The Orthodox Church recognizes Jesus Christ as the ultimate and sole authority of the Church. This belief is rooted in the teachings of the New Testament, which emphasize Jesus' role as the head of the Church and the source of all authority. Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus continues to be present and active in the Church through the Holy Spirit, guiding and directing the Church's life. In the Orthodox Church, the Pope is not considered to be the supreme head of the Church. Instead, the Church is governed by a synod of bishops, who are seen as equals and who collectively represent the authority of the Church. This conciliar structure is based on the belief that the Church's authority resides in the community of believers, rather than in a single individual.
To say that everyone accepted Vatican 1 papacy is genuinely unhinged. How can you make such a claim that is just so obviously false? Shocked to hear someone say that. Plus Eastern Catholics literally just forget basically everything Rome teaches and fail to follow the CCC on numerous issues but because they kiss the papal feet they’re allowed to do whatever they want
I live in Jordan, in a small city where there are churches for Roman Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants.. the Roman Catholics/Latin Catholics have different teachings from the Melkite ones, I have asked about many things which both had contradictory in
@@baniSaqer Yup, Melkites have a feast for the Dormition of Mary. Aka her death. So Orthodox. But, Well the Immaculate Conception is literally one of the most visible infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church. If Mary was sinless in nature, inherited no effects of ancestral sin, then she would not have died. It’s a complete internal contradiction.
Yeah Catholics entire proof is “we were the first church” . Lmfao buddy. Nothing you do is said clearly in the Bible therefore you’re an idiot . Fuck off with your paganism
@@isaakchatelet7260you’re wrong this guy is not Orthodox. He is eastern catholic nothing wrong with that , we use ancient eastern christian worship but we are not Orthodox
Yes I know, your Catholics like us. I just wanted to make clear that Eastern Catholics are more complicated then this guy makes them out to be. He said that you are just Romans Catholics but with an eastern liturgy, whilst this is untrue. Every individual Eastern Catholic church has it's own history, traditions and also somewhat seperate theology. Eastern Catholocism is more complicated then he thinks.@@InnocentAlaska
In order to understand why any form of Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity one needs only to visit an Eastern Orthodox Church for vespers or Divine Liturgy and if one has real spiritual sense they will see with their own spiritual eyes that the Eastern Orthodox Church IS the true Orthodox One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Unbroken and undefiled. When one visits an Orthodox Church it will either repel your unrepentant prideful soul or it will burn purify your soul. Tears of both joy and sadness will flow from the faces of those who are truly seeking upon witnessing God’s fullness in His True Church ☦️ May God bless you who are seeking and may you find rest in Orthodoxy.
As someone who is becoming disilusioned with protestantism, I hope this is taken as constructive criticism. Your videos would be more credible and convincing if you would cite the sources you are making these claims from. The Orthodox people and sources ive interacted with have been better about this, and because of that, I am more convinced by their claims at the moment.
Eric Ybarra has thorough content on the subject. And a thick book called the Papacy. Another in depth book is “keys over the Christian world.” For the first 1000 years, there was one church and it had a Pope…
There's no orthodoxy without full Communion. Catholicism is absolute orthodoxy. Even though Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession, it's illicit according to the Catholic church, the latter having both valid and licit apostolic succession.
A part of the problem is a lot of catholics try to gloss over the churchs errors (yes, we made mistakes) in regards to the eastern churchs. there is a comment here who delves into what was said prior to the year 800 about the pope, though, at church councils.
@Kenngurthe father and the son cannot have a trait that the Holy Spirit doesn’t they all must be distinct but equal for it to make any logical sense that is why the Holy Spirit cannot proceed from the father and the son
@@GrammarPoliceBot oh, you mean blessing sinful persons so that they can eventually abandon their sin and live lives of grace and righteousness? 👀 yeah, they were doing that back then too 😊
The ITALIAN church is not the Church of Christ. I born inside a Roman Catholic country in south america and i thought it was the only church but when i started to study history and found the Bible was written in GREEK, all first milenium councils were written in GREEK and the communion was always with Bread instead of waffers i converted to the ancient Orthodox Faith ☦️❤️🔥💒🇬🇷📖🙏🏻🛐
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, “that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. The Book Of Romans 1:7-12 ✝️
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 ✝️
@WestCoastByzantineof course, you aren't saying that the orthodox church is false, you are just saying that his argument is based on a misunderstanding
Before the Great Schism of 1054, the Pope was an orthodox respected leader among bishops, not the sole authority. The Church's power rested on ecumenical councils, not papal supremacy
@@baniSaqer Yes, there were popes before the Schism. The papacy dates back to the earliest days of Christianity. According to tradition, Saint Peter, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, was appointed by Jesus as the leader of the apostles and the foundational figure of the Christian Church. The Bishop of Rome, who came to be known as the Pope, is considered Peter's successor. The title "pope" (from the Latin word "papa" meaning "father") was not exclusively used for the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries of Christianity, but gradually became associated with the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the universal church. Before the East-West Schism, there had been a long line of popes who served as leaders of the Western Church. The schism itself was a formal split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western (Latin) Catholic Church, with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) on one side and the Patriarch of Constantinople on the other. The split was primarily over theological, cultural, and ecclesiastical differences between the Eastern and Western churches.
