I'm just an outsider here with no dog in this fight. Put Orthodox Christianity looks cool. The churches are beautiful. The icons are beautiful, and the priests have the coolest looking robes and not to mention the holy singing. Wow. I love it.
the stupid thing is all in the comments “ancientpathstv” replies to all the Orthodox comments like “i addressed that in the video”… but it amounts to basically the same protestant nonsense that first millenium church is somehow completely worthless as early as immediately after the death of the Apostles
I just don't appreciate his smugness in the comments. Especially when you realize that "Reformed Presbyterian" is just code for a Calvinist with a different branding.
Jason doesn’t realise he is cutting the branch he is sitting on. A point others have made is that Scripture must come from a reliable source; and to say that the Church became corrupt early on calls into question the reliability of the Scriptures themselves. A question I’ve asked myself, as a Protestant, is, if I believe the church was lead by the Holy Spirit to produce the ecumenical creeds, why don’t I also affirm the canons that were produced at the same councils? It just seems inconsistent to affirm the creeds but also reject the councils that produced them. Protestants like Jason (usually Reformed) are causing me to seek Orthodoxy. If all these Reformed people can do is slander the saints, then I’m out.
That’s one of the contributing questions that led me to become an Orthodox Catechumen. These other groups even say they hold to the historic creeds, but redefine key points of what they mean (4th paragraph of the Nicene for example) and wink at unauthorized additions like the filioque. If I was to be honest and consistent I needed to accept the creeds as understood by the ones who wrote them (and in scripture’s case, canonized and perserved) and not as reformers entirely divorced from the historical context reinterpret them.
@@contrasedevacantism6811 The Pope had no authority to change the creed outside the bounds of an ecumenical council. This was one of, if not the main reason for the great schism.
I only saw the first half or so of the original video. As an Orthodox person I found it greatly amusing that in at least the portions I saw they regularly used condemned heretics like Origen and Tertulian to further their points.
It is often forgotten that, in the early Church, there was a very clear distinction between the Catechumens - those preparing for baptism who were receive introduction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith- and the baptised Faithful who were admitted to the fullness of the sacramental Mysteries and the deeper understanding of the teaching of the Faith. The books that later became the accepted Canon of the New Testament were used for the instruction of Catechumens - hence why the reading of the Epistles and Gospels continues to form the heart of the Liturgy of the Catechumens to this day. The teachings and tradition of the Church are informed by both scripture and the lived experience of the Elders and Father of the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament is not, and was never intended as, the sole or exhaustive guide to Christian teaching and practise; The Holy Apostle John the Theologian explicitly states in his Gospel that there would not be enough books in the world to contain a record of all the things that Jesus did. It is foolish to think that many of these were not passed on from the Apostles to their successors, adding to the growing concensus of belief and practices. In addition, such references that we do have to pre-Constantinian church practise show a well developed liturgical pattern; with prayers at regular hours of the day and night - the root of what would become the daily office - and weekly celebration of the Holy Mysteries. There is even a surviving house-church from the first half of the 3rd century, which shows a structure and iconography which would be familiar to Christians today; including what may be the earliest known Icon of Christ. Many, though not all, of the 16th Century reformers and their successors seemed to take a 'baby and bathwater' approach; assuming that because some Roman Catholic practises had become distorted, that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were so utterly corrupt that anything which couldn't be explicitly mandated in Scripture had to be rejected; leading to the splintering of the reform movement, as every man claimed that his own interpretation was the true and faithful one.
@nicholashext474 Thank you so much for the clarity in of history in your response. I am desiring to know more about Orthodoxy - God has been putting this in my heart and mind and something I need to investigate more. Do you suggest any books/Church Fathers I could read that will help me to understand the Truth more fully? Thank you again for this thoughtful comment ❤
@@ms.rainh20teachesart I would recommend two books by Bishop Kallistos Ware; 'The Orthodox Church' and 'The Orthodox Way'. The first deals with the history of the Church from its origins to the mid 20th Century, while the second covers the belief, worship and life of the Church in a way that is both in-depth and very accessible. These are probably the best general introductions to the church in English. If there is an Orthodox church near you, I would strongly suggest speaking with the priest, most parishes are very welcoming to enquirers, and he will be able to answer any questions you may have. I wish you all the best in your journey. God bless.
@@nicholashext474 thank you so much!! I will be looking into purchasing these books today. There is only a Russian Orthodox Church near us, I heard that since the 1960s the ROC has been infiltrated by the KGB. I'm concerned about that, have you heard anything about that? I found the Orthodox Way by Kalistos Ware and The Orthodox Church by Thomas Ware. Are those the two?
