As someone who's been both I think you did a pretty good job. Although distinction 4 is a little inaccurate. It's a common Roman Catholic deception that the Orthodox have this loose policy on divorce when in fact it is the Roman Catholic Church that has a very loose divorce policy. Especially after Pope Benedict which changed their doctrine to accept all marriages and, including remarriages outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, one of the main reasons I left the Roman Catholic Church is that a Roman catholic priest gave a sermon one day and said that if a man ever raised his voice to his wife that's "abuse" and that the "Church position" is that she is not required to stay in that "abusive marriage". And he said it with great zeal too. Which is probably why, men who've never been married probably shouldn't hold every position of authority.
@@SolidSnake0 one of the main reasons you left Catholicism is because you had a a bad priest once who said things that were demonstrably contrary to Catholic Church teaching?
@chriswilson203 what is the Roman Catholic Church teaching on anything? Vatican I says that that the Orthodox are heretics, Muslims and Jews can't go to heaven. Vatican II says you can come to our churches and you're the brother of the Orthodox. And that Jews and Muslims have the same faith as Abraham. The Roman Catholic Church teachings don't make any sense and contradict each other all throughout history. So if that priest is incorrect, maybe that's possible, but you could be citing one document, he could be citing a more recent one. Who is to say who's actually representing the Roman Catholic Church teaching?
@@chriswilson203 what is the Roman Catholic Church teaching on anything? Vatican I says that that the Orthodox are heretics and Muslims can't go to heaven. Vatican II says you can come to our churches and you're the brother of the Orthodox. And that Muslims have the same faith as Abraham. The Roman Catholic Church teachings don't make any sense and contradict each other all throughout history. So if that priest is incorrect, maybe that's possible, but you could be citing one document, he could be citing a more recent one. Who is to say who's actually representing the Roman Catholic Church teaching?
@@chriswilson203 I'm not really going to get in a debate with you. Mostly because youtube won't let me tbh. But basically you can say that, but there's absolutely no way to know who's correct and who isn't. Your "dogmas" are many and are very contradictory. Read Vatican I and Vatican II if you don't believe me. The Roman Catholic Church says one thing is a fact, a few hundred years later they say the opposite is.
Imagine the idea that we are like iron in a furnace of burning coal. we don't become burning coal we become red hot and absorb the heat from the coal, but we do not become the furnace itself. This is Theosis. The iron is energized by the furnace, it becomes the light of the world, the salt of the earth.
Walked away from the church of Rome when I was 16. I studied the religions of the world for 9 years before becoming Orthodox. I’d never even heard of it till I was in my 20s. Turned out that every problem I had with Christianity was actually not a criticism of Christianity, but only of the apostate church of Rome and the heretical denominations that unfortunately, but inevitably, followed from the original apostasy.
Thanks so much for putting this together in a way that is simple to understand. It provides a solid foundation from which to explore each topic, which I think is surprisingly hard to find on UA-cam at this time. Blessings to you, friend!
Thank you for making this video, and I hope you keep wrestling with these ideas. I think one thing that drew me to Orthodoxy is that our concept of salvation is not merely a promissory note for heaven. Nor is it, exactly, a foretaste of heaven as the Catholic writers describe it. Rather, we believe that as one is being saved/experiencing theosis through union with God, the sacraments, repentance, fasting, prayer, good works, one starts to experience God's glory NOW and to become more like Him. Hence the ascetic life is called the "angelic life" because one starts to resemble an angel. In the saints' lives, this often takes the form of being in more than one place at a time, clear sight of spiritual things and matters, ability to read hearts, prophecy, speaking in languages that one does not know, theological understanding without study, undergoing torments without pain, etc. In other words, for us, heaven starts now, and our liturgical worship is, in some way, reflective of that.
The issue of the filioque is treated superficially here. When the creed was written by the ecumenical church represented in the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, the Greek ekporeuetai or 'travel out from' from John 15:26 was understood to be the source of the Spirit's eternal existence from the Father, as the 'begotteness' of the Son is His. Since the Father is the ultimate source of all existence, it is heretical to say the Son is also the eternal source of existence. The Latin 'procedere" from which proceeds derives, means to travel forward. The Latin trained mind seems to equate 'proceed' with 'send,' which are operations of the Trinity in time. The Father sends the Son and the Spirit, the Son sends the Spirit and the Spirit sends the Son. St. Augustine apparently understood proceed to apply to both the eternal source of existence, as well as the sending in time, this influenced the Latin Church. But you can't go back and change the meaning of the terms and still confess the same creed. Papal supremacy became an issue as the Pope tried to impose the filioque without the consensus of an ecumenical council. Some Roman Catholics now admit the filioque is heretical in Greek.
Thanks for adding nuance here. I’ll be honest…this is just not an issue that has come up as a major doctrinal issue for me. And I suspect the same is true for most Protestants. It just hasn’t seemed like a big issue to most of us. I was aware of it from church history, but I have never felt like it was major issue.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews If it was not important I doubt Jesus would have added an otherwise unnecessary phrase in his discussion, or John have recorded it. The councils were at the time of the Arian heresy, and so the Trinitarian doctrine was first and foremost.
This is a fantastic video that offers a broad overview of the distinctions. Regarding clerical marriage in Eastern Orthodoxy, it's worth noting that while a married man can become a priest, a priest cannot marry. That’s an important distinction. I was surprised you didn’t reference 2 Peter 1:4 when discussing Deification (Theosis): “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” This verse is frequently cited by the Church Fathers on the topic. Of course, vast volumes have been written on all ten topics over the past thousand years. Overall, this was an excellent and concise presentation.
As a protestant of protestants, I am not entirely surprised by #10. The Bride of Christ will be flesh of His flesh and bone of his bone. John 17 says we will be perfectly one with Christ just as the Father and the Son are perfectly one. Revelation 3:12 and 7:3 have the name of God written on his servants where Zechariah 14:9 says that the Lord and his name will be one in that day, the Day of the Lord. Jesus said that, in glory, we will be like the angels and sons of God (Luke 20:34-36). The Old Testament often refers to angels as elohim, as gods, little g. I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” --Psalms 82:6-7, ESV And we see that the false gods that Israel and others worshipped in the OT were really the angels, the host of heaven: Deuteronomy 17:3, 2 Kings 17:16 and 21:3, 2 Chronicles 33:3, and Acts 7:42. At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of its officials, the bones of the priests, the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be brought out of their tombs. And they shall be spread before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and served, which they have gone after, and which they have sought and worshiped. And they shall not be gathered or buried. They shall be as dung on the surface of the ground. --Jeremiah 8:1-2, ESV Pretty much every use of gods, little g, in the Bible refers to angelic beings with angelic bodies just like the resurrection bodies that we will receive when glorified. Now, are we ever going to be God? Of course not!!!!! Just like the marriage model, though we are one with God, we will always be subservient to God and to his authority. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will always be far greater than we are, but we will bear his name, act in his name, and be perfectly one with him. That is powerful, powerful stuff.
Can't speak for RCC but Orthodoxy absolutely does not teach that you are saved by works. What they do teach is exactly as stated by St James: Faith without works is dead” James 2:14-26: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:10. When you walk in those works they are salvific in as much that you: Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” Philippians 2:12 Faith/faithfulness/trust always precedes works for them to be of any value in God's sight. Remember being saved by faith alone was never believed for 1500 years (& neither was imputed righteousness). It's an oversimplification that taken at face value simply describes mental assent. In trying to use this as a divider between RCC & the ideas of the Reformation was not a great idea. Even most knowledgeable Protestants don't actually believe that works are unnecessary. Real faith is always evidenced by our actions to some degree or other.
Prayers for the dead can be found in 2 Maccabees 12: 43-45... That's a book that Martin Luther removed from the Bible and called it apocryphal... which it is not. It adds value to Christians because it teaches us the history of how the Jews fought for their freedom and built the second temple... and prayed for the dead with offerings of silver to raise them up by setting them free from their transgressions.
The split in the Catholic Church originally happened due to Emperor Constantine moving his capital from Rome to his new capital Constantinople in the 4th century, over time in about the 7th century there was a power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and then finally in the 11th century the final split took place.
Great video! I would add that as Catholics we believe that original sin is "analogical" and is only called sin in the sense that it is sin "contracted" and not "committed", it is a state of being, and not an act. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992, #404). So the guilt is having the disease of sin, it is not necessarily that a person bears the responsibility for the Adam's original sin, but a person does bear the disease of sin in his or her fallen state. I hope that helps.
Unfortunately, the Roman church’s view of original sin leads to the unnecessary and false doctrine of the immaculate conception. Those theological mistakes and their logical ramifications are a major part of why I left that church and they’re valid criticisms often made non-Christians.
@@MatlockMoto you had stated that the doctrine of immaculate conception was false, but Jeremiah is immaculately conceived in Jeremiah 1:5 so I was wondering if you accepted that parallel immaculate conception?
Eastern Orthodox priest here. One point of nuance that should be understood about clerical marriage in the Orthodox Church is that married men can be ordained to the diaconate and priesthood, but deacons and priests are not permitted to “get married.” The marriage must have taken place prior to ordination.
Corrections: # 3: In Eastern catholics and Eastern Orthodox married men can be ordained to be priests, but priests cannot marry after being ordained. If they do, which they can, they must leave the priesthood. Original Sin: Your description of Catholic understanding of Original Sin is wrong. Below is quote from Catechism of the Catholic Church (Emphasis in capital added) How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, THE TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN IS A MYSTERY THAT WE CANNOT FULLY UNDERSTAND. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed A PERSONAL SIN, but THIS SIN AFFECTED THE HUMAN NATURE THAT THEY WOULD THEN TRANSMIT IN A FALLEN STATE. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”-a state and not an act. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 404 # 10: The Greek term of what you described is theosis. This is not unique to Eastern Orthodox Church because the Catholic Church and some Protestant churches do believe it as well. It is based on what Scripture says that we become partakers of divine nature (2 Pe. 1:4). Last but not least, Immaculate Conception is not stated in the Bible, but the Bible neither gives us the list of inspired books. Both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church accept the sinlessness of Mary and her title as Theotokos (God Bearer).
Thanks. The point on Orthodox Priests marrying is a good one. (I did try to be specific as far as the Latin rite.) A couple others mentioned that. It’s a good correction. I’m unclear what I said wrong about the RC understanding of original sin after reading your comment. I am aware that some others do regard theosis as a legitimate category. My understanding is that it is emphasized more in Orthodoxy while RC’s tend to focus on categories like sanctification. Am I mistaken on that? (As far as the immaculate conception, I think we just disagree. For me, I don’t lose sleep over RC’s believing that though)
Your correction on number 3 was really good. We also don't allow priests to divorce. A priest who gets divorced has to leave the priesthood as well. A priest also needs the consent of his wife to be a priest. So all of that is pretty important stuff. Secondly I will say I also don't understand how what you said about original sin is any different than what he said? You said it was totally wrong, but it seems like a less elaborate version of what you said? And lastly on the immaculate conception, I don't know of even any apocryphal text that states that Mary was immaculately conceived? Nor do I know of any Biblical books the Roman Catholic Church claims to be canon that we don't?
@@SolidSnake0 Stephen said in the video (@ 6:01 - 6:20) that to Catholics original sin is inherited guilt while the Eastern Orthodox talks more on consequences of Original Sin. He drew the conclusion from Latin Vulgate, not from Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you read that clause you will notice that what Adam did is his personal sin and it does talk about consequences of Original Sin. Compare it with what Reformed scholar Michael Horton wrote about Original Sin: The sin of Adam was imputed to the human race as a covenantal entity in solidarity because it was imputed to each member (Ro 5:12). This notion of imputing the sin of one person to each Israelite - and thus to the nation generally - is found elsewhere, as in Achan’s theft (Josh 7:10-26). Just as our guilt is imputed to us in Adam, our covenantal head, righteousness is imputed to us in Christ. Original sin and justification by imputed righteousness stand or fall together. Horton, M.: Pilgrim Theology, Zondervan page 294 Immaculate Conception is not stated explicitly in any book of the Bible. Both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in her sinlessness. She, being a human, is sinless by grace of God while Christ is sinless by His own power as the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity. All of us when tempted by sin also receive grace from God to endure the temptation (1 Cor. 10:13), but we still sin. The reason is we were born with fallen nature (the consequence/effect of Original Sin). Why Mary can endure the temptation which all of us are not able? This the reason why the Catholic Church believes in her Immaculate Conception - it was gracious act from God, not from herself. Adam and Eve were also created immaculate and they sinned because God let them do so - God did not make them commit sin.
@@SolidSnake0 Between 6:01 and 6:20 Stephen said that the Catholic Church understanding of Original Sin is on the guilt of Original Sin while the Eastern Orthodox is on its consequences. His conclusion is based on Latin Vulgate of Rom. 5:12. The clause of Catechism I cited did mention the consequence or effect of Original Sin and says Adam sin was his personal sin. Immaculate Conception is not stated explicitly in any book of the Bible. Both CC and EOC believe in sinlessness of Mary. She, being a human, is sinless by grace from God or not by her own power/ability, while Jesus is sinless by His own power as the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. All of us, when we are tempted, also receive grace in the form of way of escape so that we can endure (1 Cor. 10:13) - but we are still unable to avoid sinning, before and after becoming believers. The reason is we are all born in fallen nature due to Original Sin. What makes her different? God graciously exempt her from Original Sin. Adam and Eve were created immaculate but they did sin because God let them do so, but God did not make them (or predestined them to) sin.
