My name is Kyle King & I am an Orthodox Christian who loves Narnia, Middle Earth, Church history, and the world of Scripture. I was inspired to name this ministry 'Barrel Aged Faith' after St. Augustine's description of the Christian faith, "Ancient Beauty, Ever New." The Faith of the Apostles is ancient but never expired, aged but always refreshing. When I was just getting started as a Protestant pastor, I discovered the ancient, apostolic churches (Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East) and became convinced that Protestantism didn't exist in the early church. I became Roman Catholic for the next 12 years & taught theology at a Catholic High School & Catholic Parish. During this time, I became much more convinced that Orthodoxy preserved Apostolic Tradition much better than Roman Catholicism and was the Catholic Church as it always claimed. Today, I am overjoyed to be an Orthodox Christian & to share the Faith of the Apostles with the world. Please pray for me.
To me, the main issue is the Filioque, and the Orthodox arguments against it are unconvincing. By the way, I'm referring to arguments made by scholars like Franzelin, not youtubers like Lofton, lol. Additionally, I find that youtube apologists like Christian Wagner (Scholastic Answer, Distinguo) and dwong address Orthodoxy much more effectively than Reason and Theology. It seems to me that Eastern Orthodox proponents struggle to counter their objections, often ignoring the evidence or obviously twisting things to fit their viewpoints.
Great interview I really enjoyed the entire thingIt was particularly interesting learning more about the western rite & listening to Fr Patrick’s stories was a real delight!
I have been watching your content for a awhile now and I can tell you are a genuine person. But I have one question for you. What do you do with all the different communions within orthodoxy and the varying ideologies on certain theological matter? How can it be the one true church when within orthodoxy there is no one authority? God bless
It used to bewilder me why Protestants gave all the time in the world to Joshua Schooping without looking into his issues even before he was ordained. Then you see all of the Protestant laity and even clergy leaving and it becomes clear: it's damage control and they've only got one.
I went from Protastant to Catholic then Orthodox and to Me the Catholic Church was as luke warm and the laymen were no different than the protestants two sides of the same coin
With regard to the Eucahrist would it be accurate to say that you no longer believe (if you did) in transsubstantiation? If so, would your postion be more like that of the Lutherans who hold for consubstantiation?
When you say 'transubstantiation,' are you referring to Thomas Aquinas' theory? The word 'transubstantiation' can have a broader meaning beyond his theory and so its important to clarify your question. Also, there are many approaches to this holy mystery by the Fathers and so one concern is that dogmatizing Aquinas' theory condemns or demotes these other patristic approaches which Orthodoxy does not wish to do. For example, here St. Gregory of Nyssa's approach (Great Catechism, 37) seems to compare the Eucharist to Christ consuming food and it becoming deified within Him as he incorporates its into Himself. So in this scenario, the food truly is Christ because this food has become Christ and is now offered to us through Him: "Some animals feed on roots which they dig up. Of others grass is the food, of others different kinds of flesh, but for man above all things bread; and, in order to continue and preserve the moisture of his body, drink, not simply water, but water frequently sweetened with wine, to join forces with our internal heat. He, therefore, who thinks of these things, thinks by implication of the particular bulk of our body. For those things by being within me became my blood and flesh, the corresponding nutriment by its power of adaptation being changed into the form of my body... [W]hen He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man’s physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink (Great Catechism, 37)... For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread."
@@barrelagedfaith Yes, I am referring to the explanation expressed by Thomas Aquinas that the substance of bread or wine (i.e. its matter and form) become numerically identical to the substance of the glorified body or blood of Christ in heaven. In other words, after the words of consecration (over bread or wine), we cannot count two substances (one on the altar and one in heaven) but one substance. If there is not a total conversion of the substantial matter and form of bread (or wine) after the words of consecration, then to retain the numerical identity of the body of Christ on the altar and His body in heaven one must refer to local motion. In other words, after the consecration the glorified body of Christ in heaven moves to the altar. That is the alteranative explanation (again, if one wishes to maintain the numerical identity of the substance of Christ's body). Of course, if one does not wish to maintain the numerical identity of the substance of Christ's body on the altar and the substance of His body in heaven, then we have to maintain that there is a difference (other than substance) between the body of Christ on the altar and the body of Christ in heaven. It seems to me that in this explanation one might maintain that what is on the altar after the consecration is the spiritual body of Christ but it would not be an identity of matter and form of its substance (since a material body is not a spirit).
I converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago, coming from Catholicism. Finding Orthodoxy has been the finding of wholeness. The wholeness of beauty, love, grace, Liturgy, Tradition, truth, teachings on prayer, etc. It is the true Catholic Church. I have found that I am more Catholic as Orthodox and I have absolutely zero regrets in converting. Friends and family didn’t understand, and others overtly opposed it but I knew I had found that pearl of great price, which needed no “development of doctrine” or high minded intellectual philosophy to polish it up. It was already beautiful and radiant and nothing was lacking in it. Pre-schism “Catholicism” - when papal monarchy and the Filioque and other developments did not yet manifest - if that was the Church then, it must be the Church now. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I’m happy to be “petrified” in the Truth. ☦️
I also believe there is a wholeness in Orthodoxy that also needs to be experienced. People who try to dissect Orthodoxy in a laboratory often only see some its parts but miss the whole.
I deeply appreciate this interview. Mr. Davis published a few of my articles when he was Editor at Crisis Magazine. I admire him as a fellow Christian of great integrity. I cannot say I am at the point of leaving Catholicism, but the reasons for doing so mount every day.
I just wanted to add that Forestque’s comment on St Gregory Palamas not being a saint for Catholics is very ironic given since 2007 (or so) the Ukrainian Catholics have indeed commemorated St Gregory Palamas as a Catholic saint. That is, while he was commenting on the Latins very technically speaking, Fortesque’s comment did not age all that well, relative to the standard of the unchanging, “petrified” Orthodox faith, given even the UGCC did not venerate St Gregory Palamas as a saint when he wrote those words. If St Gregory Palamas has no reception among Western Catholicism, how can it be that he does among Eastern Catholicism? They aren’t unified in mind and heart. I read Fortesque’s book on the papacy when I was RC and discerning Orthodoxy. I was thoroughly disappointed. Somehow there not being a papal monarchy for 1000 years isn’t a problem for him. I found the book “His Broken Body” by Fr Laurent Clement far more fair and objective. He does a good job steal-manning the RC apologetic.
You seem to be a very sober voice, which is much needed in U.S. Orthodox outlets. I pray that you find stability and maintain the faith. That said, and I'm sure you've come across this already, but there's a lot of whacky stuff in U.S. Orthodoxy (pelagianism, universalism, pantheism, etc.).
In the time of the Arian herecy it was wrong to leave the church and start another. Even if much of the church was wrong. You can say oh orthodoxy but what version. Some allow divorce and remarry some even contraception and the pill. Heck certain Anglican sects might just be orthodox. Claiming orthodoxy is better idk why it's a nation church with national agendas. Reading the gulag archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn shows us that. Orthodoxy is just a cop out for those who want to divorce or want to be able to say pope is bad. They can't agree with one another and can't figure out who truely is the greater among equals. The only difference is there is not enough people pointing out orthodox problems partly because they are not a universal church they are national churches go east Catholic each of the rites have had their problems throughout the years you think this is bad... there is always a herecy.
I’m ex orthodox and now Catholic. Both churches have issues and faults. Good fair charitable video. I’m an ex pastor too. But to me what made me go catholic was in how seeing all the church fathers and saints even eastern saints and councils always talked about the importance and headship of Rome and the Pope. I don’t see how anyone can get around that. This is key and crucial and once I couldn’t deny that among MANY other reasons. I knew I had to become Catholic. I also like it and resonate with it better. Also, in ortho I had way too many bad experiences and inconsistencies. But even though I’ve been also following all these channels and reading all the same books and studying both sides for 10 years and have been in both churches, but I’m still open to deeper research and more learning and discussion. Just curious what made you decide with the East.