@@ms.rainh20teachesart Yes, those are the books I was talking about. To be fair, all of the churches in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc were subject to varying degrees of state infiltration from the 1950s & 60s onwards - whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant; just as every secular institution was. It was an unfortunate fact of life and a situation that believers learned to deal with, just as Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire learned to live under less than ideal circumstances. Yes, there were almost certainly bishops and priests who were 'wolves in sheeps' clothing', but there were also those who were men of great piety and devotion and, ultimately, only God knows the truth of the matter. It is important to remember, however, that throughout this period the Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian Churches remained a part of the greater Orthodox community, in full communion with the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, and their teachings and sacraments remained fully Orthodox.
@@nicholashext474 okay that's great to hear - not about the Communist infiltration, but the fact that those other churches never fell out of communion with the originals. There are also some Greek Orthodox churches that are about an hour from our house - we don't mind the drive. Would you suggest we start at the Russian one or the Greek one first? Could you tell me what happened to the bishop's of those 4 churches mentioned after the Muslims conquered them? Did that pollute or destroy the Apostolic succession?
I actually had a face to face sit down with the guy who made the “Failure of Orthodoxy” video. He kept saying Orthodoxy is the same as Mormonism. Which is odd because Protestants use Orthodox books (the Bible) but they don’t use Mormon books.
@@supermanandbatmanishere yes it was at a chili’s restaurant. I have no reason to lie. He is close with the Protestant Reformed baptist church I used to go to.
Fantastic as always Jonah. May I ask, what do the 39 articles do from an anglo-catholic perspective? For example, do they protect and therefore separate us from papal authority OR do they place us in ecumenical council with Calvinists? As someone growing increasingly resentful of the term Protestant, I'm not sure I want to necessarily be in "council" with them!
I would argue that the Articles are important, but less so as a definitive confession of Catholic doctrine and more as a definitive mark of exactly why we separated from Rome. Submission to the Articles means submission to their historical context and meaning. I would argue that if one cannot agree to the Articles (as they were historically situated), it would make their claim to be distinctively Anglican a bit questionable. EDIT: But I'm of the opinion that it puts us more in line with separating us from Rome than making us Calvinists.
Where did you get the definition for what makes a true council? (1. consistency with scripture, 2. claim to speak for the whole church, & 3. acceptance by all churches specifically the patriarchates.)
4. Consistency with previous councils. That's why Hyria isn't Ecumenical because it goes against the 6th Ecumenical Council which spoke extensively on Iconography and their use in Worship.
Very well done. Not sure I can add anything but let me try. You can’t cherry pick quotes from the Church Fathers just like you can’t cherry pick verses from the Bible and proclaim this truth or that truth. The Church Fathers writings didn’t always agree with themselves let alone each other. St. John Chrysostom’s views on marriage vs. asceticism evolved 180 degrees over his ministry for instance. Truth is found in the resounding and enduring voices of the many all proclaiming the same consistent shared beliefs. This is the singular most critical foundational principle of Church organization established in first century Jerusalem when James and the Apostolic confronted the teaching that you had to become Jewish before you could become Christian and it’s the abandonment of that principle first by Pope Leo IX that laid the path for Luther and Calvin to proclaim their truth so that now anyone with a Bible and an opinion who lacks the fear to use them can proclaim truth. Protestantism didn’t eliminate Papal authority it transferred it first to themselves and now through evangelicalism to millions of would be Popes claiming jurisdiction over the truth at churches, Bible studies and kitchen tables everywhere. The 7 ecumenical councils didn’t create theology. Each one defended the faith from novel heresy using the example established by James and the Apostles. Orthodox Canon have exceedingly more statements about what not to believe than what to believe because the affirmative belief system established by the authority of the Apostles is sufficient and human intellectual, scholastic and legalistic rationalizations attempting to define things that could never be defined in the confines of the human mind and fallen state will only lead to apostasy and heresy.
Er, well, this video is a production of the “Orthodox Presbyterian Church” which simply doesn’t exist in the country whose language it is using. It is a flavour of Presbyterianism, not a flavour of Orthodoxy, and I am not sure what the ancient paths are supposed to be. Quite misleading.
The "orthodox" in Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy. It has to do with what is orthodox Presbyterian belief. The OPC split off from the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA) in the 1930s because they felt that the PCUSA was abandoning the core creeds and confessions of Presbyterianism. "Ancient Paths" refers to the semi-reconstructionist bent of the channel that the ancient path laid out by the apostles was corrupted and that good and faithful Presbyterians are trying to recover that. TL;DR, I'm trying to be charitable here and imagine that the channel isn't TRYING to be misleading, the doctrines and definitions of what is "ancient" or "orthodox" are just different.
You have The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant. You should make sure you have "The Age of Napoleon" as well. They got it in before they died.
The problem of saying "Let see if it stand the test of time" is that Rome can say the same thing. The papist church is still there, it has definitely stand the test of time. And yet orthodox, despise that, say that they are wrong, but invoke the same logic to say Nicea II was right. Here again we have a double standard.