ur contradicting the council of chalcedon“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out..We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop, who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.”” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
The flaw I see in catholicism that just doesn't make sense to me is that the papacy is claimed to be infallible yet popes have claimed other popes to be fallible
They have condemned some Popes as failures, but in the same statements in which they condemned a previous Pope, like the condemnation of Pope Honorius for being a Monothelite in private, Pope Agatho also asserted that Rome has never and will never teach Heresy. I also believe they were in error to condemn Honorius as a Heretic based on his private Letters, but that only means that the Church Councils are not inerrant in matters of historical fact but in matters of Faith and Morals. The Problem for the eastern Orthodox is that if they bring up this council as valid, they have to accept Pope Agathos claim to the indefectability and authority of Rome
To be infallible means no falsehood will be added to the faith. It's not that the Pope will be holy or perfect, but the Pope will never insert a lie into the faith. Even between Vatican 1 and 2, the Pope never made Vatican 2 law. Vatican 2 is just a way for all Catholic's to understand what's taking place within the Mass through their own language and culture. In Vatican 1, the Mass is in Latin, many Catholic's throughout the world never understood Latin.
@bettycollins3349 that's not the correct definition of fallibility. Also, if that were the case then how would you explain the historical market for indulgences? Was that concept not "added to the faith"? Please don't take offense. I'm trying to be sincere.
the pope is only infalliable when he is speaking from the seat of peter. which last happened in 1950. the pope is only infalliable when he intends to be infalliable, and is speaking on a moral issue. so when the pope spoke about social media, for example, while he had educated himself on the issue, he wasn't actually speaking ex cathedra. there is a good article from canonlawmadeeasy discussing this issue if you want more information so as to actually speak from knowledge and not what you heard from a pastor who knows nothing.
If you study history, you will find that thisbis absolutely not true. Numerous christian leaders opposed the idea of the papacy and papal infallibility. Some Popes have even been declared anathema after their death.
That's true there was always disent, however many did agree to the papacy, the fact of the matter is that the Pope existed and acted as the Holy See for centuries before the Patriarch of Byzantine excommunicated the Pope in the great schism. And as said in the video, Latin creeds already had the filioque for centuries before the schism, before it was added the idea of the filioque is as old as the church.
Eastern Catholicism must be a beautiful way to practice the faith. If I had an Eastern Church close by I would absolutely worship there, but also grateful for the close by Roman Catholic Church
@@myredeemerliveth83why do you have that username if you think they are heretics? I was with you until the last sentence. I think it would be heretical to say you HAVE to use unleavened bread, but it’s not heresy to use it that’s the Latin tradition
Several years ago I lived near a Roman Catholic Church (they received Eucharist the traditional Latin way) and a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church which was just across the street from it. I made very good friends with the parishioners from them both. I also attended a Syro Malabar Church north from my home. All different churches with their own liturgical expressions but still in holy communion with each other. This I believe will be what the future of the Church will look like everywhere.