@@wibisonohartono incorrect. In fact that doesn't even make sense. If God could just make someone sinless in the way you described then why the cross? Wouldn't he just do that for everyone then? Sure he could, but that wouldn't be salvific. You're not understanding ancestoral sin. Ancestoral sin did not bring the possibility of sin into the world. Free will did that. What ancestoral sin did was bring sin into nature. Where now because of ancestoral sin, sin is in man's nature. Man's nature has essentially fallen. But now man inherits the nature of the sin of Adam and in fact the nature of sin from their ancestors. So those sins now become natural to the individual. What makes Mary unique was she came from a very specific bloodline. The Davidic bloodline. One God had been well-rooted in so she had less ancestoral sin than everyone else. But she still had to make a choice, and she chose not to sin. I'll give you an example of this. We know, scientifically that the children of alcoholics are more likely to grow up to be alcoholics themselves, even if they're adopted at birth. Why is that? Because they inherited the nature of that sin. However, they can, and some do choose to never touch a drop of alcohol in their life. But you wouldn't say they're an alcoholic. Just because they have the nature of that sin. To incur guilt, you have to participate in the sin.
I think the 10th point on salvation becoming divine they call theosis. What you missed is that they don't see salvation as a one time transaction but that it is an ongoing transformation. As in 2 Pe 1:4 we become partakers of the divine nature and as in Philippians we continue to work out our salvation the goal of which is the process to restore the image of God in us corrupted by the ancestral sin of the fall. In the protestant church we see sanctification as the after effect of salvation they see it as the process of salvation.
Yeah Salvation is something that Has happened, is happening and will happen, in our view. Good point on the restoration of the image (icon) of God in man. This is what we call Theosis, man is restored to what we were and glorified beyond it.
I am very pleasantly surprised to see a Protestant with such an accurate view. It gets so very frustrating being Orthodox in America to hear theosis characterized as works salvation. This is a breath of fresh air!
The differences in how Catholics and Orthodox understand the Trinity are foundational, probably more than any point listed here. This would provide the *why* behind the filioque controversy.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the problems with eastern orthodoxy. We all know that Hank Hanegraaff but more importantly to me, my brother also switched to the Greek orthodox church. This has left my family in a state of confusion and we need clarity as we are reformed believers.
Seraphim Hamilton has a good series of videos speaking about Orthodoxy to Protestants. It's a good channel for someone who people committed to the Reformed positions to watch, as he unpacks many things in good detail and limits himself to the 66 books Protestants accept.
Great thoughts Stephen. I have had very little interaction with Eatern Orthodoxy. I have family and friends who are Catholic. Have you looked into the Eastern thoughts on the cross and the Bible? I saw a video once from an Eastern Orthodox priest who said the cross was just a way to get our attention or show us God's love but was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. I have not researched this. Perhaps you have a part 2 in the works 😀
I mean, God could have forgiven our sins anyway he thought best, as he is God. So the Cross isn't necessary in that sense. That said, that is the way God chose to save his people, so it's clearly the best way and, in a real sense, the only way since that is the way he chose to do it.
The problem with both of these major faiths is their subordination of Scripture to their own traditions and customs that are man made and not divine ordinances. I grew up in both of these religions but Jesus gloriously and radically saved me in my early 20’s. I went to an Evangelical Seminary and learned much, unfortunately most people of these religions aren’t taught to be Born Again but follow traditions and beliefs that are man made.
On that Eastern deification: I am not aware of any doctrines in any camps dealing with this, but I have needed to become more cognizant of the significance of the spiritual beings through Michael Heiser. Might the earlier Eastern scholars have been thinking of our human responsibilities in also being "gods" as the spirit beings were assigned duties as "gods" over the nations, especially as they had misused their authority?
While I can appreciate the effort to share the differences between Catholic and Orthodox, you are lacking a lot of information and understanding. Orthodox do agree on Papal primacy not supremacy. The understanding that the successor of Peter, the Pope exercises supreme authority can be seen as far back as the 3rd Pope, Pope Clement in his letter to the church in Corinth. Again the eastern bishops clearly acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope when St Pope Leo the Great issued his Tome on Christology at the Council of Chalcedon. Everything Leo wrote was absolutely accepted by the east. This is exactly what was used as the reference to Vat I to show the claim of Papal infallibility was claimed and exercised by Pope Leo. This issue was also accepted at the council of Florence then the east back out of what they already agreed upon. Remember many eastern churches returned to full visible communion with Rome, and clearly acknowledge the authority or the Bishop of Rome, why is a really good question to ask! Obviously Papal authority was accepted by the east at some time. Original sin vs ancestral sins is just expressing the same thing in a different way. I will say it is true the east followed a Hellenistic view with a emphasis on Plato and Aristotle, where as the west has a greater emphasis on Roman law and reason, and is more legalistic. The Filioque was a direct response to the Arian heresy which came out of the east, and if not for the Pope and St Athenasius it would have prevailed. The Orthodox are actually responsible for the Filioque, no Arian heresy no Filioque. They share in this issue but wont own up to it. The immaculate conception of Mary has been taught by the Church for centuries. The celebration of the conception of Mary came out of the east and the issue of her immaculate conception was debated all through the middle ages. Scripture does support this understanding, of course it helps if you have a bible with all the books in it. Genesis 3:15, the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin. Next in Luke 1:28 The salutation of the angel Gabriel - chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Granted the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma. Other references are Proverbs 8, and Sirach 24. Early Church typology sees Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant because in her womb Mary carries the Word of God (Jesus), the bread of Life (John 6) and the priesthood. in Jewish tradition the Ark was considered the most sacred object, representing God's physical presence on earth, and serving as a symbol of the covenant between God and the Israelites. How much more sacred, how much more purer is our Holy Mother who brings forth God's only begotten Son, the redeemer of all mankind, the King of heaven. Doctrinal development does not create new doctrine, that is a major misunderstanding. It does allow the Church to receive a deeper and more profound understanding of the truths that are already believed. It is clear western theology is much much more advanced than our Orthodox brothers. Bit of a correction on priestly marriage in the east. Orthodox priest are NOT allowed to marry after their ordination. The differences between east and west are mainly due to the differences in language, and culture. Unity will come, and I look forward to that day when the church breaths with both lungs. For we must be obedient to our Lords prayer "May they all be one" Pax Other texts
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed and thoughtful comment on my video. I appreciate the depth of theological knowledge you've shared, and it's clear you've given considerable thought to the nuances between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions. A few reflections on your points: Regarding Papal authority, you've highlighted some important historical moments that add complexity to the discussion. The examples of Pope Clement and Pope Leo the Great indeed show moments of significant recognition of papal leadership. However, the fundamental difference remains in how each tradition understands the nature and extent of that authority. While there were certainly periods of mutual recognition, the Orthodox and Catholic churches ultimately diverge on the concept of universal papal jurisdiction. At least, that's what it seems to me right now, as an outsider to both traditions. Your insights on the Filioque controversy are particularly intriguing. The historical context of the Arian controversy provides a valuable perspective I didn't fully explore in the original video. It's a reminder that theological developments often emerge from specific historical and theological challenges. I'm grateful for the correction about Orthodox priestly marriage. It's important to get these details right, and I'm always eager to improve my understanding. I leave the comment section generally open. They become part of the value of the video. These conversations are important. They reveal that theological differences are not rigid boundaries, but living landscapes shaped by nuanced interpretations, rich historical contexts, and deeply held spiritual insights. Pax, Shalom, and εἰρήνη - three words for peace that converge at the cross, where the inscription proclaimed Christ's universal kingship in the languages of empire, faith, and culture. In their intersection, we glimpse a unity that we can find in Christ that is deeper than our divisions.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I appreciate your kind response. There has been much development over the last 60 years in bringing about reconciliation and reunion between east and west. In 2007 Orthodox and Catholics signed the Ravenna Document. This document was the result of the on going theological dialogue between the two churches. In this document the Orthodox agree that the bishop of Rome has universal primacy. At this time how that primacy was exercised during the first millennium is being studied so both can agree on how that primacy will work in a united church. Primacy with synodality is looking to be they way forward. It will be informative to mention never has the Catholic church taught that the Pope can act independently and create doctrine or dogmas, he must always be in communion with his brother bishops. The Popes role has been to be the guardian and protector of the faith. In 2016-2017 I am not sure, but Metropolitan kalistos Ware (leading member of the Orthodox theological commission) stated that after deeper understanding and fruitful dialogue he no longer saw the Filioque as a dividing issue. He stated how the west theologically expresses the procession of the Holy Spirit is orthodox, they just want the west to remove it from the creed, something the United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishops recommended back in 2019. Unfortunately not all Orthodox sing from the same hymnal. The Orthodox suffer from tribalism, ethnic division and do not have true unity, nor do they express the Catholicity of the Church of Jesus Christ.
I would say the only major differences are the filloque, Eastern Catholics do affirm the idea of the filloque contrary to what people in the comments say, this was a much later issue though that really didn’t happen until long after the schism. Papal supremacy is upheld by orthodox just not infallibility to my understanding, even though some would say they did in the first millennium. Essence energies distinction also came about much later, was not really talked about in the fathers. Purgatory, tollhouses; very similar. Clerical marriage is something that has evolved over the years and could be changed. Orthodox also differ in the number of ecumenical councils ranging 6-9. Also annulments are not just divorce for Catholics, the process is long and hard; not as many people get it as you would think. The Church of England was founded because an annulment was not granted. Also the original sin difference in my mind is a major difference or at least causes things to be explained different. Lastly doctrinal development is necessary for every sect of Christianity, or denominations; no one can escape that; they just have to show which development is correct. And yes development is a good thing, otherwise we wouldn’t have things like the trinity, two natures of Christ, the Bible; etc. to name a few. Doctrine develops to address issues that arise within the church.
I don't know what you mean by "eastern Catholics"? If you mean Eastern Rite Catholicism, they do not say the Filoque in their services. If you meant Eastern orthodox, we do not accept the filioque. It is a great heresy. Mind you St. John Chrysosstom says, that even martyrdom does not remove the stain of heresy. So we take that very seriously. Next off regarding the pope of Rome, we have no affiliation with him post-schism. He is not our greatest amongst equals, that would be Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. When the pope of Rome issues his doctrines and so on they have no effect on us whatsoever. He's not part of the church anymore. Lastly there are only seven eccumenical councils. That is to say, that there are seven councils that meet the definition of being an eccumenical council as defined by the eccumenical councils (as confusing as that sounds). There's no more. So there's no "6-9" councils. It's a strict seven. Although I don't believe you meant to misrepresent our positions and you probably had good intentions with this post. It's simply not accurate. But as a former Roman Catholic myself, I understand why you would think that. Because a lot of that is stuff we're all told as Roman Catholics. Along with "we're one church east and west" and "we can all share communion". The problem is that none of that is actually true. Lastly I'll point out that the creed at Council of Constantinople does say that the Son is of one essence (or substance) with the Father depending on how you translate it. So the energy essence distinction was clearly established
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, along with other saints such as Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom, believed that God is knowable through his energies, but not in his essence. I'm not 100% on this subject, but the doctrine wasn't invented by Palamas but fully fleshed out based on the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers and others.
We both affirm that Mary was not guilty of any sin. However for this to be true with the Catholic understanding she would have had to be born without original sin. Because we believe that we inherit only the consequences of Adam's sin and not the guilt we say that Mary was born in the same way that any other person is.
Marriage: The Ecumenical Council of Trent accepted the Orthodox’s beliefs on divorce. I believe it accepted up to four divorces. The Orthodox Catholic Rites do have married priests.