Rome does keep dialing back her claims though, as with Vatican II and the recent "Bishop of Rome" document. So it seems like the magisterial infallible idea of the pope is not in fact standing the test of time. Constantinople has also dialed back some of her vehemence toward the West.
But is not the fact that some 30% of Christians today reject the 7th council a sign that, perhaps, it is not as enduring as you claim. I mean the verse you use is the very counterargument to your claim.
St. Luke wrote the first icon. The invisibile God became visible. He can be dipicted in Iconography. Iconoclasm, just like monophystism or any other heresy, is wrong.
If there are attempts to overturn Nicea II, how do we know those are not from the Lord versus the Lord protecting what is in Nicea II? Seems like a chicken and an egg thing to me no? Also, the oriental orthodox, since they departed in the early centuries, and now as we are finding out through modern communication/translation methods did not in fact disagree and were believing correctly, what does that mean for all the councils considered ecumenical which came after?
"now as we are finding out through modern communication/translation methods did not in fact disagree and were believing correctly" Imo this affirms the creeds even more. Especially given that the Oriental church wasn't at Nicea II and still has the same basic framework of theology regarding icons (how that theology is expanded on or practiced varies, as we see in RCC vs EO). That gives credence to the idea that the councils aren't inventing new interpretations of scripture, but just identifying which ones are most ancient and true. The glib answer is something like "we'll know in a thousand years when we can look back and see how it all shook out." I think that's why Anglicans are so reluctant to be forceful about anything that they feel isn't super fundamental to the Faith.
Interesting- so why are Christians so argumentative? This seems to be the case throughout Church history. One of the arguments that Celsus made against Christianity was the internal arguments within the Church.
Yeah, and a postmodern argument is that everyone has their opinion on truth, so if we all disagree on truth it probably does not exist. And we are about to go to a 3rd world war.
Well, I don't think he is a good source because he probably counted all kinds of heretical groups as Christian such as Arian and Gnostics. That's like asking a modern Christian today why there is so much dispute between him and his Mormon neighbor if they are both Christians. From the perspective of traditional Christianity, Mormonism is basically a different religion.
The best way I can describe it is doing math homework and your friend tells you to use a different formula that is not right and they are claiming that they are still getting the right answer, you have to correct them and show them their error
@@H2ORaccoon Precisely. We can see what constitutes Christianity in its purest forms first by looking at the New Testament itself, and second by looking at the oldest Christian writings outside of the New Testament. These oldest writings outside of the New Testament would be the works of the apostolic fathers as well as works like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermus, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Odes of Solomon. It also helps to have a healthy knowledge of second Temple Judaism and the ancient Middle Eastern context of the Bible as a whole.
Ancientpath makes arguments based on false premises and cherry-picked quotes from Augustine (who would agree with him on very little). I will say he is, or has, a good voice actor.
St. Optatus of Milevis (Numidia) Against the Donatists Book 2 Ch. 2-3 (366-70 A.D.) Chapter 2 He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists. “So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world. We must now mention its Adornments, and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six) amongst which the CATHEDRA is the first; and, since the second Endowment, which is the 'Angelus,' cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on the Cathedra, we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you----it follows that you know. For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned. You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit. III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome. To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, who to-day is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves. “ 6th Ecumenical Council Constantinople III Letter from Pope Agatho, to the Emperor, read openly, out loud at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) and all the Council fathers (125 Bishops) accepted this letter while also explicitly responding to this letter, confirming its acceptance of the whole letter among the Collective Body, and this is what it states: “For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, HAS NEVER ERRED FROM THE PATH OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION, NOR has she been depraved by YIELDING TO HERETICAL INNOVATIONS, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you return, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.”
Great job of straw-manning. The video points out that Calvin quoted the church fathers over 800 times in his final edition of the Institutes and quotes his French Confession as saying, "". . . we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril." Instead of dealing with what we actually say, you pretend that we throw out all tradition. In terms of Second Nicaea, it not only overturned Hieria, but was rejected by the Councils of Constantinople, Frankfurt and Paris. Hieria appealed to Scripture, while Second Nicaea relied on John of Damascus' arguments that we refuted in the video. Even Fr. Richard Price has said John was seeing what he wanted in the history of the church. You assert a "consciousness of the church," while ignoring that, as demonstrated in the video, the emperors determined which councils were accepted and rejected. You seem to assert that once a council has stood for a certain period of time, it becomes inviolate, but the Pharisees' fake traditions were very old, and Jesus refuted them with the Word of God. No Reformed person is questioning the first councils. They were biblical and consistent with the testimony of the earliest fathers. We do reject Second Nicaea. It is unbiblical and contrary to the historic faith of Christ's church.
I'll be releasing a video soon that addresses all of your arguments. So much misinformation, error, and half truths. I'll only pray you are sincere in your error and not intellectually dishonest.