@@triggered8556 Let's start with the filioque tertullian of Carthage, St. Gregory thaumaturgus, st Hilary of Poitiers, didymus the blind, st. Epiphanius of salamis, Saint agustine of Hippo Much more accepted, the filioque or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son
@@Marcel---- and what are the sources of them professing the view of the filoque accepted by Rome in the 11th century? You have the burden of proof to show that; even if they use the phrase, you have to prove it refers to the double hypostatic procession of the spirit, not just an energetic procession. I’ll also note, that the ecumenical councils affirmed that the Creed cannot be changed (Canon 7 of Ephesus), and they also teach that we need to understand the Trinity through the Cappodocien Fathers who were instrumental in trinitarian doctrine. The Cappodociens beloved in the Monarchy of the Father, not the Augustinian view. It’s also interesting to consider all the Popes who were anti-filioque, how could the “vicar of Christ” be wrong about that? :) I’ll lastly point out that eastern Catholics don’t profess the filioque during the creed, and apart from their acceptance of the papacy, their theology is almost identical to orthodox, so if the Roman Catholics accept the eastern Catholics and allow their theology, then you have no leg to stand on saying the Orthodox is wrong about this. Seeing as the Uniate churches are accepted, that implies their theology is acceptable. Or do you disagree with the Roman Catholic Church?
This guy can not make any points, false ones at that, without being pompous and condescending towards other faiths especially Christian ones. Thank you for solidifying my views on Catholicism. The Pope is not infallible. Orthodoxy is the way.
Finally someone said it !! If the pope was truly infallible, then in the Revelation of John, the pope would have unsealed the cylindrical book, which was written on the inside and on the outside.
@@cyberbules3085 the pope isn't infallible What he is is the human leader of the Church. We pray that the Holy Spirit protects us from foolishly putting a bad leader in that position. The only time the pope is Infalliable is when he speaks from the seat of Peter, which has only happened a handful of times throughout history.
@@patrickpelletier9298 Was he speaking infaillibly, when he declared, that behind all religions is the same God? Was he infaillible, when he said, that all religions are pathways to eternity? Was he infaillible, when he said, that the young people of the world should stop eating meat to save the environment?
@@cyberbules3085 of course not, 1 he wasn't speaking from the seat of peter, and 2, there is no moral teaching shown in any of those. both of those have to be met, alongside many other things canonically, for him to be speaking infalliably. go look at canonlawmadeeasy, they have a good write up on the subject.
We didn’t break communion with Rome because Rome didn’t officially add the Filioque until 1024. In fact, Pope Leo III refused to add the Filioque in 809.
The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and about the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself.
Reunification will one day come ✝️☦✝️☦✝️☦✝️☦✝️☦✝️☦✝️ “We are not competitors but brothers, and this concept must guide all our mutual actions as well as those directed to the outside world. We urge Catholics and Orthodox in all countries to learn to live together in peace and love, and to be “in harmony with one another” (Rm 15: 5). Consequently, it cannot be accepted that disloyal means be used to incite believers to pass from one Church to another, denying them their religious freedom and their traditions. We are called upon to put into practice the precept of the apostle Paul: “Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation” (Rm 15: 20).” Signed: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill
Agree to disagree, I've studied church history and councils and non of em teach papal infability or supremacy. Let me ask you a question? Church of Cyprus received autocephaly in 5th century, meaning they are self-governing church. How does that work with papal supremacy? Same for Bulgarian Orthodox Church in I believe 9th century. What about Saint Thedore the Studite that says: “But here it is a question of divine and heavenly decisions and those are reserved only to him to whom the Word of God has said: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, will be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.” And who are the men to whom this order was given? - the Apostles and their successors. And who are their successors? -he who occupies the throne of Rome and is the first; the one who sits upon the throne of Constantinople and is the second; after them, those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. That is the Pentarchic authority in the Church. It is to them that all decision belongs in divine dogmas. The Emperor and he secular authority have the duty to aid them and to confirm what they have decided.” Saint Theodore the Studite, Epistle 2.129 (PG 99: 1417)
@@Marcel----The issue wasnt with the the filioque itself, that could have been ironed out with an ecumenical council, the issue was with the adding of the filioque to the creed.
@@guineapigclips5205 but it's not forbidden for any alterations. Especially considering Orthodox dont actually use the first creed but rather altered it to bring clarity the Orthodox use The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed The Catholic Church just added the filioque because the filioque is valid and we altered it to bring clarity
Papal Primacy was a claim made. Papal supremacy was not. The entire has always showed the See of Rome respect for being the See of Peter and the See of the Old Empire. The Pope was considered first among equals. It's actually quite amusing when one reads the various languages from the Councils. There are notes from the Councils that make it seem like the Pope is the only authority here on earth... those are the notes made in Latin. Literally every other language transaltion support Papal Primacy and First Among Equals. So what's more likely-the other four Patriarchates got it wrong at every early Council? Or the Latins embellished the notes based on Western-embedded ideas thay were foreign to the East? It's most like reading into the words of others that which they wanted to hear.