This was a good video. I'll start comments on things that are nicer to RCs and move on to things that aren't as nice, The one place I think Rome might have a stronger argument is doctrinal development. It's easy to show doctrinal development everywhere, and nobody can avoid it. Cardinal Newman's argument seems inescapable. Orthodoxy, for instance, has ecumenical councils, which effectively require an emperor and codified a "symphony of powers" with the state. This, quite obviously, couldn't exist before the Emperor Constantine. Protestants have _Sola Scriptura._ This can't exist until we can print Bibles that have all the books under a single cover and the average person can have books. It also depends on the development of an idea of a closed list of inspired books. None of that existed in the apostolic era. We have to argue that there was some precursor that naturally develops into the idea, but that is precisely the "seed" that is at the heart of the idea of doctrinal development. I don't see how the RCC can be wrong on this assertion. For purgatory, I was friends with a RC while getting my bachelor's. I brought up the picture of purgatory as having to pay legal penalties on top of the sacrifice of Christ, and he lent me the Catechism of the Catholic Church and told me to to read it. Their definition of purgatory is so broad that the Orthodox view of post-mortem purification that is not in a place would still qualify as purgatory and in bounds for the RCC. It very much seems to be a case of our (Orthodox) wanting to avoid a term just because it's RC. The RC view of original sin is possible for the Orthodox. It was held in the west prior to the Schism, so it's in bounds. It just isn't the view that's commonly held. Neither is anybody bound to deny the immaculate conception. It would just be a pious/impious opinion. I don't hold it myself but take my queue from Fathers who said she was purified when she said "Be it unto me according to thy word." The differences in ecclesiology and the pope (which I think is a single issue) boils down to the idea that the leadership, while having authority, is based on consensus. The papacy had authority, but it was checked by other bishops and consensus. It was the abandonment of this idea of consensus that probably kicked off everything else. To me, the papacy seems to be the very embodiment of ruling after the order of the nations. "No man judges the first see" started because Pope Symmachus was going to be on trial for, let's just say, misconduct (I don't want YT locking my commenting ability). Pope Nicholas pushed the Filioque and papal power, because he was a house pope for the Franks, and he (or an agent for him) forged documents asserting he had effectively unchecked power and rewrote history. The papacy seems to be at the heart of it, and jumps in papal power seem to happen in manners like this, and then are read back into earlier statements. In fact, I think the papacy is almost the sole requirement for being RC. Can you reject the _Filioque_ as heretical? Yes, some eastern Catholics do. Can you deny the RC teaching on marriage? Yes, the German bishops do. Even the _Filioque_ is really just a papacy issue, becuase it boils down to "Do I have the authority to change the Creed the Chalcedon said cannot be changed?" The only thing that really seems out of bounds is being too sharp on the papacy. This makes me think the papacy is very much like Jeroboam's reign. He was given true, real authority by the prophet. It wasn't enough, so he created a new priesthood and cultic center so he could have power. What started out as a real blessing of God "You'll be king" devolved. The papacy had real power, and it's possible to see Rome's role in how both Paul and Ignatius writes to them, but it seems it just wasn't enough. The question of divorce vs. anullments really strikes me as a polite lie on the part of RCs. The grounds for anullment are so broad almost anybody can get one. So, people get an anullment, say they were never married, while anybody can see the practical reality that they were. It's basically a divorce for people who don't want to admit they have divorce. Probably the biggest issue that wasn't listed is the essence-energies distinction. This is what makes theosis possible without it becoming something like the Mormon doctrine. In fact, this doctrine of energies makes the councils work, too. I think it's a necessary doctrine to really understand Paul's writings, but it also applies to our christology, our salvation, our views of inspiration of Scripture, basically everything. However it doesn't exist in the west at all (I think that's a language issue). Another big thing for salvation is that Orthodoxy has no conception of penal substitutionary atonement. There is a substitutionary atonement, but no penal form. I suspect most of your viewers hold to a form of PSA and think it's ubiquitous so that it'd be hard to even recognize its not being there. Overall, my not remotely authoritative opinion, is that reunion could be possible if the following happened: - The papacy gave up unilateral claims to infallibility and being above judgment - The papacy accepted that he doesn't have universal, immediate, and ordinary authority over Christians - The Orthodox accept that papal authority in the first millennium wasn't merely honorific (the evidence is fairly one-sided on that) - The Orthodox accept that many of the doctrinal developments in the west, if they aren't dogma, are just opinions that people may hold with no binding authority. - The West recognized the essence-energies distinction. There are some people who are working to reconcile that with Thomism, but that work is over my head. I watch what's happening, and I wonder if we're seeing God prep the pumps for something like that. There's no good way to defend Pope Francis and his innovations. The Orthodox churches are a complete mess and becoming increasingly impotent. The Protestant churches are largely devolving and degrading so that SS is having to be checked into non-existence if anybody is to be remotely traditional. Things are changing, and for the first time when everyone is falling apart into a mess, we can see that it's happening everywhere at once due to the internet. This is going to be a weird era coming up.
So that I'm clear on this point...The Orthodox would deny that Pope Francis has supreme authority over the entire church. Is that an accurate statement? There is some push back on my understanding on this point in the comments, and I want to make sure I'm understanding properly.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks. For Pope Francis, Orthodoxy would deny him that authority; he's in schism. Nobody will obey him :) For the papacy in general, part of the problem with it is that the early church was not precise. We know Rome had a special status and authority: Romans is the only book that Paul tried to systematize his doctrine for. Ignatius wrote them differently than other churches. It was the church that various congregations appealed to for arbitration. It could call and head councils. I could list others, but it's very clear that Rome had a special position. It's also clear there were limits. There were several occasions Rome demanded something, and it resulted in schism, and there were popes censured for heresy and excommunicated. The exact number of heretical popes varies by the person counting, but they existed. The Apostle Paul warned the Romans that their branch could be cut off, which also mandates limitations. However, its special position led to Hellenistic flowery language in which it was given over the top compliments. Now this flowery language is taken literally by RCs, but it is not a given it should be. There were also lots of forgeries to enhance papal power that entered uncontested into history and were only contested church-wide after they bore divisive fruit. By then it was too late. As a result, there are several positions in Orthodoxy about the range in power the pope had and should have. We simply don't know. More often than not, you learn more about the particular Orthodox or RC commenting than you do about the first century on account of all the confusion. I haven't read half of the material from history, but I've run into mutually exclusive claims and positions, methodologies, and the like. Most of the time, people form their positions from quote mines and never bother to look at the surrounding circumstances. My suspicion (and I'll never be in a position to do anything about it, so it's well-nigh worthless) is that most of the positions are partly true in their claims, the schism was illicit, and God will set it right at some point in the future. We may convince ourselves our position is infallible, but God is not so easily hoodwinked ;)
Also the Orthodox Church does not have councils unless there is a serious threat to the faith so it becomes necessary to explicate Holy Tradition in a specific area.ex. Arianism. The council explicated trinitarian theology to refute Arianism with the Nicene Creed. This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church where doctrine develops and is ever changing. Compare Vatican 1 and 2.
Hello again. I think Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in salvation by grace through faith. It’s their definition of faith that differs from a Protestant’s.
@ Hebrews 11:1, 1 John 4:17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:17. It appears that faith is where belief and action are united in love. It’s love for God because He first loved us. Thus, John 14:15 and Matthew 7:23. What do you think?
@@StewForTheGospel thanks, Stew. I don't know where to start. You could never be faulted for impracticality. Or, as you label it "action". I was thinking of faith in terms of faith for salvation and for justification. You have assembled verses which I had not thought of together. Heb. 11:1 is on my list for trying to understand. The use of the tenses combined with my not understanding the "hupostasis" has long left me befuddled. So it bothers me that everyone has always quoted it so easily. Call it envy. I just have been too busy to study it. Paul's use of "faith" in 1 Corin. 13 seems to speak to a practical exercise of understanding or "knowledge", in the context . It seems that those people were arrogant on that point, and that Paul is saying,"If you think that you know so much, just keep such knowledge to yourself." But here in this chapter "faith" is very different from Paul's faith in Romans. I have very serious disagreement with the Church's acceptance of James "Jacob" in the Bible. And 2:17, "the faith if it does not have works is dead, being by itself." ,to me is not a Christian expression. The same meaning is expressed in 2:18,20, and 26 "faith without works" where in verses 20 & 26 such a "faith without works is dead". Such deadness seems to be the utility of that faith. This seems to be a matter of practicality. I read so many commentaries and listened to so many sermons on James 2, and all of the Evangelical ones assured us that James does not mean that works are necessary for salvation and justification. But then everybody morphs that into an insistance that works ARE NECESSARY for salvation and for justification. For me, this is a big thing. I recently listened to a series of Evangelical popular Bible teachers on You Tube explaining the relationship of faith and works relating to salvation and justification. I then listened to some Roman Catholics. They all said the same things, sometimes using identical wording. This shook me up. I hoped that at least the Evangelicals would pretend to sound "Reformed" and Protestant. But they all quoted James. And they agreed with the Catholics on James, and the need for works FOR JUSTIFICATION !!! This is why I asked you about Eastern Orthodoxy. I am angry about Evangelical, and Reformed Bible teachers quoting the Reformed slogan "sola fide", faith alone", yet then also insisting that works are necessary for justification. Faith alone means faith without works. This is what "alone" always meant. The Reformers made that clear. The Councils of Trent made it clear that "faith alone " meant without works for the Catholics. But now, because of James 2, it seems that Evangelicals agree with Catholics. I am feeling quite alone.
@JosephBoxmeyer-u3d Let me start by saying you’re not alone. I love my family. I was raised Baptist. My wife grew up Lutheran. If I was to use a term that described where she’s at now, I’d say Reformed Baptist. My entire family is a mix of different Protestant denominations. I currently attend a Lutheran Church with my wife and in-laws. However, I do not take communion because of my beliefs. My heart (feeling and reason) is for Eastern Orthodoxy. For painful reasons, I’m unable to attending a local parish. I feel “quite alone.” However, we are not alone. The mystery of salvation is not as clear as Christians may claim. God desires our salvation. He desires our repentance. He created us to be loved, and for us to love Him. He is forgiving and merciful, and He died for all of us. Therefore, trusting that God is righteous in His judgement, I am trying to love God with my whole heart. My hope is that my family and I will end up in His Body. The key is Love. Therefore, we can find solitude in Romans 8:26-39. Emphasis on verses 28, & 37-39. 1 John 4:18 is also very encouraging. I try not to worry about salvation. Psalm 139:8. Luke 19:11-27. I love God. I love who He is. I’m thankful for what I’ve been given. Therefore, I’m trying to love him by loving my family, friends and neighbors, coworkers, other Christian’s, and UA-cam commenters. Through many means, we can participate in God’s work for His creation, and be fruitful. We’ve been given 1 coin, I’d love to profit 9 more coins for God, God willing. However, I’m the type of man that will bring back 2. I hope I don’t burry my 1 coin. If I’m successful in bring back 2, I hope Christ will have mercy on me for not bringing 5. Also, Luke 12:41-48. I digress… I do think you should visit and/or get in contact with a local Easter Orthodox priest. They’re more helpful than I could. They’re gifted, by the Holy Spirit, to help you receive correct EO teachings for the questions you may have. I hope you keep desiring after the God who is beyond our understanding. Take hope that He can’t be rationalized.
As a Catholic, this is a good video. The Filioque is John 20:20-23. Jesus (God) breathes on the apostles and they receive the holy spirit. This is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. This is also the sacrament of reconciliation. The first thing Jesus (God) does is give the apostles the authority to forgive sins. Only God can forgive sins? Yes, here is God giving that authority to these men. This shows we have a need for reconciliation and the Bible never say this need we have ever ends. This carries down to the successors to the apostles, the Bishops. Not all Orthodox Churches disagree on the Filioque or call it heresy. In fact, the patriarch of Constantinople that was excommunicated for rejecting the Filioque later repented and rejoined communion with the pope. Catholicism is made up of multiple Eastern Rites that are apostolic with these Orthodox religions. These Eastern Rites fully submit to the ten issues you have pointed out that we disagree on. The main error in the video is the description of “development” teachings as being “new” teachings. That would be like saying the Trinity is a new teaching because it took 300 years to define it at Nicea I. Development is the Church studying, debating and praying for an extended amount of time before defining a belief. The belief was always there, it just not created a definition. Think of it like a dictionary. We have the meaning being thought out and then a word is attached to that meaning at a council or a pope (Supreme Pontiff) infallibly defines it. There are beliefs that haven’t been infallibly defined yet and it is fully acceptable if it takes 1,800 years to do so. Catholics are expected to submit to infallible teachings. We submit to divinely inspired teachings called dogma and we submit to definitive teachings in councils and by popes. A point of contention with those that broke away after Vatican II is in St John Paul’s profession of faith (on the Vatican website) that starts with the word “Moreover…”. It states we must accept non-definitive teachings with intellect and will. Basically, per St Paul’s teachings on unity, we cannot pick and choose our beliefs. Hebrews 13:17, we obey those God put over us (bishops). Luke 10:16, “He who hears you hears me.” In council or when the pope teaches, it is as if Jesus taught it. To have these two beliefs requires God give his a protection from it turning into a Jim Jones Cult. Matthew 16:18-19. The papacy and Church will not teach heresy. That is a divine protection by the Holy Spirit (remember God breathed on the apostles). This is called papal indefectibility. With that comes Papal Supremacy. All councils to be ecumenical must be approved by the pope and he has line item veto. One has to study the councils, their history and their Acts to see it. Michael Lofton Show has multiple videos on all of this.
@ You’re welcome. It’s very nice to see someone make an accurate presentation of Catholicism rather than an invention of our beliefs that are not what we teach.
@ Where does Scripture say Jesus’ breath comes from the Father? The breath came from Jesus’s lungs, yes? If it is only through, where does this section say it comes from the Father for you to say it is through Jesus?
@ God also breathed on Adam and gavr him life. This breath came from the Father and through Jesus into Adam? Id be careful with that answer as it would lead to saying Jesus isn’t God.
The Western and Eastern Church are not "movements". The question is what is the way the Church was set is pre great schism. The Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church are not required to use the filioque. The Orthodox Churches do not "remarry" but simply offer a prayer for couples who are divorced and form relationship. The reason has to do with the influence of East Roman imperial law on the Orthodox Church. Also a question of who administers the Sacrament of Matrimony...the Christian couple or the Church through the priest or deacon? As for the doctrine of the ever virgin Mary being spotless and conceived without sin...it was the opinion of all Protestant reformers and is an opinion of great antiquity. No where within the New Testament say only the Gospels and various letters of Sts Paul, Jude, Timothy etc.contain all the apostolic teaching. This also exists within the teaching, ordering and Church itself. The view of the Early Church Fathers on this is the correct one. The do not support Protestant views. Catholic and Orthodox do not believe in justification by Faith and works. That is a Protestant cliche. Salvation is a gift from God through Christ it is not earned. If the Orthdox accepted the early Church ordering in the Church and ancient Pentarchy there would be a reconciliation. Many of these differences are simply contrariness and acts of ill will caused by conflict. One more thing. The Orthodox need to answer why human nature is flawed, mistaken about what good is, concupiscent and perverse.