@@CosmicMystery7 So far, I've heard a lot of bluster, but no real rebuttal. If you want to please the zealous, be sure to use the accusation of "quote-mining" and "cherry-picking" a lot. Set up a straw-man, such as claiming we reject all tradition, then give a quote from Irenaeus talking about tradition, as if if this "destroys" what we quoted him as saying on Scripture. Ignore all the information we gave on Calvin and the Fathers. Be sure to throw in a lot of righteous indignation and mockery. Be sure to portray me as a "hyper-rationalist," who would have to reject all the Bible, if I were consistent. Major on the minors and minor on the majors. Try to blur the lines between Protestants who believe the Bible and those who don't. When we separate over heresy, call it schism. Ignore what I said about fasting being part of the Christian life, and caricature me as a glutton and a drunk. Those who like to believe lies, will love it. If you want to be honest, how about actually engaging what we say in context?
What a poor assessment of my video. Like many in the "Reformed" camp, you seem prone only to defense, without truly hearing constructive criticism and refutation of some of the erroneous things in the documentary.
@@merecatholicity What a poor response to my comment. Like many in the "Anglo-catholic" camp, you seem to confuse sneering with constructive criticism and refutation.
The idolatry of icons and statues,prayers to saints and relics were abolished by the Protestant Reformation and Constantinople was taken by the Turks and that too like Gamaliel said shows that it was of man. My words shall not pass away...thy word is truth...the scriptures cannot be broken. There is the authority and the only thing that can be said to be God breathed. I was a reader in the Orthodox church and thank God He showed me the error of my ways. May He do the same for you! Love in the name of Jesus!
What does the fall of Constantinople have to do with anything? Even when Israel and Judah fell, there were always those who kept the faith. Orthodoxy simply moved to Russia as it's Holy capital. Constantinople was just an earthly city. As far as icons and the intercession of the Saints, I can argue in favor of them from scripture and historical context without appealing to a single church father.
The Orthodox don't pray to saints? Asking for a saint to pray on your behalf is not "praying to a saint." The reason saints have value is because they are our foremothers and forefathers, and they should be examples of what our faith vindicates us to do. When Protestants talk about their pastors who were famous (the Billy Grahams, the Charles Swindolls, etc.), they might as well hold those people in the same way the Orthodox and Catholics hold their saints.
@@sakogekchyan7366 Ahh yes, that shining beacon of Christianity, the hope and help of the whole world. Christians around the world know her, for she is full of love for one another, full of love for God above, and full of love for their neighbors...Russia. right.
@@davidpo5517 Yeah modern day Russia and the Russian orthodox church are fascist, but the Russian orthodox church wasn't always the way it is today. And as I said, Constantinople was an earthly city. The fall of that city does not negate the faith. That is a question of theology.
The Israelites saw no image of God at Sinai. When you ascend the mountain on the Lord’s Day (as that’s what Sunday morning worship is- ascending the mountain/entering the Holy Place), does God appear in physical form before your eyes? No. Therefore make no image of Him, or you’re a spiritual whore.
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Colossians 3:5 Have you ever coveted?
Orthodoxy cannot be apostolic church. It lacks the holy spirit. Where are the spiritual gifts and their practise as it is apostle paul descriped in the letter to corintians? Orthodox liturgy does not have amy space to spiritual gift nor power of God. It has only same written prayers. Only rational man made religion that lacks the spirit of God. Only intellectual and academic people converts to orthodoxy becouse they like the rationalism and scares doing evangelism. If yoi are orthodox you dont need to do evangelism or amy work of God. Just go liturgies once in awhile. Is that the apostoloc church?
there are many orthodox saints who constantly perform miracles and have spiritual gifts. St Paisios spoke in tongues and St John Maximovitch's body didn't decay
@@diansc7322 yes that is true. I highly respect those saints. But normal orthodox people are honestly just like secular people. All europeans including russians are totally secular. Catholics orthodoxs lutherans they are all totally secular
@@diansc7322 also coptic church lot of saints who have done lot of miracles in modern days. And still lot of coptic monks in deserts have spiritual gifts. You never heard about abouna makari ?
I'm just an outsider here with no dog in this fight. Put Orthodox Christianity looks cool. The churches are beautiful. The icons are beautiful, and the priests have the coolest looking robes and not to mention the holy singing. Wow. I love it.
the stupid thing is all in the comments “ancientpathstv” replies to all the Orthodox comments like “i addressed that in the video”… but it amounts to basically the same protestant nonsense that first millenium church is somehow completely worthless as early as immediately after the death of the Apostles
I just don't appreciate his smugness in the comments. Especially when you realize that "Reformed Presbyterian" is just code for a Calvinist with a different branding.
Jason doesn’t realise he is cutting the branch he is sitting on. A point others have made is that Scripture must come from a reliable source; and to say that the Church became corrupt early on calls into question the reliability of the Scriptures themselves.