Lies. The Greek is even stronger in some instances. And there is no difference between ”primacy” and ”supremacy”. A distinction made up by the eastern orthodogs. Stop parroting non scholar Truglia.
I don't know why i love orthodox. Yes truly i love orthodox. But i'am a catholic . A proud catholic 😅❤ Because most of the orthodox believers spreading hate against Catholicism. I don't know why they are doing that . But orthodox brothers and sisters still i love you ❤❤ . I also love, some of the Protestant churches . ❤❤ Because my heart said you are my brother's and sisters . 🌹
Just say eastern Catholics the term eastern will tell everyone how you worship .. the orthodox don’t call themselves Catholic even know they believe they’re the one true church . As a Byzantine catechumen I completely agree I think the phrase is very cringe.
@@lastsupperapologetics5710 Catholic meaning universal they don’t say they’re Catholics … very simple to understand you’re trying to play word games and it isn’t working
@@lastsupperapologetics5710 they don’t call themselves Catholics and you know that they think they’re catholic as in one universal church but not Catholics there is a difference
Speaking about the church of Christ while wearing a shirt of a man sitting atop a giant pile of cash sends an interesting message to those watching this video, don't you think?
Don't say false teachings. Did you are you an eastern Catholic and then that means are you an eastern orthodox???? We the orthodox Christians we are the eastern orthodox not the eastern catholics the eastern catholics belongs to Roman Catholicism greetings from Greece
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why the competition? God is present in the Church... *Capital 'C'* The East and the West are both sides of the same world!
Looked at history but I think that no papal supremacy and papal infallibility has never been part of the early church. only papal ptimacy, the pope of rome is an honorary title, because rome is doubly apostolic. 2 apostles came to rome, so the pope is the first among equals.
I mean that the doctrine of Papel infallibility started popping up much later in history, medieval era to be exact. This is not an early church doctrine. I have much love for my Catholics brothers and sisters but this is not what the early church believed.
@@bryce8418 Peter’s God-given mandate and Christ’s related promises guarantee that the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might. In 251, St. Cyprian of Carthage writes: If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). I think the misunderstanding that most others have with infallibility is that the pope is infallible himself, but the dogma is that infallibility is given by the Holy Spirit. Although some will probably argue that it started at some time, the church developed the doctrine not by making it but rather defining it
Orthodoxy priests can marry, have kids, no child sexualising abuse in Orthodoxy. We believe we are just men/human serving God and as a man we sin daily but always repent. We believe only Jesus's can be pope and that All Bishops and priests are treated as equals not like Catholics with the hierarchy kingship system. Christianity Started in the Balkans for the Europeans.
Thats kind of an ad hoc attempt to explain the ancient sources away, claiming that the primacy of Peter is a primacy of Honor. But we can see in real time in the EO territorial disputes with Moscow and Constantinople that having a Primacy of Authority is actually necessary, not just a primacy of honor
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 you haven't explained how it is necessary? There is a reason a council of bishops can ecclesiastically take a decision just as was done in the initial councils of Nicae etc. No where is it mentioned that any one bishop of the original pentarchy of bishops (Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch) had supremacy over others, yes the bishop of Rome was first among them but not over them. By your argument, we can say that the bishop of Constantinople has higher precedence over others (as it is the new Rome) but that's not the case as well. During the time of the initial councils, the regions were in communion with each other but each bishop had it's own jurisdiction, one didn't interfere in the matters of the others unless was needed like was done in the council's. They were all 'Christians'
@@noelphilip3 Well the reason I believe the Papacy is ecclesiologically necessary is because a council requires that the participants actually acknowledge the council as authoritative, which the Eastern Orthodox are utterly failing to establish for centuries at this point. There is nobody to settle the dispute and there is nobody to define what makes a council authoritative. They have no means to settle territorial disputes in ukraine, no means of settling the rebaptism Issue (which is a massive and scandalous controversy)
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 Are you saying during the early ecumenical apostolic councils, the Bishop of Rome was playing a role of Supremacy? Absolutely not. Again, it was the first among equals not over equals. Let me put another example for you, an organisation has an executive board (equivalent to the bishops) who come together to decide on matters of the organisation (think vote like system for decisions etc and other such processes), only in the event of grave issues such as corruption would they take a call to bring such perpetrators to justice (i.e. the heresies from the times). The board might have an elected representative for representation matters but the representative does not have dictatorship authorities over the others. I am not too aware of the issue in the EO church you have highlighted but doesn't mean a supremacy is the solution. By that logics there's plenty of issues in the Catholic church where in a supreme ruling may have been passed but are not necessarily accepted by the relevant Catholic sect (Read issue on Syro Malabar Catholics in Kerala)
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960LMAO no Synod has ever failed except the false Synod of Crete in 2016. We have like three Hesychast Synods, we have the Synod of Constantinople, Tarnovo, and other Synods which are accepted as inerrant
I am a Greek orthodox. I want to say that it is sin to every catholic or orthodox Christian who don't support the unity of the church. We the orthodox we have to recognise that Pope is the first bishop among equal. And we have to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic brothers. No one of us have the authority to split the body of Christ . Both Catholic and orthodox people at the end of the Creed we confess our membership to the ine holly Catholic and apostolic church.