@@StewForTheGospel you are right that Mormons would not agree with #10 in reality. But they do have a doctrine of deification of their own. One Mormon I interacted with on UA-cam cited Athanatius in an attempt to support his view that humans can become divine beings. But their doctrines of both God and man are entirely pagan.
IT is amazing to me that we can't seem to get Christianity right. There are serious man made error in every denomination. There are serious issues in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Luthernaism, Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and many others. Tell me where I can find a denomination that doesn't have any of these man made massive errors? I haven't found one.
I don't think that you actually side with the Orthodox on #7. Although they generally deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, they still hold that Mary never committed any sins. My question for the Orthodox is how that would be possible without some unique miracle at the point of her conception.
Doctrine you hold has been innovation of the 19th century. You should have rather ask yourself - how did Latins' exist prior to that doctrine and what position about that question was held by the Rome prior to 19th century.? But, that might be too painful to examine... Otherwise, your false doctrine has its basis in earlier false theology surrounding what you call "Original Sin". Based on false premise that mankind is completely deprived of Grace it is perfectly logical move to apply "immaculation" to the one that ought to be designated as sinless. Orthodox position on Ancestral Sin is well expounded by St. John Chrysostom and echoed in writings of the other Fathers including St. Cyril of Alexandria. In Orthodoxy, we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature. However, our free will remains intact. St. Ephrem the Syrian wrote: "He purified the Virgin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is manifest purity in all its power.... I do not say that Mary became immortal, but that being illuminated by Grace, She was not disturbed by sinful desires." To conclude... If Theotokos Mary was born immaculately, her nature would have not been human and consequently, Lord wouldn't deify human nature... thus rendering our salvation impossible. Some Latin "saints" warned about the dangers of that growing heresy even before it reached its maturity, like Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote: "[It is] a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness".
@johnnyd2383 could you at least try to answer the actual question, please? How was Mary even able to avoid sinning if there wasn't something special about her conception?
@@jimmu2008 I did answer that question but you are unable to see it due to the blindness caused by the heretical doctrine you adopted. Let me quote my previous comment: "...being illuminated by Grace, She was not disturbed by sinful desires".
@@johnnyd2383Come to think of it, "illuminated by grace" is the same as being immaculately conceived anyway. That is what we mean by "full of grace." Sounds like we agree, but you are too blinded by h____d to see if.
@ I don't know how to quantify how much emphasis is placed on it but there seems to be quite a bit of emphasis on it from the Catholic Church. Maybe not under the explicitly through use of the terms theosis or deification but under the descriptions such as being 'partakers in the Divine Nature' or 'participating in the Divine Life' or 'sharers in the Divine Life.'
Comment to the channel . What did you get wrong? As Catholic I notice a superficial (misleading) understanding of Catholicism. Original sin, Immaculate Conception Beatic Vision, purgatory . I recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Navarre Study Bible and the documents of Vatican II. Catholic theological terms see Modern Catholic Dictionary by Father John Hardin S.J. May God bless you.
I would like to but no because too many points. Big reason because protestant words terms defintions are not the same as Catholic. Thus attempting to understand Catholic doctrine but with protestant definitions will never be fruitful. Starting point use Catholic definitions when reading Cathoilc Church source material documents. One error comes to mind regarding works based salvation. You mention Catholics are works based salvation. This is the protestant accusation yet is clearly wrong because the Catholic Curch does not teach that, and a catechized Catholic does not believe or even think that. Should you persist in attempting to understand Catholicism, but with Protestant terms, you will not be successful. Please do yourself a favor and get the Modern Catholic Dictionary by Ftr John Hardin. Then read on line the Catechism and use the Navarre Study Bible or the new Ignatius Study bible. Read pray discern. There is a lot of material to read and will take time. Thanks, and may our Good Lord bless you.
@@marksiewert8344 I did not say that Catholics teach a "works based salvation". I said they teach in justification by faith and good works. Robert Sungenis, Roman Catholic apologist said "...I would say no, Catholic theology does not teach that one is justified by works if we understand by the word "works" that we are doing something outside the grace of God. We cannot give God our works and say, "God, you owe me salvation because of these works I have done." The Council of Trent condemned that idea in its very first canon. It said that anybody who thinks that they can work their way to God either by the law or any of your good works, whatever they are, that's anathema. On the other hand, the Catholic church does teach that works are salvific, that they do justify, but when they use "works" in that sense, they are talking about works that are done under the auspices of God's grace that is, someone who has already entered into God's grace by faith, and God can now look at those works a lot differently than when the person was not under God's grace." I think that is a fair summary of Catholic Theology on this point. And that's not me saying it, that's a Roman Catholic Apologist.
Apologist summarize and will not be thorough or complete. I gave you very solid information for your benefit. It is your choice as to what you do. Summary your thread is not accurate regarding Catholicism. Too may errors .
The Filoque is the tip of the iceberg of a whole different theological framework. The Orthodox ground the unity of the Trinity in the one common source - the Father (see Ephesians 4:6.) We do not think of the Trinity as Person 1, Person 2 and Person 3, but rather as One God the Father, the Father's Son and the Father's Spirit (see the Nicene Creed.) Therefore, all three persons are God because they come from God. But to keep the persons from collapsing into one three-headed God, the distinctions of Son and Spirit are declared through the relations - the begetting and proceeding from the Father. The church fathers carefully taught the distinction of relations and unity of essence. THAT is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - the distinctions of relations not stomping out the unity of essence and vice versa. The Filoque does just this. It blurs the distinction of the Father and the Son by giving to the Son a personal relation which belongs to the Father. The theological consequences have been huge in the west. Most western Christians can no longer distinguish the persons and will define the Trinity as person 1, person 2 and person 3 and arbitrarily call each "God" but having no meaningful concept of how that is. Their explanation is "it's a mystery" and for many westerners that isn't enough (rightly so) and their faith dies. For the Orthodox, we have very clear grounds for the unity and distinctions in the Trinity and can answer "Jesus and the Spirit are God because they are God of God, emanating from the Father eternally by begetting and proceeding!" This is the beautiful Orthodox faith.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you for the video! Speaking about myself, when I first encountered this issue, I thought it was petty. But upon looking deeper, I realized there is much more depth to it. I hope my comment can help someone appreciate the depth of the issue and make take some time to explore it more deeply.
Concerning #10 - it would have been helpful to protestants to see that there is some biblical evidence to support Athanasius' comment regarding deification: 2 Peter 1.3-4 "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." I found your lumping together Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox "Faith and Good Works" to be rather simplistic and just played to protestant assumptions concerning "good works". The Eastern Orthodox view of the relationship between faith and works is much more nuanced. Others have pointed out that the Filioque debate was about the the nature of the Godhead. Single or doubled procession within the Trinity.
Thanks! Could you help me understand how the Orthodox view justification in terms of good works? Philip Schaff was my source on that point. But he was a Protestant as well.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I have to confess that I'm an Anglican but I think the starting point is consider the word "saved". The orthodox starting point, as I understand it, is that the greek word carries the meaning of healing. West - saved / East - healed, West God as Judge / East God as Physician, West people in a Law Court / East people in a hospital. etc May I also suggest the article Justification by Faith in the Orthodox Study Bible as well as Fr Andrew Stephen Damick's book "Arise, O God"
I think you did a nice job but your comments regarding Orthodoxy presuppose that the Bible is the sole arbiter of truth. The Bible is a book of the Church, and the Church through council determined what that canon was. The Bible is one component of Holy Tradition. The Bible doesn’t tell us everything so your comments indicating that the Orthodox Church added beliefs over the years which are not in the Bible would be mistaken and faulty epistemology.
He needs to study better the catholic doctrine, He didn't do justice on the catholic faith, He also picked sides before he started, sounds like his already against the catholic faith.
1. The Orthodox churches hold to Papal supremacy, but their current leaders have a lot of caveats on the meaning of that, that their early bishops did not see. 2. The Catholic Church has many married priests. Just not in the Latin Rite. There are many rites in the Catholic Church under the pope. 3. The Orthodox bishops and the emperor all accepted the filioque in the ecumenical council of Florence. But when Constantinople fell their Islamic leader made them renig on their council, which they did to survive. Many of the intellectuals of Constantinople fled as a result and kicked off the Italian Renaissance. One distinguishing feature is in English Orthodox scholars translate filioque with the word "through" rather than "and" which is also accepted by the Roman Rite. 4. The Eastern Church fathers all accepted the Immaculate Conception. I don't think today's Orthodox churches would dare reject it. They just argue against it being dogma. 4. All Christians hold to Purgatory, because the Catholic understanding of Purgatory is biblical. However most Christians misrepresent Catholic views on Purgatory claiming it's a place where folk spend years or that it's a spot where folk might then go to hell. The Bible says his love is a refiners fire. That state of having our imperfections refined through his perfect fire is Purgatory. Time is speculation, not dogma. You also believe in Purgatory.
@Shevock 1. Wrong primacy is not supremacy 2. Yeah and 98% of catholics are latin rite. 3. Incorrect. Only the majority of the deligates at Florence. It was rejected by the east at large. 4. Wrong.
@@mrjustadude1 We reject the medieval articulation of purgatory. I have little problem with a post - mortem transformation to perfection through the love of Christ, as St. Ephraim taught and as many modern Latins articulate.
@@mrjustadude1 correct and the council of Florence wasn't even an eccumenical council to begin with. Session 6 of Council of Niccea II states that for a council to be considered eccumenical all Patriarchs must sign the decrees and their Synods must approve them. Well Mark of Ephesus did not sign the decrees. Neither did any of the eastern synods approve them. So this guy's just intentionally dishonest.
That picture of Adam and eve...... eve is looking like a roided body builder and it reminded me of napoleon dynamite "do you think anyone thinks im a failure because I go home to starla at night? Forget about it" -Rex
So the word would actually be Assumed, or an Assumption. It seems like a minor distinction but Mary was assumed, not of her own power but of Christ, Ascension would be assenting of ones own power. Basically Mary was taken into heaven by her son, Christ, of his power, not hers. When Christ Ascended it was of his own power. As far as if Mary died or not: Catholics are allowed to believe either option, she maybe died, she maybe didn't die....that's a later development as all the earliest traditions say she died. It had a lot to do with scholasticism and the catholic theory of the immaculate conception. Basically if Mary was conceived without sin, like a new Pre-fall Eve she shouldn't "need" to die. Originally Catholics agreed she died, then it became popular to say she did not die, and now they have left it as an open question. In the East the Feast is Called the Dormition (falling asleep, death). So we 100% believe she died.
Officially, at least, that's not correct. In the doctrine of both churches, she died a natural death. However , the focus of the (Catholic) dogma was on whether she was assumed into heaven or not, not on whether she died. But yes, the word is assumed, not ascend. It is important to note that her assumption was passive and Jesus' ascension was active. Mary was taken into heaven; Jesus rose into heaven.
@jimmu2008 I assure you the debate within catholicism is if she died or not. The assumption is an infallibllity defined doctrine in the Catholic system. Catholics can disagree on if she died or not, not on if she was assumed or not.
@@mrjustadude1 I am sorry that I wasn't clear. From what I have found is that the authentic tradition of the Catholic Church is that Mary did die, but more recently, there arose an opinion that she did not die. The reasoning is that being free from both original and personal sin, she would not be subject to death. I will try to follow up with some citations.
As someone who's been both I think you did a pretty good job. Although distinction 4 is a little inaccurate. It's a common Roman Catholic deception that the Orthodox have this loose policy on divorce when in fact it is the Roman Catholic Church that has a very loose divorce policy. Especially after Pope Benedict which changed their doctrine to accept all marriages and, including remarriages outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, one of the main reasons I left the Roman Catholic Church is that a Roman catholic priest gave a sermon one day and said that if a man ever raised his voice to his wife that's "abuse" and that the "Church position" is that she is not required to stay in that "abusive marriage". And he said it with great zeal too. Which is probably why, men who've never been married probably shouldn't hold every position of authority.
Thanks I really appreciate your feedback on this. That’s a very helpful point on the divorce issue.
@@SolidSnake0 one of the main reasons you left Catholicism is because you had a a bad priest once who said things that were demonstrably contrary to Catholic Church teaching?
@chriswilson203 what is the Roman Catholic Church teaching on anything? Vatican I says that that the Orthodox are heretics, Muslims and Jews can't go to heaven. Vatican II says you can come to our churches and you're the brother of the Orthodox. And that Jews and Muslims have the same faith as Abraham. The Roman Catholic Church teachings don't make any sense and contradict each other all throughout history. So if that priest is incorrect, maybe that's possible, but you could be citing one document, he could be citing a more recent one. Who is to say who's actually representing the Roman Catholic Church teaching?
@@chriswilson203 what is the Roman Catholic Church teaching on anything? Vatican I says that that the Orthodox are heretics and Muslims can't go to heaven. Vatican II says you can come to our churches and you're the brother of the Orthodox. And that Muslims have the same faith as Abraham. The Roman Catholic Church teachings don't make any sense and contradict each other all throughout history. So if that priest is incorrect, maybe that's possible, but you could be citing one document, he could be citing a more recent one. Who is to say who's actually representing the Roman Catholic Church teaching?
@@chriswilson203 I'm not really going to get in a debate with you. Mostly because youtube won't let me tbh. But basically you can say that, but there's absolutely no way to know who's correct and who isn't. Your "dogmas" are many and are very contradictory. Read Vatican I and Vatican II if you don't believe me. The Roman Catholic Church says one thing is a fact, a few hundred years later they say the opposite is.
