worship, indulgences used to build the Vatican, forced conversions, persecutions of all other sects, and many other ungodly acts which defined Roman Catholicism. Thankfully, the Eastern half of the empire remained free from the Frankish influence. Charlemagne attempted to build the "holy Roman empire". There was nothing holy about it, and it wasn't even Roman. The Eastern half of the empire has been battered and bruised like Christ was battered and bruised. The Eastern half of the empire faced persecutions and martyrdoms from the Frankish papists (Roman Catholics), from Muslims, and from Communists. We in the East understand what it means to "take up thy cross and follow me". The western Frankish papists on the other hand expected people to bow down and worship the pope. This was the ungodly church that Charlemagne founded. The Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ Himself, the true Orthodox Church, unchanged from the time of the Apostles. Ironically, it was on Christmas Day in the year 800 AD that the ego manic Charlemagne became emperor and pope of his Frankish empire. It wasn't so much a Christmas present, but a curse from which Roman Catholicism has never recovered from. It was the Frankish Roman Catholic Papists that tried to destroy Constantinople on the way to the Crusades. You Papists should change the name of your "church" to the Church of Charlemagne. He created a carnally minded church that interfered in the secular world, and even today the pope still interferes in political matters, which makes a mockery of the verse: "my kingdom is not of this world". Christ's kingdom was meant to be a spiritual kingdom, not a carnally minded kingdom where the church and state were unified. Too bad you had Charlemagne destroy Christianity in the west. It's time for you Papists to look to the East for the true Orthodox Church founded by Christ.
All others are watered down Christianity from orthodoxy
Period end of discussion
Peter was also reprimanded by Paul for playing a "political game" rather than behaving as our Lord Jesus Christ called us to do. Is it a possibility the Church of Rome followed suit in playing "political games" as well?
Sorry, but till 1054 where the so called schisma (whivh it was not) occurred the bishop of rome had never a supremacy over the whole church only over his patriachate! So the orthodox churches did not change and going before 1054 would mean to abandon the supremacy of the pope!
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS EXERCISED UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN THE CHURCH, BEGINNING FROM THE TIME OF ST. PETER:
1. Admitted by Eastern Sources (cited in “Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy,” by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess, Queenship Publishing Co., 1997):
Emperor Valentinian III (AD 445):
"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler."
Emperor Justinian I (AD 520-533):
"Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy Priests of God.... "
"For we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all holy churches."
St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople (AD 650):
"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High."
"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world."
St. Theodore of Studios to the Emperor Michael and Constantinople (c. AD 800):
"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by the tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the chair...."
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (AD 758-828):
"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Roman Pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."
Catholic propaganda.
God bless Orthodoxy !
What a load of old waffle!
7 ecumenical councils, not 8. Big differences in theology too. Orthodox honor Gregory Palamas bishop of Thessalonica as a saint, Papal church counts him a heretic due to polar opposite beliefs regarding the uncreated light of the Transfiguration. A note on the hard feelings in the East towards Rome: it stems from the history of Orthodox villages/churches being forced into accepting the Pope. These are called Uniates and have the outward appearance of Orthodox but theology is Roman. Thats just for starters. If it was difficult in 1400's to form a union how much more difficult now, after so much water has gone under the bridge (e.g. the Stasi)? The current heads of both Rome and Constantinople are watered down versions of what they should be, for sure. But I still don't think it will ever happen. The Orthodox monadtics and laity will never have it.
It is Rome that must repent and return to Orthodoxy, not the other way around.
The Orthodox have the most beautiful religion
R.orthodox is kgb long time now.wake up!
With all respect, that is a ridiculous statement. If The Russian Orthodox Church, which is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church ( same as Romanian, Greek, American, etc) is KGB, then the Roman Catholics must be Mafia.
I suggest you read up on the history of the Church in Russia, from its baptism a thousand years ago, through its suffering under communism, to its current state in which more than a thousand Churches are being built each year. Millions of Orthodox Christians died for their faith.
Russia is not becoming papist
Orthodox Catholic Church will never become Roman Catholic. Thanks for trying to convince
Russia was consecrated when it was founded in Kiev in 988 AD. There is no need of Latin meddling in the affairs of the Local Church - over which Rome has no prerogative of jurisdiction. Roman claims of universal authority are innovative and against the Tradition of the Church ( pre-schism).
A Latin Pope has no mission in Russia because the Patriarch of Moscow is the county’s sovereign primate.
Latins need to learn to respect the authority of Local Churches, not only in Russia but in all Orthodox lands.
The Council of Florence was a false union firmly rejected by the Orthodox laity and never resuscitated. Good riddance!
Wretched! Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem both indefensible from a scriptural and historical viewpoint. Pray for the poor people trapped in these cults!
Ayios Georgios
It's the CONCEPT that's important here. And I'm not pious at all, I'm a rotten sinner, and always will be. How good I have Christ to make me righteous before the Father.