A question I’ve asked myself, as a Protestant, is, if I believe the church was lead by the Holy Spirit to produce the ecumenical creeds, why don’t I also affirm the canons that were produced at the same councils? It just seems inconsistent to affirm the creeds but also reject the councils that produced them.
Protestants like Jason (usually Reformed) are causing me to seek Orthodoxy. If all these Reformed people can do is slander the saints, then I’m out.
That’s one of the contributing questions that led me to become an Orthodox Catechumen.
These other groups even say they hold to the historic creeds, but redefine key points of what they mean (4th paragraph of the Nicene for example) and wink at unauthorized additions like the filioque. If I was to be honest and consistent I needed to accept the creeds as understood by the ones who wrote them (and in scripture’s case, canonized and perserved) and not as reformers entirely divorced from the historical context reinterpret them.
@@easternmcg what makes you say the filioque is unauthorized?
I don't think a corrupt church would necessarily entail the corruption of textual transmission.
@@contrasedevacantism6811 The Pope had no authority to change the creed outside the bounds of an ecumenical council. This was one of, if not the main reason for the great schism.
@@easternmcgwas there anything else that was hard to swallow when going to the orthodox? Images in worship is my biggest hold up.
I only saw the first half or so of the original video. As an Orthodox person I found it greatly amusing that in at least the portions I saw they regularly used condemned heretics like Origen and Tertulian to further their points.
It is often forgotten that, in the early Church, there was a very clear distinction between the Catechumens - those preparing for baptism who were receive introduction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith- and the baptised Faithful who were admitted to the fullness of the sacramental Mysteries and the deeper understanding of the teaching of the Faith. The books that later became the accepted Canon of the New Testament were used for the instruction of Catechumens - hence why the reading of the Epistles and Gospels continues to form the heart of the Liturgy of the Catechumens to this day. The teachings and tradition of the Church are informed by both scripture and the lived experience of the Elders and Father of the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit.
The New Testament is not, and was never intended as, the sole or exhaustive guide to Christian teaching and practise; The Holy Apostle John the Theologian explicitly states in his Gospel that there would not be enough books in the world to contain a record of all the things that Jesus did. It is foolish to think that many of these were not passed on from the Apostles to their successors, adding to the growing concensus of belief and practices.
In addition, such references that we do have to pre-Constantinian church practise show a well developed liturgical pattern; with prayers at regular hours of the day and night - the root of what would become the daily office - and weekly celebration of the Holy Mysteries. There is even a surviving house-church from the first half of the 3rd century, which shows a structure and iconography which would be familiar to Christians today; including what may be the earliest known Icon of Christ.
Many, though not all, of the 16th Century reformers and their successors seemed to take a 'baby and bathwater' approach; assuming that because some Roman Catholic practises had become distorted, that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were so utterly corrupt that anything which couldn't be explicitly mandated in Scripture had to be rejected; leading to the splintering of the reform movement, as every man claimed that his own interpretation was the true and faithful one.
@nicholashext474 Thank you so much for the clarity in of history in your response. I am desiring to know more about Orthodoxy - God has been putting this in my heart and mind and something I need to investigate more. Do you suggest any books/Church Fathers I could read that will help me to understand the Truth more fully? Thank you again for this thoughtful comment ❤
@@ms.rainh20teachesart I would recommend two books by Bishop Kallistos Ware; 'The Orthodox Church' and 'The Orthodox Way'. The first deals with the history of the Church from its origins to the mid 20th Century, while the second covers the belief, worship and life of the Church in a way that is both in-depth and very accessible. These are probably the best general introductions to the church in English.
If there is an Orthodox church near you, I would strongly suggest speaking with the priest, most parishes are very welcoming to enquirers, and he will be able to answer any questions you may have. I wish you all the best in your journey. God bless.
@@nicholashext474 thank you so much!! I will be looking into purchasing these books today. There is only a Russian Orthodox Church near us, I heard that since the 1960s the ROC has been infiltrated by the KGB. I'm concerned about that, have you heard anything about that?
I found the Orthodox Way by Kalistos Ware and The Orthodox Church by Thomas Ware. Are those the two?
@@ms.rainh20teachesart Yes, those are the books I was talking about.
To be fair, all of the churches in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc were subject to varying degrees of state infiltration from the 1950s & 60s onwards - whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant; just as every secular institution was. It was an unfortunate fact of life and a situation that believers learned to deal with, just as Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire learned to live under less than ideal circumstances. Yes, there were almost certainly bishops and priests who were 'wolves in sheeps' clothing', but there were also those who were men of great piety and devotion and, ultimately, only God knows the truth of the matter.
It is important to remember, however, that throughout this period the Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian Churches remained a part of the greater Orthodox community, in full communion with the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, and their teachings and sacraments remained fully Orthodox.