Imagine the idea that we are like iron in a furnace of burning coal. we don't become burning coal we become red hot and absorb the heat from the coal, but we do not become the furnace itself. This is Theosis. The iron is energized by the furnace, it becomes the light of the world, the salt of the earth.
Orthodoxy ☦️
Orthodox are basically the OG Protestants 😊.
@@MrSeedi76 Naw the Catholics are the OG Protestants lol
@@alek27e ☦️
Internet loves orthobro because it’s the new kid on the block so to speak.
@@MrSeedi76 Orthodoxy is the Original Church of Christ and His Apostles... the rest are denominations.
Dogma is only defined when the belief is attacked.
Walked away from the church of Rome when I was 16. I studied the religions of the world for 9 years before becoming Orthodox.
I’d never even heard of it till I was in my 20s. Turned out that every problem I had with Christianity was actually not a criticism of Christianity, but only of the apostate church of Rome and the heretical denominations that unfortunately, but inevitably, followed from the original apostasy.
Thanks so much for putting this together in a way that is simple to understand. It provides a solid foundation from which to explore each topic, which I think is surprisingly hard to find on UA-cam at this time. Blessings to you, friend!
Thanks so much!
Thank you for making this video, and I hope you keep wrestling with these ideas. I think one thing that drew me to Orthodoxy is that our concept of salvation is not merely a promissory note for heaven. Nor is it, exactly, a foretaste of heaven as the Catholic writers describe it. Rather, we believe that as one is being saved/experiencing theosis through union with God, the sacraments, repentance, fasting, prayer, good works, one starts to experience God's glory NOW and to become more like Him. Hence the ascetic life is called the "angelic life" because one starts to resemble an angel. In the saints' lives, this often takes the form of being in more than one place at a time, clear sight of spiritual things and matters, ability to read hearts, prophecy, speaking in languages that one does not know, theological understanding without study, undergoing torments without pain, etc. In other words, for us, heaven starts now, and our liturgical worship is, in some way, reflective of that.
The issue of the filioque is treated superficially here. When the creed was written by the ecumenical church represented in the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, the Greek ekporeuetai or 'travel out from' from John 15:26 was understood to be the source of the Spirit's eternal existence from the Father, as the 'begotteness' of the Son is His. Since the Father is the ultimate source of all existence, it is heretical to say the Son is also the eternal source of existence. The Latin 'procedere" from which proceeds derives, means to travel forward. The Latin trained mind seems to equate 'proceed' with 'send,' which are operations of the Trinity in time. The Father sends the Son and the Spirit, the Son sends the Spirit and the Spirit sends the Son. St. Augustine apparently understood proceed to apply to both the eternal source of existence, as well as the sending in time, this influenced the Latin Church. But you can't go back and change the meaning of the terms and still confess the same creed. Papal supremacy became an issue as the Pope tried to impose the filioque without the consensus of an ecumenical council. Some Roman Catholics now admit the filioque is heretical in Greek.
Thanks for adding nuance here. I’ll be honest…this is just not an issue that has come up as a major doctrinal issue for me. And I suspect the same is true for most Protestants. It just hasn’t seemed like a big issue to most of us. I was aware of it from church history, but I have never felt like it was major issue.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews If it was not important I doubt Jesus would have added an otherwise unnecessary phrase in his discussion, or John have recorded it. The councils were at the time of the Arian heresy, and so the Trinitarian doctrine was first and foremost.
@ not saying you are wrong to stress it’s importance. In a sense, it changed the trajectory of the lives of millions and split a church.
Great observations. Also, unless I misunderstand, isn’t it pronounced “Fili-OH-quay,” not “FILI-oh-quay?”
@@sbtri85 I don't speak Latin, not sure how it is pronounced. Since we have never heard a Roman speak perhaps nobody knows.
This is a fantastic video that offers a broad overview of the distinctions. Regarding clerical marriage in Eastern Orthodoxy, it's worth noting that while a married man can become a priest, a priest cannot marry. That’s an important distinction.
I was surprised you didn’t reference 2 Peter 1:4 when discussing Deification (Theosis): “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” This verse is frequently cited by the Church Fathers on the topic.
Of course, vast volumes have been written on all ten topics over the past thousand years. Overall, this was an excellent and concise presentation.
@@shawnbrewer7 thanks so much
Thanks
Thanks so much!
As a protestant of protestants, I am not entirely surprised by #10. The Bride of Christ will be flesh of His flesh and bone of his bone. John 17 says we will be perfectly one with Christ just as the Father and the Son are perfectly one. Revelation 3:12 and 7:3 have the name of God written on his servants where Zechariah 14:9 says that the Lord and his name will be one in that day, the Day of the Lord.
Jesus said that, in glory, we will be like the angels and sons of God (Luke 20:34-36). The Old Testament often refers to angels as elohim, as gods, little g.
I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
--Psalms 82:6-7, ESV
And we see that the false gods that Israel and others worshipped in the OT were really the angels, the host of heaven: Deuteronomy 17:3, 2 Kings 17:16 and 21:3, 2 Chronicles 33:3, and Acts 7:42.
At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of its officials, the bones of the priests, the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be brought out of their tombs. And they shall be spread before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and served, which they have gone after, and which they have sought and worshiped. And they shall not be gathered or buried. They shall be as dung on the surface of the ground.
--Jeremiah 8:1-2, ESV
Pretty much every use of gods, little g, in the Bible refers to angelic beings with angelic bodies just like the resurrection bodies that we will receive when glorified.
Now, are we ever going to be God? Of course not!!!!! Just like the marriage model, though we are one with God, we will always be subservient to God and to his authority. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will always be far greater than we are, but we will bear his name, act in his name, and be perfectly one with him. That is powerful, powerful stuff.
You said both made innovations... Show me the innovations of the Orthodox Church please.
Great video, Brother!
Thanks for watching
We Orthodox take the view that all people will inevitably sin, but we do not believe we are BORN as sinners.
That’s a succinct way of putting it. Thanks
Can't speak for RCC but Orthodoxy absolutely does not teach that you are saved by works. What they do teach is exactly as stated by St James:
Faith without works is dead” James 2:14-26:
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:10.
When you walk in those works they are salvific in as much that you:
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” Philippians 2:12
Faith/faithfulness/trust always precedes works for them to be of any value in God's sight.
Remember being saved by faith alone was never believed for 1500 years (& neither was imputed righteousness). It's an oversimplification that taken at face value simply describes mental assent. In trying to use this as a divider between RCC & the ideas of the Reformation was not a great idea.
Even most knowledgeable Protestants don't actually believe that works are unnecessary. Real faith is always evidenced by our actions to some degree or other.
Prayers for the dead can be found in 2 Maccabees 12: 43-45... That's a book that Martin Luther removed from the Bible and called it apocryphal... which it is not. It adds value to Christians because it teaches us the history of how the Jews fought for their freedom and built the second temple... and prayed for the dead with offerings of silver to raise them up by setting them free from their transgressions.
The split in the Catholic Church originally happened due to Emperor Constantine moving his capital from Rome to his new capital Constantinople in the 4th century, over time in about the 7th century there was a power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and then finally in the 11th century the final split took place.
Great video! I would add that as Catholics we believe that original sin is "analogical" and is only called sin in the sense that it is sin "contracted" and not "committed", it is a state of being, and not an act. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992, #404). So the guilt is having the disease of sin, it is not necessarily that a person bears the responsibility for the Adam's original sin, but a person does bear the disease of sin in his or her fallen state. I hope that helps.
Thanks that’s a helpful distinction!
Unfortunately, the Roman church’s view of original sin leads to the unnecessary and false doctrine of the immaculate conception.
Those theological mistakes and their logical ramifications are a major part of why I left that church and they’re valid criticisms often made non-Christians.
@@MatlockMoto what do you make of the consecration of Jeremiah before his birth in Jeremiah 1:5?
@@AnthonyKuenzel I don’t know what you mean by what do I make of it?
@@MatlockMoto you had stated that the doctrine of immaculate conception was false, but Jeremiah is immaculately conceived in Jeremiah 1:5 so I was wondering if you accepted that parallel immaculate conception?
Eastern Orthodox priest here. One point of nuance that should be understood about clerical marriage in the Orthodox Church is that married men can be ordained to the diaconate and priesthood, but deacons and priests are not permitted to “get married.” The marriage must have taken place prior to ordination.
That’s a great correction! Thanks!
@ Excellent video! Thank you for taking the time to put it together!
Corrections:
# 3: In Eastern catholics and Eastern Orthodox married men can be ordained to be priests, but priests cannot marry after being ordained. If they do, which they can, they must leave the priesthood.
Original Sin: Your description of Catholic understanding of Original Sin is wrong. Below is quote from Catechism of the Catholic Church (Emphasis in capital added)
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, THE TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN IS A MYSTERY THAT WE CANNOT FULLY UNDERSTAND. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed A PERSONAL SIN, but THIS SIN AFFECTED THE HUMAN NATURE THAT THEY WOULD THEN TRANSMIT IN A FALLEN STATE. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”-a state and not an act.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 404
# 10: The Greek term of what you described is theosis. This is not unique to Eastern Orthodox Church because the Catholic Church and some Protestant churches do believe it as well. It is based on what Scripture says that we become partakers of divine nature (2 Pe. 1:4).
Last but not least, Immaculate Conception is not stated in the Bible, but the Bible neither gives us the list of inspired books. Both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church accept the sinlessness of Mary and her title as Theotokos (God Bearer).
Thanks. The point on Orthodox Priests marrying is a good one. (I did try to be specific as far as the Latin rite.) A couple others mentioned that. It’s a good correction.
I’m unclear what I said wrong about the RC understanding of original sin after reading your comment.
I am aware that some others do regard theosis as a legitimate category. My understanding is that it is emphasized more in Orthodoxy while RC’s tend to focus on categories like sanctification. Am I mistaken on that?
(As far as the immaculate conception, I think we just disagree. For me, I don’t lose sleep over RC’s believing that though)
Your correction on number 3 was really good. We also don't allow priests to divorce. A priest who gets divorced has to leave the priesthood as well. A priest also needs the consent of his wife to be a priest. So all of that is pretty important stuff. Secondly I will say I also don't understand how what you said about original sin is any different than what he said? You said it was totally wrong, but it seems like a less elaborate version of what you said? And lastly on the immaculate conception, I don't know of even any apocryphal text that states that Mary was immaculately conceived? Nor do I know of any Biblical books the Roman Catholic Church claims to be canon that we don't?
@@SolidSnake0 Stephen said in the video (@ 6:01 - 6:20) that to Catholics original sin is inherited guilt while the Eastern Orthodox talks more on consequences of Original Sin. He drew the conclusion from Latin Vulgate, not from Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you read that clause you will notice that what Adam did is his personal sin and it does talk about consequences of Original Sin. Compare it with what Reformed scholar Michael Horton wrote about Original Sin:
The sin of Adam was imputed to the human race as a covenantal entity in solidarity because it was imputed to each member (Ro 5:12). This notion of imputing the sin of one person to each Israelite - and thus to the nation generally - is found elsewhere, as in Achan’s theft (Josh 7:10-26). Just as our guilt is imputed to us in Adam, our covenantal head, righteousness is imputed to us in Christ. Original sin and justification by imputed righteousness stand or fall together.
Horton, M.: Pilgrim Theology, Zondervan page 294
Immaculate Conception is not stated explicitly in any book of the Bible. Both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in her sinlessness. She, being a human, is sinless by grace of God while Christ is sinless by His own power as the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity. All of us when tempted by sin also receive grace from God to endure the temptation (1 Cor. 10:13), but we still sin. The reason is we were born with fallen nature (the consequence/effect of Original Sin). Why Mary can endure the temptation which all of us are not able? This the reason why the Catholic Church believes in her Immaculate Conception - it was gracious act from God, not from herself. Adam and Eve were also created immaculate and they sinned because God let them do so - God did not make them commit sin.
@@SolidSnake0 Between 6:01 and 6:20 Stephen said that the Catholic Church understanding of Original Sin is on the guilt of Original Sin while the Eastern Orthodox is on its consequences. His conclusion is based on Latin Vulgate of Rom. 5:12. The clause of Catechism I cited did mention the consequence or effect of Original Sin and says Adam sin was his personal sin.
Immaculate Conception is not stated explicitly in any book of the Bible. Both CC and EOC believe in sinlessness of Mary. She, being a human, is sinless by grace from God or not by her own power/ability, while Jesus is sinless by His own power as the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. All of us, when we are tempted, also receive grace in the form of way of escape so that we can endure (1 Cor. 10:13) - but we are still unable to avoid sinning, before and after becoming believers. The reason is we are all born in fallen nature due to Original Sin. What makes her different? God graciously exempt her from Original Sin. Adam and Eve were created immaculate but they did sin because God let them do so, but God did not make them (or predestined them to) sin.
@@wibisonohartono incorrect. In fact that doesn't even make sense. If God could just make someone sinless in the way you described then why the cross? Wouldn't he just do that for everyone then? Sure he could, but that wouldn't be salvific. You're not understanding ancestoral sin. Ancestoral sin did not bring the possibility of sin into the world. Free will did that. What ancestoral sin did was bring sin into nature. Where now because of ancestoral sin, sin is in man's nature. Man's nature has essentially fallen. But now man inherits the nature of the sin of Adam and in fact the nature of sin from their ancestors. So those sins now become natural to the individual. What makes Mary unique was she came from a very specific bloodline. The Davidic bloodline. One God had been well-rooted in so she had less ancestoral sin than everyone else. But she still had to make a choice, and she chose not to sin. I'll give you an example of this. We know, scientifically that the children of alcoholics are more likely to grow up to be alcoholics themselves, even if they're adopted at birth. Why is that? Because they inherited the nature of that sin. However, they can, and some do choose to never touch a drop of alcohol in their life. But you wouldn't say they're an alcoholic. Just because they have the nature of that sin. To incur guilt, you have to participate in the sin.