Hi... What if the Pope wanted to be the Supreme religious leader over you? Not the first among equals but ruler of all... Because that is what Papal Supremacy wants.
Didnt you say in another video that you are still canonically roman catholic but that you attend an EC parish exclusively? Was that you, or someone else?
Kinda being dishonest about the Eastern Church not saying breaking communiom with Rome over filioque. Orthodox view schism as a great tragedy and almost a last resort. Also Pope Saint Gregory The 8th (+604) said "Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist." So the pope you would claim has infallibility declared papacy antichrist, as well as disproved your claim that papal supremacy was there from the beginning. Also Saint Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. So why shouldn't Antioch be the most important bishophric?
No the seat of Peter is in Rome and that is historically acknowledged by very early sources, nobody disputes that the Pope is the apostolic successor of Peter. The orthodox only dispute about what that means. Pope Gregorys Quote stems from a constantinople Patriarch being bestowed a title that made it sound as if the Priesthood and Authority of the Church stems from him, which is something he condemns and does not teach. And neither does Rome teach that, since Rome acknowledges Priests out of communion with Rome to be valid Priests.
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 again by this argument, the seat of Peter in Antioch (which would be the church of Antioch) ought to take a supremacy position but that is not what is being said. Antioch was the very first place a person was identified as a 'Christian'
@@noelphilip3 Peter died in Rome, the Church of Rome is literally built on Peters grave and there is no shortage of Patristics who mention this, which is why the mainstream Orthodox position is not to deny that Rome is the Church of Peter since this is historically attested to. To claim that it isnt is historically untenable
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 I don't think I was denying that Rome is the church of Peter, but I am ascerting to you that as an example the Church of Antioch is also the Church of Peter. There's biblical evidence for this (not just historical!) I am trying to get you to see the bigger picture here
@@noelphilip3 Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built, to this Church the promise of indefectability is made and the Church of Rome is literally built on Peters remains, its almost Prophetic. Nobody in history considered the Church of Antioch to be Peters Church, there is no doubt about it from the sacred Tradition which we hold to, since we do not believe in Sola Scriptura. You sound like a Protestant, this is not how apostolic Believers think or argue. To call the patristic sources "just historical" is not a tenable position, one may just as well say that the Councils were "just historical". Thats protestantism.
@@mexicangunslinger915no, he has "clarified" the matter. They get blessed as a couple. In a very roundabout way, but that is the case. Repent, and turn to Christ and His Church, Holy Orthodoxy. -former r. Catholic
I’m a Protestant looking into orthodox and Catholic faiths and my biggest hang up is this papal infallibility “since Peter”. If that was the case then why was Paul able to check Peter in Galatians? Any time church leadership is mentioned with the apostles it’s plural never singular
Am I the only one who noticed you literally pointed out that papal supremacy was not enforced/recognized for 4 centuries from the 6th century (when filioque was added to the western creed) and the 10th century when the schism happened… Due to the crazy assertion of papal supremacy that was not recognized by YOUR OWN admission
@@gianlucapagliuca491Pope Honorius was anathemised for the heresy of monolethism, Pope Vigilius was deposed for spreading heresy before repenting and Pope St Gregory the dialogist was against a universal bishop. How were the popes infallible if they were condemned for heresy? How is it a Pope venerated by both orthodox and catholics thought a universal bishop was a horrible thing, even though he would be one? “But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests” This is his writings. It's clear the vatican 1 papacy was an innovation and attempt at power. Further, they used forgeries like the donation of constantinopole to gain power.