@@nicholashext474 okay that's great to hear - not about the Communist infiltration, but the fact that those other churches never fell out of communion with the originals. There are also some Greek Orthodox churches that are about an hour from our house - we don't mind the drive. Would you suggest we start at the Russian one or the Greek one first?
Could you tell me what happened to the bishop's of those 4 churches mentioned after the Muslims conquered them? Did that pollute or destroy the Apostolic succession?
I actually had a face to face sit down with the guy who made the “Failure of Orthodoxy” video. He kept saying Orthodoxy is the same as Mormonism. Which is odd because Protestants use Orthodox books (the Bible) but they don’t use Mormon books.
Wow. That's absolute nonsense
But what should be expected from Calvinists, they are the most bad willed people out there
bro stop lying
@@supermanandbatmanishere stop lying? Lying about what? His name is Jason Wallace. Ask him yourself.
@@AlexanderTate. so you ironically sat down with him face to face
@@supermanandbatmanishere yes it was at a chili’s restaurant. I have no reason to lie. He is close with the Protestant Reformed baptist church I used to go to.
Overlap is not equality. One church.
Fantastic as always Jonah. May I ask, what do the 39 articles do from an anglo-catholic perspective? For example, do they protect and therefore separate us from papal authority OR do they place us in ecumenical council with Calvinists? As someone growing increasingly resentful of the term Protestant, I'm not sure I want to necessarily be in "council" with them!
I would argue that the Articles are important, but less so as a definitive confession of Catholic doctrine and more as a definitive mark of exactly why we separated from Rome. Submission to the Articles means submission to their historical context and meaning. I would argue that if one cannot agree to the Articles (as they were historically situated), it would make their claim to be distinctively Anglican a bit questionable.
EDIT: But I'm of the opinion that it puts us more in line with separating us from Rome than making us Calvinists.
Article Five is heresy
Where did you get the definition for what makes a true council? (1. consistency with scripture, 2. claim to speak for the whole church, & 3. acceptance by all churches specifically the patriarchates.)
4. Consistency with previous councils.
That's why Hyria isn't Ecumenical because it goes against the 6th Ecumenical Council which spoke extensively on Iconography and their use in Worship.
Very well done. Not sure I can add anything but let me try. You can’t cherry pick quotes from the Church Fathers just like you can’t cherry pick verses from the Bible and proclaim this truth or that truth. The Church Fathers writings didn’t always agree with themselves let alone each other. St. John Chrysostom’s views on marriage vs. asceticism evolved 180 degrees over his ministry for instance. Truth is found in the resounding and enduring voices of the many all proclaiming the same consistent shared beliefs. This is the singular most critical foundational principle of Church organization established in first century Jerusalem when James and the Apostolic confronted the teaching that you had to become Jewish before you could become Christian and it’s the abandonment of that principle first by Pope Leo IX that laid the path for Luther and Calvin to proclaim their truth so that now anyone with a Bible and an opinion who lacks the fear to use them can proclaim truth. Protestantism didn’t eliminate Papal authority it transferred it first to themselves and now through evangelicalism to millions of would be Popes claiming jurisdiction over the truth at churches, Bible studies and kitchen tables everywhere. The 7 ecumenical councils didn’t create theology. Each one defended the faith from novel heresy using the example established by James and the Apostles. Orthodox Canon have exceedingly more statements about what not to believe than what to believe because the affirmative belief system established by the authority of the Apostles is sufficient and human intellectual, scholastic and legalistic rationalizations attempting to define things that could never be defined in the confines of the human mind and fallen state will only lead to apostasy and heresy.
well said.
Er, well, this video is a production of the “Orthodox Presbyterian Church” which simply doesn’t exist in the country whose language it is using. It is a flavour of Presbyterianism, not a flavour of Orthodoxy, and I am not sure what the ancient paths are supposed to be. Quite misleading.
The "orthodox" in Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy. It has to do with what is orthodox Presbyterian belief. The OPC split off from the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA) in the 1930s because they felt that the PCUSA was abandoning the core creeds and confessions of Presbyterianism.
"Ancient Paths" refers to the semi-reconstructionist bent of the channel that the ancient path laid out by the apostles was corrupted and that good and faithful Presbyterians are trying to recover that.
TL;DR, I'm trying to be charitable here and imagine that the channel isn't TRYING to be misleading, the doctrines and definitions of what is "ancient" or "orthodox" are just different.
You have The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant. You should make sure you have "The Age of Napoleon" as well. They got it in before they died.
You rocked this. Thanks brother. Great work.
Thank you.
The problem of saying "Let see if it stand the test of time" is that Rome can say the same thing. The papist church is still there, it has definitely stand the test of time. And yet orthodox, despise that, say that they are wrong, but invoke the same logic to say Nicea II was right. Here again we have a double standard.
Rome does keep dialing back her claims though, as with Vatican II and the recent "Bishop of Rome" document. So it seems like the magisterial infallible idea of the pope is not in fact standing the test of time. Constantinople has also dialed back some of her vehemence toward the West.