I think the 10th point on salvation becoming divine they call theosis. What you missed is that they don't see salvation as a one time transaction but that it is an ongoing transformation. As in 2 Pe 1:4 we become partakers of the divine nature and as in Philippians we continue to work out our salvation the goal of which is the process to restore the image of God in us corrupted by the ancestral sin of the fall. In the protestant church we see sanctification as the after effect of salvation they see it as the process of salvation.
Yeah Salvation is something that Has happened, is happening and will happen, in our view. Good point on the restoration of the image (icon) of God in man. This is what we call Theosis, man is restored to what we were and glorified beyond it.
I am very pleasantly surprised to see a Protestant with such an accurate view. It gets so very frustrating being Orthodox in America to hear theosis characterized as works salvation. This is a breath of fresh air!
Thank you for the fun video! Without assigning one word to describe the office, how would you define Titus and Timothy’s role in the Church?
The differences in how Catholics and Orthodox understand the Trinity are foundational, probably more than any point listed here. This would provide the *why* behind the filioque controversy.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the problems with eastern orthodoxy. We all know that Hank Hanegraaff but more importantly to me, my brother also switched to the Greek orthodox church. This has left my family in a state of confusion and we need clarity as we are reformed believers.
ua-cam.com/video/SDVbVNoBTYs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_yQBY2lPWUc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5mEMG4tkQf0/v-deo.html
You have my sympathies; it is sad when people go to these sects. www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvinist_on_orthodoxy.html
Seraphim Hamilton has a good series of videos speaking about Orthodoxy to Protestants. It's a good channel for someone who people committed to the Reformed positions to watch, as he unpacks many things in good detail and limits himself to the 66 books Protestants accept.
Great thoughts Stephen. I have had very little interaction with Eatern Orthodoxy. I have family and friends who are Catholic. Have you looked into the Eastern thoughts on the cross and the Bible? I saw a video once from an Eastern Orthodox priest who said the cross was just a way to get our attention or show us God's love but was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. I have not researched this. Perhaps you have a part 2 in the works 😀
I mean, God could have forgiven our sins anyway he thought best, as he is God. So the Cross isn't necessary in that sense. That said, that is the way God chose to save his people, so it's clearly the best way and, in a real sense, the only way since that is the way he chose to do it.
The problem with both of these major faiths is their subordination of Scripture to their own traditions and customs that are man made and not divine ordinances. I grew up in both of these religions but Jesus gloriously and radically saved me in my early 20’s. I went to an Evangelical Seminary and learned much, unfortunately most people of these religions aren’t taught to be Born Again but follow traditions and beliefs that are man made.
On that Eastern deification: I am not aware of any doctrines in any camps dealing with this, but I have needed to become more cognizant of the significance of the spiritual beings through Michael Heiser. Might the earlier Eastern scholars have been thinking of our human responsibilities in also being "gods" as the spirit beings were assigned duties as "gods" over the nations, especially as they had misused their authority?
While I can appreciate the effort to share the differences between Catholic and Orthodox, you are lacking a lot of information and understanding. Orthodox do agree on Papal primacy not supremacy. The understanding that the successor of Peter, the Pope exercises supreme authority can be seen as far back as the 3rd Pope, Pope Clement in his letter to the church in Corinth. Again the eastern bishops clearly acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope when St Pope Leo the Great issued his Tome on Christology at the Council of Chalcedon. Everything Leo wrote was absolutely accepted by the east. This is exactly what was used as the reference to Vat I to show the claim of Papal infallibility was claimed and exercised by Pope Leo. This issue was also accepted at the council of Florence then the east back out of what they already agreed upon. Remember many eastern churches returned to full visible communion with Rome, and clearly acknowledge the authority or the Bishop of Rome, why is a really good question to ask! Obviously Papal authority was accepted by the east at some time. Original sin vs ancestral sins is just expressing the same thing in a different way. I will say it is true the east followed a Hellenistic view with a emphasis on Plato and Aristotle, where as the west has a greater emphasis on Roman law and reason, and is more legalistic. The Filioque was a direct response to the Arian heresy which came out of the east, and if not for the Pope and St Athenasius it would have prevailed. The Orthodox are actually responsible for the Filioque, no Arian heresy no Filioque. They share in this issue but wont own up to it. The immaculate conception of Mary has been taught by the Church for centuries. The celebration of the conception of Mary came out of the east and the issue of her immaculate conception was debated all through the middle ages. Scripture does support this understanding, of course it helps if you have a bible with all the books in it. Genesis 3:15, the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin. Next in Luke 1:28 The salutation of the angel Gabriel - chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Granted the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma. Other references are Proverbs 8, and Sirach 24. Early Church typology sees Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant because in her womb Mary carries the Word of God (Jesus), the bread of Life (John 6) and the priesthood. in Jewish tradition the Ark was considered the most sacred object, representing God's physical presence on earth, and serving as a symbol of the covenant between God and the Israelites. How much more sacred, how much more purer is our Holy Mother who brings forth God's only begotten Son, the redeemer of all mankind, the King of heaven. Doctrinal development does not create new doctrine, that is a major misunderstanding. It does allow the Church to receive a deeper and more profound understanding of the truths that are already believed. It is clear western theology is much much more advanced than our Orthodox brothers. Bit of a correction on priestly marriage in the east. Orthodox priest are NOT allowed to marry after their ordination. The differences between east and west are mainly due to the differences in language, and culture. Unity will come, and I look forward to that day when the church breaths with both lungs. For we must be obedient to our Lords prayer "May they all be one" Pax
Other texts
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed and thoughtful comment on my video. I appreciate the depth of theological knowledge you've shared, and it's clear you've given considerable thought to the nuances between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions.
A few reflections on your points:
Regarding Papal authority, you've highlighted some important historical moments that add complexity to the discussion. The examples of Pope Clement and Pope Leo the Great indeed show moments of significant recognition of papal leadership. However, the fundamental difference remains in how each tradition understands the nature and extent of that authority. While there were certainly periods of mutual recognition, the Orthodox and Catholic churches ultimately diverge on the concept of universal papal jurisdiction. At least, that's what it seems to me right now, as an outsider to both traditions.
Your insights on the Filioque controversy are particularly intriguing. The historical context of the Arian controversy provides a valuable perspective I didn't fully explore in the original video. It's a reminder that theological developments often emerge from specific historical and theological challenges.
I'm grateful for the correction about Orthodox priestly marriage. It's important to get these details right, and I'm always eager to improve my understanding. I leave the comment section generally open. They become part of the value of the video. These conversations are important. They reveal that theological differences are not rigid boundaries, but living landscapes shaped by nuanced interpretations, rich historical contexts, and deeply held spiritual insights. Pax, Shalom, and εἰρήνη - three words for peace that converge at the cross, where the inscription proclaimed Christ's universal kingship in the languages of empire, faith, and culture. In their intersection, we glimpse a unity that we can find in Christ that is deeper than our divisions.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I appreciate your kind response. There has been much development over the last 60 years in bringing about reconciliation and reunion between east and west. In 2007 Orthodox and Catholics signed the Ravenna Document. This document was the result of the on going theological dialogue between the two churches. In this document the Orthodox agree that the bishop of Rome has universal primacy. At this time how that primacy was exercised during the first millennium is being studied so both can agree on how that primacy will work in a united church. Primacy with synodality is looking to be they way forward. It will be informative to mention never has the Catholic church taught that the Pope can act independently and create doctrine or dogmas, he must always be in communion with his brother bishops. The Popes role has been to be the guardian and protector of the faith. In 2016-2017 I am not sure, but Metropolitan kalistos Ware (leading member of the Orthodox theological commission) stated that after deeper understanding and fruitful dialogue he no longer saw the Filioque as a dividing issue. He stated how the west theologically expresses the procession of the Holy Spirit is orthodox, they just want the west to remove it from the creed, something the United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishops recommended back in 2019. Unfortunately not all Orthodox sing from the same hymnal. The Orthodox suffer from tribalism, ethnic division and do not have true unity, nor do they express the Catholicity of the Church of Jesus Christ.
What we have here is Catholic propaganda. This view of Orthodoxy is like CNN's reporting on Donald Trump.
I would say the only major differences are the filloque, Eastern Catholics do affirm the idea of the filloque contrary to what people in the comments say, this was a much later issue though that really didn’t happen until long after the schism. Papal supremacy is upheld by orthodox just not infallibility to my understanding, even though some would say they did in the first millennium. Essence energies distinction also came about much later, was not really talked about in the fathers. Purgatory, tollhouses; very similar. Clerical marriage is something that has evolved over the years and could be changed. Orthodox also differ in the number of ecumenical councils ranging 6-9. Also annulments are not just divorce for Catholics, the process is long and hard; not as many people get it as you would think. The Church of England was founded because an annulment was not granted. Also the original sin difference in my mind is a major difference or at least causes things to be explained different. Lastly doctrinal development is necessary for every sect of Christianity, or denominations; no one can escape that; they just have to show which development is correct. And yes development is a good thing, otherwise we wouldn’t have things like the trinity, two natures of Christ, the Bible; etc. to name a few. Doctrine develops to address issues that arise within the church.
Thanks for sharing! This a helpful comment!
I don't know what you mean by "eastern Catholics"? If you mean Eastern Rite Catholicism, they do not say the Filoque in their services. If you meant Eastern orthodox, we do not accept the filioque. It is a great heresy. Mind you St. John Chrysosstom says, that even martyrdom does not remove the stain of heresy. So we take that very seriously. Next off regarding the pope of Rome, we have no affiliation with him post-schism. He is not our greatest amongst equals, that would be Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. When the pope of Rome issues his doctrines and so on they have no effect on us whatsoever. He's not part of the church anymore. Lastly there are only seven eccumenical councils. That is to say, that there are seven councils that meet the definition of being an eccumenical council as defined by the eccumenical councils (as confusing as that sounds). There's no more. So there's no "6-9" councils. It's a strict seven. Although I don't believe you meant to misrepresent our positions and you probably had good intentions with this post. It's simply not accurate. But as a former Roman Catholic myself, I understand why you would think that. Because a lot of that is stuff we're all told as Roman Catholics. Along with "we're one church east and west" and "we can all share communion". The problem is that none of that is actually true. Lastly I'll point out that the creed at Council of Constantinople does say that the Son is of one essence (or substance) with the Father depending on how you translate it. So the energy essence distinction was clearly established
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, along with other saints such as Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom, believed that God is knowable through his energies, but not in his essence. I'm not 100% on this subject, but the doctrine wasn't invented by Palamas but fully fleshed out based on the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers and others.
Well, the Eastern Catholics are sadly wrong on the filioque.
@@PeterM8987 i think you commented on the wrong thread. This thread is about essence energy distinction. Fyi.
We both affirm that Mary was not guilty of any sin. However for this to be true with the Catholic understanding she would have had to be born without original sin. Because we believe that we inherit only the consequences of Adam's sin and not the guilt we say that Mary was born in the same way that any other person is.
Marriage: The Ecumenical Council of Trent accepted the Orthodox’s beliefs on divorce. I believe it accepted up to four divorces. The Orthodox Catholic Rites do have married priests.
This was a good video. I'll start comments on things that are nicer to RCs and move on to things that aren't as nice,
The one place I think Rome might have a stronger argument is doctrinal development. It's easy to show doctrinal development everywhere, and nobody can avoid it. Cardinal Newman's argument seems inescapable. Orthodoxy, for instance, has ecumenical councils, which effectively require an emperor and codified a "symphony of powers" with the state. This, quite obviously, couldn't exist before the Emperor Constantine. Protestants have _Sola Scriptura._ This can't exist until we can print Bibles that have all the books under a single cover and the average person can have books. It also depends on the development of an idea of a closed list of inspired books. None of that existed in the apostolic era. We have to argue that there was some precursor that naturally develops into the idea, but that is precisely the "seed" that is at the heart of the idea of doctrinal development. I don't see how the RCC can be wrong on this assertion.
For purgatory, I was friends with a RC while getting my bachelor's. I brought up the picture of purgatory as having to pay legal penalties on top of the sacrifice of Christ, and he lent me the Catechism of the Catholic Church and told me to to read it. Their definition of purgatory is so broad that the Orthodox view of post-mortem purification that is not in a place would still qualify as purgatory and in bounds for the RCC. It very much seems to be a case of our (Orthodox) wanting to avoid a term just because it's RC.
The RC view of original sin is possible for the Orthodox. It was held in the west prior to the Schism, so it's in bounds. It just isn't the view that's commonly held. Neither is anybody bound to deny the immaculate conception. It would just be a pious/impious opinion. I don't hold it myself but take my queue from Fathers who said she was purified when she said "Be it unto me according to thy word."
The differences in ecclesiology and the pope (which I think is a single issue) boils down to the idea that the leadership, while having authority, is based on consensus. The papacy had authority, but it was checked by other bishops and consensus. It was the abandonment of this idea of consensus that probably kicked off everything else. To me, the papacy seems to be the very embodiment of ruling after the order of the nations. "No man judges the first see" started because Pope Symmachus was going to be on trial for, let's just say, misconduct (I don't want YT locking my commenting ability). Pope Nicholas pushed the Filioque and papal power, because he was a house pope for the Franks, and he (or an agent for him) forged documents asserting he had effectively unchecked power and rewrote history. The papacy seems to be at the heart of it, and jumps in papal power seem to happen in manners like this, and then are read back into earlier statements.