The answer is to burn your passions before you are burned by them. Or put another way: "You better check yo' self before you wreck yo' self" -Sir Cubed Ice
orthodox christianity was my intro into religion. almost everything i know about christianity comes from orthodox. went to an orthodox church i think 3 or 4 times. i received some blessed bread that someone tore off their eucharist although the crumbs bothered me but good experience overall. later on was in a down spell needed a boost. i was very into orthodoxy at the time catholic arguments made no sense with the evidence and arguments given by orthodox but i was down and thought to myself i think in a humble manner i hope that catholics must have really good arguments that i havent heard that they have many great saints who are obviously good people and very intelligent. and there had to be good arguments for the papacy. although i might not agree. looked into some of the arguments papacy it made more sense. then i attended a latin mass near me and it has been beyond a heavenly experience. maybe i am fooled because but i have had the thoughts that Christ is most definitely in this catholic church. i didnt have those thoughts in the orthodox church i attended. the way they treated the eucharist was how i think it should be treated. that was a big deal for me. and the priest is beyond words. there was even a moment where during the mass he was positioned in a way that looked like he had a halo/uncreated light around his head like an image of a saint.
You didn’t receive crumbs from the Eucharist. You were given _antidoron_ - bread that comes from the same loaf of bread that the Lamb (Eucharist) is cut out of; the rest of the loaf is _not_ consecrated and is given out at the end of the liturgy, to all people but especially for people who were not able to receive Holy Communion (the term _antidoron_ literally means “instead of the gifts”).
@@nuzzi6620 by crumbs i mean the crumbs that were scattered about the floor. i did learn about the blessed bread after that first experience. the bread i received also tasted great.
I suppose the Church can occasionally provide statements of moral guidance in the face of new technologies, but there should never ever be a need to change the practice of the faith - prayer, fasting, almsgiving, our liturgy, and the sacraments. Orthodox Christians following Christ the exact same way that Christians did 2000 years ago is a feature not a bug.
I was a Evangelical for 24 years, found Heiser, loved him. Great teaching, then. But became an Orthodox Christian last year. Heiser got me to think outside my box which lead to look at Orthodoxy with an open mind.
I see a lot of comments from the papist saying orthodoxy is not correct. First of all in the late 1960s the mutal excommunications were lifted by the ecumenical patriarch and the pope of the time. Vatican II says it is possible to have salvation outside the church. For the papist this should quiet you down. For those who truly believe in orthodoxy it should make you think about where the church is now since false union with rome has already happened.
orthodoxy just seems like its headed into russian orthodoxy is the only true orthodoxy meanwhile God just let the entire world go to hell because the real orthodox Jesus didnt make it to the west for almost 2000 years he got to russia and planted his flag. that just doesnt make sense to anyone.
Should be coming out soon. I found him fascinating years ago because he embraced the Benedictine monastic life as a hermit, was a patristic scholar, and student of Joseph Ratzinger.
😂 the title made me laugh. The 8th Ecumenical Council which was accompanied by the pope’s reps, who all agreed, including the pope at that time, that papal supremacy and the Filioque were heresies. Also, the forgeries created to persuade the East of papal supremacy is very telling. Last, the entire Church for the first 900 years showed the pope and other bishops were one amongst equals. Further, ever since the schism in 1054 A.D. there’s been a massive amount of innovations in the West that has moved Rome away from the apostolic faith once delivered.
I loved this video - more content like this please!!! Your genuine love for the Orthodox faith is contagious, which makes you one of the best RU-vidrs imo. Keep it up! Quick question - where did the barrel aged faith quote from in St. Augustine?
St. Augustine said 'O Beauty, Ever Ancient, Ever New." Barrel Aged Faith was a phrase I started using back in 2013 when I started a taproom and was pouring a bottle of barrel aged port for someone. It is something close to what Chesterton said about the Faith, "an aged wine" Thanks for the encouragement and certainly pray for me!
As a child the homoerotic art of the Latin church was enough for me to be suspicious. Then a feminine priest touched me in a way my father never had. It took me years to rediscover Christ where he was found in Holy Orthodoxy. ☦️
@@trevorwright2 Yes, good brother, and "anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Love to you and your household of faith: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."