But is not the fact that some 30% of Christians today reject the 7th council a sign that, perhaps, it is not as enduring as you claim. I mean the verse you use is the very counterargument to your claim.
Around the same figure is also the amount of “Christians” who reject the trinity. It doesn’t make it false nor does it being majority make it right
St. Luke wrote the first icon. The invisibile God became visible. He can be dipicted in Iconography. Iconoclasm, just like monophystism or any other heresy, is wrong.
“had not left us writings” but they did.
If there are attempts to overturn Nicea II, how do we know those are not from the Lord versus the Lord protecting what is in Nicea II? Seems like a chicken and an egg thing to me no? Also, the oriental orthodox, since they departed in the early centuries, and now as we are finding out through modern communication/translation methods did not in fact disagree and were believing correctly, what does that mean for all the councils considered ecumenical which came after?
They believe in one will which is the problem with we have with them. Miaphyte christology is accepted by orthodoxy.
"now as we are finding out through modern communication/translation methods did not in fact disagree and were believing correctly"
Imo this affirms the creeds even more. Especially given that the Oriental church wasn't at Nicea II and still has the same basic framework of theology regarding icons (how that theology is expanded on or practiced varies, as we see in RCC vs EO). That gives credence to the idea that the councils aren't inventing new interpretations of scripture, but just identifying which ones are most ancient and true.
The glib answer is something like "we'll know in a thousand years when we can look back and see how it all shook out." I think that's why Anglicans are so reluctant to be forceful about anything that they feel isn't super fundamental to the Faith.
Interesting- so why are Christians so argumentative? This seems to be the case throughout Church history. One of the arguments that Celsus made against Christianity was the internal arguments within the Church.
Yeah, and a postmodern argument is that everyone has their opinion on truth, so if we all disagree on truth it probably does not exist.
And we are about to go to a 3rd world war.
Well, I don't think he is a good source because he probably counted all kinds of heretical groups as Christian such as Arian and Gnostics. That's like asking a modern Christian today why there is so much dispute between him and his Mormon neighbor if they are both Christians. From the perspective of traditional Christianity, Mormonism is basically a different religion.
The best way I can describe it is doing math homework and your friend tells you to use a different formula that is not right and they are claiming that they are still getting the right answer, you have to correct them and show them their error
@@H2ORaccoon
Precisely. We can see what constitutes Christianity in its purest forms first by looking at the New Testament itself, and second by looking at the oldest Christian writings outside of the New Testament. These oldest writings outside of the New Testament would be the works of the apostolic fathers as well as works like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermus, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Odes of Solomon.
It also helps to have a healthy knowledge of second Temple Judaism and the ancient Middle Eastern context of the Bible as a whole.
You obviously don't have any strong beliefs about anything
Ancientpath makes arguments based on false premises and cherry-picked quotes from Augustine (who would agree with him on very little).
I will say he is, or has, a good voice actor.
St. Optatus of Milevis (Numidia)
Against the Donatists Book 2 Ch. 2-3 (366-70 A.D.)
Chapter 2
He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists.
“So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world.
We must now mention its Adornments, and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six) amongst which the CATHEDRA is the first; and, since the second Endowment, which is the 'Angelus,' cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on the Cathedra, we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where he sat.
If you do not know this, learn.
If you do know, blush.
Ignorance cannot be attributed to you----it follows that you know.
For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned.
You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.
III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome.
To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, who to-day is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion.
Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves. “
6th Ecumenical Council
Constantinople III
Letter from Pope Agatho, to the Emperor, read openly, out loud at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) and all the Council fathers (125 Bishops) accepted this letter while also explicitly responding to this letter, confirming its acceptance of the whole letter among the Collective Body, and this is what it states:
“For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, HAS NEVER ERRED FROM THE PATH OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION, NOR has she been depraved by YIELDING TO HERETICAL INNOVATIONS, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you return, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.”
Great job of straw-manning. The video points out that Calvin quoted the church fathers over 800 times in his final edition of the Institutes and quotes his French Confession as saying, "". . . we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril." Instead of dealing with what we actually say, you pretend that we throw out all tradition.
In terms of Second Nicaea, it not only overturned Hieria, but was rejected by the Councils of Constantinople, Frankfurt and Paris. Hieria appealed to Scripture, while Second Nicaea relied on John of Damascus' arguments that we refuted in the video. Even Fr. Richard Price has said John was seeing what he wanted in the history of the church. You assert a "consciousness of the church," while ignoring that, as demonstrated in the video, the emperors determined which councils were accepted and rejected.
You seem to assert that once a council has stood for a certain period of time, it becomes inviolate, but the Pharisees' fake traditions were very old, and Jesus refuted them with the Word of God. No Reformed person is questioning the first councils. They were biblical and consistent with the testimony of the earliest fathers. We do reject Second Nicaea. It is unbiblical and contrary to the historic faith of Christ's church.