In fact, I think the papacy is almost the sole requirement for being RC. Can you reject the _Filioque_ as heretical? Yes, some eastern Catholics do. Can you deny the RC teaching on marriage? Yes, the German bishops do. Even the _Filioque_ is really just a papacy issue, becuase it boils down to "Do I have the authority to change the Creed the Chalcedon said cannot be changed?" The only thing that really seems out of bounds is being too sharp on the papacy. This makes me think the papacy is very much like Jeroboam's reign. He was given true, real authority by the prophet. It wasn't enough, so he created a new priesthood and cultic center so he could have power. What started out as a real blessing of God "You'll be king" devolved. The papacy had real power, and it's possible to see Rome's role in how both Paul and Ignatius writes to them, but it seems it just wasn't enough.
The question of divorce vs. anullments really strikes me as a polite lie on the part of RCs. The grounds for anullment are so broad almost anybody can get one. So, people get an anullment, say they were never married, while anybody can see the practical reality that they were. It's basically a divorce for people who don't want to admit they have divorce.
Probably the biggest issue that wasn't listed is the essence-energies distinction. This is what makes theosis possible without it becoming something like the Mormon doctrine. In fact, this doctrine of energies makes the councils work, too. I think it's a necessary doctrine to really understand Paul's writings, but it also applies to our christology, our salvation, our views of inspiration of Scripture, basically everything. However it doesn't exist in the west at all (I think that's a language issue).
Another big thing for salvation is that Orthodoxy has no conception of penal substitutionary atonement. There is a substitutionary atonement, but no penal form. I suspect most of your viewers hold to a form of PSA and think it's ubiquitous so that it'd be hard to even recognize its not being there.
Overall, my not remotely authoritative opinion, is that reunion could be possible if the following happened:
- The papacy gave up unilateral claims to infallibility and being above judgment
- The papacy accepted that he doesn't have universal, immediate, and ordinary authority over Christians
- The Orthodox accept that papal authority in the first millennium wasn't merely honorific (the evidence is fairly one-sided on that)
- The Orthodox accept that many of the doctrinal developments in the west, if they aren't dogma, are just opinions that people may hold with no binding authority.
- The West recognized the essence-energies distinction. There are some people who are working to reconcile that with Thomism, but that work is over my head.
I watch what's happening, and I wonder if we're seeing God prep the pumps for something like that. There's no good way to defend Pope Francis and his innovations. The Orthodox churches are a complete mess and becoming increasingly impotent. The Protestant churches are largely devolving and degrading so that SS is having to be checked into non-existence if anybody is to be remotely traditional.
Things are changing, and for the first time when everyone is falling apart into a mess, we can see that it's happening everywhere at once due to the internet. This is going to be a weird era coming up.
So that I'm clear on this point...The Orthodox would deny that Pope Francis has supreme authority over the entire church. Is that an accurate statement? There is some push back on my understanding on this point in the comments, and I want to make sure I'm understanding properly.
I really appreciate your comment here very much. It adds depth and nuance; I was hoping you would share your thoughts on this video.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks.
For Pope Francis, Orthodoxy would deny him that authority; he's in schism. Nobody will obey him :)
For the papacy in general, part of the problem with it is that the early church was not precise.
We know Rome had a special status and authority: Romans is the only book that Paul tried to systematize his doctrine for. Ignatius wrote them differently than other churches. It was the church that various congregations appealed to for arbitration. It could call and head councils. I could list others, but it's very clear that Rome had a special position.
It's also clear there were limits. There were several occasions Rome demanded something, and it resulted in schism, and there were popes censured for heresy and excommunicated. The exact number of heretical popes varies by the person counting, but they existed. The Apostle Paul warned the Romans that their branch could be cut off, which also mandates limitations.
However, its special position led to Hellenistic flowery language in which it was given over the top compliments. Now this flowery language is taken literally by RCs, but it is not a given it should be.
There were also lots of forgeries to enhance papal power that entered uncontested into history and were only contested church-wide after they bore divisive fruit. By then it was too late.
As a result, there are several positions in Orthodoxy about the range in power the pope had and should have. We simply don't know. More often than not, you learn more about the particular Orthodox or RC commenting than you do about the first century on account of all the confusion. I haven't read half of the material from history, but I've run into mutually exclusive claims and positions, methodologies, and the like. Most of the time, people form their positions from quote mines and never bother to look at the surrounding circumstances.
My suspicion (and I'll never be in a position to do anything about it, so it's well-nigh worthless) is that most of the positions are partly true in their claims, the schism was illicit, and God will set it right at some point in the future. We may convince ourselves our position is infallible, but God is not so easily hoodwinked ;)
@@kainech Amen the schism will be healed in Gods good time - God will heal the wound in His body that prideful men have wrought in His good time.
@@kainech Thanks. That helps clarify
#10. Dr. Jordan B Cooper, a Confessional Lutheran, has some videos on his channel about theosis from his Lutheran perspective.
A married man can become an Orthodox priest, but an ordained priest cannot get married. He must be married before ordination.
This is a good correction. A couple others mentioned this as well. Thanks for watching
Also the Orthodox Church does not have councils unless there is a serious threat to the faith so it becomes necessary to explicate Holy Tradition in a specific area.ex. Arianism. The council explicated trinitarian theology to refute Arianism with the Nicene Creed. This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church where doctrine develops and is ever changing. Compare Vatican 1 and 2.
Hello again. I think Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in salvation by grace through faith. It’s their definition of faith that differs from a Protestant’s.
How would you characterize the Eastern definition of faith, and how does it differ from Catholic and Evangelical?
@ Hebrews 11:1, 1 John 4:17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:17.
It appears that faith is where belief and action are united in love. It’s love for God because He first loved us. Thus, John 14:15 and Matthew 7:23.
What do you think?
@@StewForTheGospel thanks, Stew. I don't know where to start. You could never be faulted for impracticality. Or, as you label it "action". I was thinking of faith in terms of faith for salvation and for justification. You have assembled verses which I had not thought of together. Heb. 11:1 is on my list for trying to understand. The use of the tenses combined with my not understanding the "hupostasis" has long left me befuddled. So it bothers me that everyone has always quoted it so easily. Call it envy. I just have been too busy to study it. Paul's use of "faith" in 1 Corin. 13 seems to speak to a practical exercise of understanding or "knowledge", in the context . It seems that those people were arrogant on that point, and that Paul is saying,"If you think that you know so much, just keep such knowledge to yourself." But here in this chapter "faith" is very different from Paul's faith in Romans. I have very serious disagreement with the Church's acceptance of James "Jacob" in the Bible. And 2:17, "the faith if it does not have works is dead, being by itself." ,to me is not a Christian expression. The same meaning is expressed in 2:18,20, and 26 "faith without works" where in verses 20 & 26 such a "faith without works is dead". Such deadness seems to be the utility of that faith. This seems to be a matter of practicality. I read so many commentaries and listened to so many sermons on James 2, and all of the Evangelical ones assured us that James does not mean that works are necessary for salvation and justification. But then everybody morphs that into an insistance that works ARE NECESSARY for salvation and for justification. For me, this is a big thing. I recently listened to a series of Evangelical popular Bible teachers on You Tube explaining the relationship of faith and works relating to salvation and justification. I then listened to some Roman Catholics. They all said the same things, sometimes using identical wording. This shook me up. I hoped that at least the Evangelicals would pretend to sound "Reformed" and Protestant. But they all quoted James. And they agreed with the Catholics on James, and the need for works FOR JUSTIFICATION !!! This is why I asked you about Eastern Orthodoxy. I am angry about Evangelical, and Reformed Bible teachers quoting the Reformed slogan "sola fide", faith alone", yet then also insisting that works are necessary for justification. Faith alone means faith without works. This is what "alone" always meant. The Reformers made that clear. The Councils of Trent made it clear that "faith alone " meant without works for the Catholics. But now, because of James 2, it seems that Evangelicals agree with Catholics. I am feeling quite alone.
@@StewForTheGospel I just wrote a long reply, and it said "posted". But I don't see it.
@JosephBoxmeyer-u3d Let me start by saying you’re not alone. I love my family. I was raised Baptist. My wife grew up Lutheran. If I was to use a term that described where she’s at now, I’d say Reformed Baptist. My entire family is a mix of different Protestant denominations. I currently attend a Lutheran Church with my wife and in-laws. However, I do not take communion because of my beliefs. My heart (feeling and reason) is for Eastern Orthodoxy. For painful reasons, I’m unable to attending a local parish. I feel “quite alone.” However, we are not alone. The mystery of salvation is not as clear as Christians may claim. God desires our salvation. He desires our repentance. He created us to be loved, and for us to love Him. He is forgiving and merciful, and He died for all of us. Therefore, trusting that God is righteous in His judgement, I am trying to love God with my whole heart. My hope is that my family and I will end up in His Body.
The key is Love. Therefore, we can find solitude in Romans 8:26-39. Emphasis on verses 28, & 37-39.
1 John 4:18 is also very encouraging. I try not to worry about salvation. Psalm 139:8. Luke 19:11-27. I love God. I love who He is. I’m thankful for what I’ve been given. Therefore, I’m trying to love him by loving my family, friends and neighbors, coworkers, other Christian’s, and UA-cam commenters. Through many means, we can participate in God’s work for His creation, and be fruitful.
We’ve been given 1 coin, I’d love to profit 9 more coins for God, God willing. However, I’m the type of man that will bring back 2. I hope I don’t burry my 1 coin. If I’m successful in bring back 2, I hope Christ will have mercy on me for not bringing 5. Also, Luke 12:41-48.
I digress… I do think you should visit and/or get in contact with a local Easter Orthodox priest. They’re more helpful than I could. They’re gifted, by the Holy Spirit, to help you receive correct EO teachings for the questions you may have. I hope you keep desiring after the God who is beyond our understanding. Take hope that He can’t be rationalized.
As a Catholic, this is a good video.
The Filioque is John 20:20-23. Jesus (God) breathes on the apostles and they receive the holy spirit. This is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. This is also the sacrament of reconciliation. The first thing Jesus (God) does is give the apostles the authority to forgive sins. Only God can forgive sins? Yes, here is God giving that authority to these men. This shows we have a need for reconciliation and the Bible never say this need we have ever ends. This carries down to the successors to the apostles, the Bishops.
Not all Orthodox Churches disagree on the Filioque or call it heresy. In fact, the patriarch of Constantinople that was excommunicated for rejecting the Filioque later repented and rejoined communion with the pope.
Catholicism is made up of multiple Eastern Rites that are apostolic with these Orthodox religions. These Eastern Rites fully submit to the ten issues you have pointed out that we disagree on.
The main error in the video is the description of “development” teachings as being “new” teachings. That would be like saying the Trinity is a new teaching because it took 300 years to define it at Nicea I. Development is the Church studying, debating and praying for an extended amount of time before defining a belief. The belief was always there, it just not created a definition. Think of it like a dictionary. We have the meaning being thought out and then a word is attached to that meaning at a council or a pope (Supreme Pontiff) infallibly defines it. There are beliefs that haven’t been infallibly defined yet and it is fully acceptable if it takes 1,800 years to do so.
Catholics are expected to submit to infallible teachings. We submit to divinely inspired teachings called dogma and we submit to definitive teachings in councils and by popes. A point of contention with those that broke away after Vatican II is in St John Paul’s profession of faith (on the Vatican website) that starts with the word “Moreover…”. It states we must accept non-definitive teachings with intellect and will.
Basically, per St Paul’s teachings on unity, we cannot pick and choose our beliefs. Hebrews 13:17, we obey those God put over us (bishops). Luke 10:16, “He who hears you hears me.” In council or when the pope teaches, it is as if Jesus taught it. To have these two beliefs requires God give his a protection from it turning into a Jim Jones Cult. Matthew 16:18-19. The papacy and Church will not teach heresy. That is a divine protection by the Holy Spirit (remember God breathed on the apostles). This is called papal indefectibility.
With that comes Papal Supremacy. All councils to be ecumenical must be approved by the pope and he has line item veto. One has to study the councils, their history and their Acts to see it.
Michael Lofton Show has multiple videos on all of this.
Thanks for your charitable engagement! I really appreciate you watching and adding some encouragement!
@
You’re welcome. It’s very nice to see someone make an accurate presentation of Catholicism rather than an invention of our beliefs that are not what we teach.
That is not the Holy Spirit proceeding FROM the Son. That is the Holy Spirit proceeding THROUGH the Son.
@ Where does Scripture say Jesus’ breath comes from the Father? The breath came from Jesus’s lungs, yes? If it is only through, where does this section say it comes from the Father for you to say it is through Jesus?
@
God also breathed on Adam and gavr him life. This breath came from the Father and through Jesus into Adam? Id be careful with that answer as it would lead to saying Jesus isn’t God.
The Western and Eastern Church are not "movements". The question is what is the way the Church was set is pre great schism.
The Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church are not required to use the filioque.
The Orthodox Churches do not "remarry" but simply offer a prayer for couples who are divorced and form relationship. The reason has to do with the influence of East Roman imperial law on the Orthodox Church. Also a question of who administers the Sacrament of Matrimony...the Christian couple or the Church through the priest or deacon?