I'll be releasing a video soon that addresses all of your arguments. So much misinformation, error, and half truths. I'll only pray you are sincere in your error and not intellectually dishonest.
@@CosmicMystery7 So far, I've heard a lot of bluster, but no real rebuttal. If you want to please the zealous, be sure to use the accusation of "quote-mining" and "cherry-picking" a lot. Set up a straw-man, such as claiming we reject all tradition, then give a quote from Irenaeus talking about tradition, as if if this "destroys" what we quoted him as saying on Scripture. Ignore all the information we gave on Calvin and the Fathers. Be sure to throw in a lot of righteous indignation and mockery.
Be sure to portray me as a "hyper-rationalist," who would have to reject all the Bible, if I were consistent. Major on the minors and minor on the majors. Try to blur the lines between Protestants who believe the Bible and those who don't. When we separate over heresy, call it schism. Ignore what I said about fasting being part of the Christian life, and caricature me as a glutton and a drunk. Those who like to believe lies, will love it.
If you want to be honest, how about actually engaging what we say in context?
@@ancientpathstv
You reject Christ. Full stop. Your faith is one of satan.
What a poor assessment of my video. Like many in the "Reformed" camp, you seem prone only to defense, without truly hearing constructive criticism and refutation of some of the erroneous things in the documentary.
@@merecatholicity What a poor response to my comment. Like many in the "Anglo-catholic" camp, you seem to confuse sneering with constructive criticism and refutation.
Jay smith desrtroys anti orthodoxy theology
The idolatry of icons and statues,prayers to saints and relics were abolished by the Protestant Reformation and Constantinople was taken by the Turks and that too like Gamaliel said shows that it was of man. My words shall not pass away...thy word is truth...the scriptures cannot be broken. There is the authority and the only thing that can be said to be God breathed.
I was a reader in the Orthodox church and thank God He showed me the error of my ways. May He do the same for you! Love in the name of Jesus!
What does the fall of Constantinople have to do with anything? Even when Israel and Judah fell, there were always those who kept the faith. Orthodoxy simply moved to Russia as it's Holy capital. Constantinople was just an earthly city.
As far as icons and the intercession of the Saints, I can argue in favor of them from scripture and historical context without appealing to a single church father.
The Orthodox don't pray to saints? Asking for a saint to pray on your behalf is not "praying to a saint." The reason saints have value is because they are our foremothers and forefathers, and they should be examples of what our faith vindicates us to do. When Protestants talk about their pastors who were famous (the Billy Grahams, the Charles Swindolls, etc.), they might as well hold those people in the same way the Orthodox and Catholics hold their saints.
@@sakogekchyan7366 Ahh yes, that shining beacon of Christianity, the hope and help of the whole world. Christians around the world know her, for she is full of love for one another, full of love for God above, and full of love for their neighbors...Russia. right.
@@davidpo5517
Yeah modern day Russia and the Russian orthodox church are fascist, but the Russian orthodox church wasn't always the way it is today.
And as I said, Constantinople was an earthly city. The fall of that city does not negate the faith. That is a question of theology.
Thou shalt have no graven image before thee
Dude, God said: before ME
Not thee
That passage has nothing to do with icons.
@@IffmeisterIt has everything to do with icons of Christ.
The Israelites saw no image of God at Sinai. When you ascend the mountain on the Lord’s Day (as that’s what Sunday morning worship is- ascending the mountain/entering the Holy Place), does God appear in physical form before your eyes? No. Therefore make no image of Him, or you’re a spiritual whore.
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Colossians 3:5
Have you ever coveted?
Orthodoxy cannot be apostolic church. It lacks the holy spirit. Where are the spiritual gifts and their practise as it is apostle paul descriped in the letter to corintians? Orthodox liturgy does not have amy space to spiritual gift nor power of God. It has only same written prayers. Only rational man made religion that lacks the spirit of God. Only intellectual and academic people converts to orthodoxy becouse they like the rationalism and scares doing evangelism. If yoi are orthodox you dont need to do evangelism or amy work of God. Just go liturgies once in awhile. Is that the apostoloc church?
there are many orthodox saints who constantly perform miracles and have spiritual gifts. St Paisios spoke in tongues and St John Maximovitch's body didn't decay
@@diansc7322 yes that is true. I highly respect those saints. But normal orthodox people are honestly just like secular people. All europeans including russians are totally secular. Catholics orthodoxs lutherans they are all totally secular
@@diansc7322 and besides those orthodox saints are like modern day real life charismatics
@@gabrielgabriel5177 St Paisios and St John are also modern day! and yeah I agree that we must have a charismatic outlook in Orthodoxy too
@@diansc7322 also coptic church lot of saints who have done lot of miracles in modern days. And still lot of coptic monks in deserts have spiritual gifts. You never heard about abouna makari ?