As for the doctrine of the ever virgin Mary being spotless and conceived without sin...it was the opinion of all Protestant reformers and is an opinion of great antiquity.
No where within the New Testament say only the Gospels and various letters of Sts Paul, Jude, Timothy etc.contain all the apostolic teaching. This also exists within the teaching, ordering and Church itself. The view of the Early Church Fathers on this is the correct one. The do not support Protestant views. Catholic and Orthodox do not believe in justification by Faith and works. That is a Protestant cliche. Salvation is a gift from God through Christ it is not earned.
If the Orthdox accepted the early Church ordering in the Church and ancient Pentarchy there would be a reconciliation. Many of these differences are simply contrariness and acts of ill will caused by conflict.
One more thing. The Orthodox need to answer why human nature is flawed, mistaken about what good is, concupiscent and perverse.
Thanks for pointing these ideas out. The WOF and Mormons would agree with the Orthodox on number 10.
They mean something different because they have different understandings of God.
I don’t know what WOF is, but Mormons would not agree with EO on number 10. EO do not agree with Mormons.
@@StewForTheGospel Word of Faith
Thanks for watching, Brian, and your support!
@@StewForTheGospel you are right that Mormons would not agree with #10 in reality. But they do have a doctrine of deification of their own. One Mormon I interacted with on UA-cam cited Athanatius in an attempt to support his view that humans can become divine beings. But their doctrines of both God and man are entirely pagan.
IT is amazing to me that we can't seem to get Christianity right. There are serious man made error in every denomination. There are serious issues in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Luthernaism, Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and many others. Tell me where I can find a denomination that doesn't have any of these man made massive errors? I haven't found one.
I don't think that you actually side with the Orthodox on #7. Although they generally deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, they still hold that Mary never committed any sins. My question for the Orthodox is how that would be possible without some unique miracle at the point of her conception.
Doctrine you hold has been innovation of the 19th century. You should have rather ask yourself - how did Latins' exist prior to that doctrine and what position about that question was held by the Rome prior to 19th century.? But, that might be too painful to examine... Otherwise, your false doctrine has its basis in earlier false theology surrounding what you call "Original Sin". Based on false premise that mankind is completely deprived of Grace it is perfectly logical move to apply "immaculation" to the one that ought to be designated as sinless.
Orthodox position on Ancestral Sin is well expounded by St. John Chrysostom and echoed in writings of the other Fathers including St. Cyril of Alexandria. In Orthodoxy, we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature. However, our free will remains intact. St. Ephrem the Syrian wrote: "He purified the Virgin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is manifest purity in all its power.... I do not say that Mary became immortal, but that being illuminated by Grace, She was not disturbed by sinful desires."
To conclude... If Theotokos Mary was born immaculately, her nature would have not been human and consequently, Lord wouldn't deify human nature... thus rendering our salvation impossible. Some Latin "saints" warned about the dangers of that growing heresy even before it reached its maturity, like Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote: "[It is] a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness".
@johnnyd2383 could you at least try to answer the actual question, please? How was Mary even able to avoid sinning if there wasn't something special about her conception?
@@jimmu2008 I did answer that question but you are unable to see it due to the blindness caused by the heretical doctrine you adopted. Let me quote my previous comment: "...being illuminated by Grace, She was not disturbed by sinful desires".
@johnnyd2383 If you are going to be like that, repent of your arrogance! The truth is, you are not a good communicator.
@@johnnyd2383Come to think of it, "illuminated by grace" is the same as being immaculately conceived anyway. That is what we mean by "full of grace." Sounds like we agree, but you are too blinded by h____d to see if.
10) Deification/theosis is a core part of Catholic theology
It’s not emphasized to the same degree as I understand it. But I’m happy to be corrected here
@ I don't know how to quantify how much emphasis is placed on it but there seems to be quite a bit of emphasis on it from the Catholic Church. Maybe not under the explicitly through use of the terms theosis or deification but under the descriptions such as being 'partakers in the Divine Nature' or 'participating in the Divine Life' or 'sharers in the Divine Life.'
Comment to the channel .
What did you get wrong?
As Catholic I notice a superficial (misleading) understanding of Catholicism.
Original sin, Immaculate Conception Beatic Vision, purgatory .
I recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Navarre Study Bible and the documents of Vatican II.
Catholic theological terms see Modern Catholic Dictionary by Father John Hardin S.J.
May God bless you.
Could you be specific about what I said that was wrong about each one of those?
I would like to but no because too many points. Big reason because protestant words terms defintions are not the same as Catholic. Thus attempting to understand Catholic doctrine but with protestant definitions will never be fruitful.
Starting point use Catholic definitions when reading Cathoilc Church source material documents.
One error comes to mind regarding works based salvation. You mention Catholics are works based salvation. This is the protestant accusation yet is clearly wrong because the Catholic Curch does not teach that, and a catechized Catholic does not believe or even think that.
Should you persist in attempting to understand Catholicism, but with Protestant terms, you will not be successful.
Please do yourself a favor and get the Modern Catholic Dictionary by Ftr John Hardin. Then read on line the Catechism and use the Navarre Study Bible or the new Ignatius Study bible.
Read pray discern. There is a lot of material to read and will take time.
Thanks, and may our Good Lord bless you.
@@marksiewert8344 I did not say that Catholics teach a "works based salvation". I said they teach in justification by faith and good works.
Robert Sungenis, Roman Catholic apologist said "...I would say no, Catholic theology does not teach that one is justified by works if we understand by the word "works" that we are doing something outside the grace of God. We cannot give God our works and say, "God, you owe me salvation because of these works I have done." The Council of Trent condemned that idea in its very first canon. It said that anybody who thinks that they can work their way to God either by the law or any of your good works, whatever they are, that's anathema. On the other hand, the Catholic church does teach that works are salvific, that they do justify, but when they use "works" in that sense, they are talking about works that are done under the auspices of God's grace that is, someone who has already entered into God's grace by faith, and God can now look at those works a lot differently than when the person was not under God's grace."
I think that is a fair summary of Catholic Theology on this point. And that's not me saying it, that's a Roman Catholic Apologist.
Apologist summarize and will not be thorough or complete.
I gave you very solid information for your benefit.
It is your choice as to what you do.
Summary your thread is not accurate regarding Catholicism. Too may errors .
@@marksiewert8344 What did he say specifically that you disagree with?
The Filoque is the tip of the iceberg of a whole different theological framework. The Orthodox ground the unity of the Trinity in the one common source - the Father (see Ephesians 4:6.) We do not think of the Trinity as Person 1, Person 2 and Person 3, but rather as One God the Father, the Father's Son and the Father's Spirit (see the Nicene Creed.) Therefore, all three persons are God because they come from God. But to keep the persons from collapsing into one three-headed God, the distinctions of Son and Spirit are declared through the relations - the begetting and proceeding from the Father. The church fathers carefully taught the distinction of relations and unity of essence. THAT is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - the distinctions of relations not stomping out the unity of essence and vice versa. The Filoque does just this. It blurs the distinction of the Father and the Son by giving to the Son a personal relation which belongs to the Father. The theological consequences have been huge in the west. Most western Christians can no longer distinguish the persons and will define the Trinity as person 1, person 2 and person 3 and arbitrarily call each "God" but having no meaningful concept of how that is. Their explanation is "it's a mystery" and for many westerners that isn't enough (rightly so) and their faith dies. For the Orthodox, we have very clear grounds for the unity and distinctions in the Trinity and can answer "Jesus and the Spirit are God because they are God of God, emanating from the Father eternally by begetting and proceeding!" This is the beautiful Orthodox faith.
I always appreciate your comments, Philip. This one helps shed light out on what’s at stake in the debate concerning the Godhead.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you for the video! Speaking about myself, when I first encountered this issue, I thought it was petty. But upon looking deeper, I realized there is much more depth to it. I hope my comment can help someone appreciate the depth of the issue and make take some time to explore it more deeply.
IN FACT THERE ARE 100 DIFFERENCES.....1054 IS A REALITY!!!
Concerning #10 - it would have been helpful to protestants to see that there is some biblical evidence to support Athanasius' comment regarding deification: 2 Peter 1.3-4 "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
I found your lumping together Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox "Faith and Good Works" to be rather simplistic and just played to protestant assumptions concerning "good works". The Eastern Orthodox view of the relationship between faith and works is much more nuanced.
Others have pointed out that the Filioque debate was about the the nature of the Godhead. Single or doubled procession within the Trinity.
Thanks! Could you help me understand how the Orthodox view justification in terms of good works? Philip Schaff was my source on that point. But he was a Protestant as well.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I have to confess that I'm an Anglican but I think the starting point is consider the word "saved". The orthodox starting point, as I understand it, is that the greek word carries the meaning of healing. West - saved / East - healed, West God as Judge / East God as Physician, West people in a Law Court / East people in a hospital. etc
May I also suggest the article Justification by Faith in the Orthodox Study Bible as well as Fr Andrew Stephen Damick's book "Arise, O God"
I think you did a nice job but your comments regarding Orthodoxy presuppose that the Bible is the sole arbiter of truth. The Bible is a book of the Church, and the Church through council determined what that canon was. The Bible is one component of Holy Tradition. The Bible doesn’t tell us everything so your comments indicating that the Orthodox Church added beliefs over the years which are not in the Bible would be mistaken and faulty epistemology.
Thanks. Yes I take a Sola Scriptura approach. So…if one doesn’t accept sola scriptura then my remarks won’t be that helpful
He needs to study better the catholic doctrine, He didn't do justice on the catholic faith, He also picked sides before he started, sounds like his already against the catholic faith.
Tah
1. The Orthodox churches hold to Papal supremacy, but their current leaders have a lot of caveats on the meaning of that, that their early bishops did not see.
2. The Catholic Church has many married priests. Just not in the Latin Rite. There are many rites in the Catholic Church under the pope.
3. The Orthodox bishops and the emperor all accepted the filioque in the ecumenical council of Florence. But when Constantinople fell their Islamic leader made them renig on their council, which they did to survive. Many of the intellectuals of Constantinople fled as a result and kicked off the Italian Renaissance. One distinguishing feature is in English Orthodox scholars translate filioque with the word "through" rather than "and" which is also accepted by the Roman Rite.
4. The Eastern Church fathers all accepted the Immaculate Conception. I don't think today's Orthodox churches would dare reject it. They just argue against it being dogma.
4. All Christians hold to Purgatory, because the Catholic understanding of Purgatory is biblical. However most Christians misrepresent Catholic views on Purgatory claiming it's a place where folk spend years or that it's a spot where folk might then go to hell. The Bible says his love is a refiners fire. That state of having our imperfections refined through his perfect fire is Purgatory. Time is speculation, not dogma. You also believe in Purgatory.
@Shevock 1. Wrong primacy is not supremacy
2. Yeah and 98% of catholics are latin rite.
3. Incorrect. Only the majority of the deligates at Florence. It was rejected by the east at large.
4. Wrong.
@@mrjustadude1 We reject the medieval articulation of purgatory. I have little problem with a post - mortem transformation to perfection through the love of Christ, as St. Ephraim taught and as many modern Latins articulate.
@@mrjustadude1 correct and the council of Florence wasn't even an eccumenical council to begin with. Session 6 of Council of Niccea II states that for a council to be considered eccumenical all Patriarchs must sign the decrees and their Synods must approve them. Well Mark of Ephesus did not sign the decrees. Neither did any of the eastern synods approve them. So this guy's just intentionally dishonest.
gee, I wonder which cult I should follow? what a farce!
@@racerx4152 well what do you believe?
Both dodgy
That picture of Adam and eve...... eve is looking like a roided body builder and it reminded me of napoleon dynamite "do you think anyone thinks im a failure because I go home to starla at night? Forget about it"
-Rex
😂
they both believe Mary ascended bodily into heaven...Catholics believe she never died...Orthodox believe she died and rose on the third day !
So the word would actually be Assumed, or an Assumption. It seems like a minor distinction but Mary was assumed, not of her own power but of Christ, Ascension would be assenting of ones own power. Basically Mary was taken into heaven by her son, Christ, of his power, not hers. When Christ Ascended it was of his own power.
As far as if Mary died or not: Catholics are allowed to believe either option, she maybe died, she maybe didn't die....that's a later development as all the earliest traditions say she died. It had a lot to do with scholasticism and the catholic theory of the immaculate conception. Basically if Mary was conceived without sin, like a new Pre-fall Eve she shouldn't "need" to die. Originally Catholics agreed she died, then it became popular to say she did not die, and now they have left it as an open question.
In the East the Feast is Called the Dormition (falling asleep, death). So we 100% believe she died.
Officially, at least, that's not correct. In the doctrine of both churches, she died a natural death. However , the focus of the (Catholic) dogma was on whether she was assumed into heaven or not, not on whether she died. But yes, the word is assumed, not ascend. It is important to note that her assumption was passive and Jesus' ascension was active. Mary was taken into heaven; Jesus rose into heaven.
@jimmu2008 I assure you the debate within catholicism is if she died or not. The assumption is an infallibllity defined doctrine in the Catholic system. Catholics can disagree on if she died or not, not on if she was assumed or not.
@@mrjustadude1 thanks for the clarification
@@mrjustadude1 I am sorry that I wasn't clear. From what I have found is that the authentic tradition of the Catholic Church is that Mary did die, but more recently, there arose an opinion that she did not die. The reasoning is that being free from both original and personal sin, she would not be subject to death. I will try to follow up with some citations.