Great video, I know you've mentioned before that your canonically Latin, but Eastern, specifically Byzantine, in practice. How long have you been attending the Byzantine Ruthenian Parish in Albuquerque?
In the Bible there is no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1 ; 4:14-15 ; 5:5 ; 8:1 ; 9:11) and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (1st Peter 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptual. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "Father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only One mediator between God and men (1st Timothy 2:5).
Amen. I would like to go further. They also give Mary unnecessary attention a.k.a. worship. I like how they say we’re not praying to Mary, we’re just talking to Mary, what do you think praying is? And why go to Mary when you can go to God himself? Catholics don’t make sense to me. And I’m pretty sure they asked to believe that Mary never sined which is a horrible belief(no offense) because the word of God is quite clear “ALL” have fallen short of the glory of God. Jesus Christ was the only one who never sined.
Is very childish how many People from other religions criticize the Catholic church we as Roman Catholics dont ever talk about different faiths. God bless you all ❤
@@Kibrekidusan...888you can’t work your way to Heaven, but if you truly believe you will work. Like being a Boy Scout. How can you call yourself a Boy Scout if you don’t care about earning the Merit Badges. You don’t earn the Merit Badges because you have to but because you want to. Otherwise, don’t be a Boy Scout. BTW: I’m a BaptaPentacostaCatholic. I’m a Bible believing Christian. I have been blessed multiple times by specific direct words, spiritual guidance and visions. He is real!!!! Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door shall open.
faith in God, but don't listen to His words? "You are Kephas and upon this Kephas I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom" from this we see that Peter is the First among Equals, as the leader of the Church.
@@destanichildress7689If you heard from protestant Brothers , you might understand my point of view " Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."Jacob 2:17 so as Christian we have things that we must do. If you read this version it tells a lot about good deeds. But for everything that we do God support is at the front as satan always put obstacles not to accomplish such things.
I’m catholic, but I like orthodoxy as well. Honestly, I don’t know as long as we both agree that the holy Trinity is true and that Jesus Christ is Lord also, we must repent for our sins and say the Lord prayer and understand that the Lord will forgive as long as you confess your sin to him, may the Lord be with all of us we all need his mercy.
They switch between saying the Pope always used it, to saying he had the authority but never exercised it, to saying it’s a doctrinal development. So they are completely inconsistent.
Are you stupid you dumb Protestant this vid is not even about you or your stupid heretic sect this is about real churches not fake shit where the pastor scams you
And the spirit within us who help us understand the book, the bible, has led many to the catholic faith. The dogmas should not contradict that, which is in scripture. Rather, it should use the scripture to enhance, clarify and verify that, which is claimed as dogma.
Who canonized that book? And if the Holy Spirit helps everyone interpret the scripture properly alone why are there hundreds of Protestant denominations with different beliefs who just claim to be teaching the Bible?
The thing is that in the first christian days that are also written in the Holy Bible, Christians believed that the Christ is the Authority of our church and Jesus Christ is the Head as Apostle Paul says and He is the ONLY One without sin and the Only One who can run our Church because we are serving a Living God. So popes have no place in our church. Also the Holy Communion was always with Bread and not waffers. Catholics have done it wrong because Saint Peter never said he is a pope. Orthodoxy is the true path, the path that Jesus said we should follow and His Apostles followed. ☦️
Ehh no... see Galatians 1:8 and look at how Islam was created. Also anyone who denies the Son denies the Father. Muhammad was a p*do... But, Jesus loves you ❤️
@@adirs.q. Ehh not really i m not gonna follow a conterversial bible written after à century from the birth of Jesus pbuh, also nope moral standards change with time and the average age of marriage in england in 1400 (800 years after the time of Muhammed pbuh) was 9-14 years old for females so yea the average weak Christian emotional argument about the prophet's marriage dosnt work unfortunatly 😅, allah also loves you and wants guidance for humans but at the same time he isnt in need for us nor a need to rest nor a need to pay for himself (jesus pbuh praying to god in the bible) nor saying he (jesus pbuh) is the way to god rather then saying the destiny, idk what wdym by deniying the son but i would rather follow an authentici quran rather then a bible written century after jesus pbuh
Same Eastern Orthodox missionary but goes in Catholic. Even our Bishop used Catholic, our missionary used orthodox because all of the missionaries men are married.
Is the pope infallible when he said That Jesus was a failure on the cross or that a relationship with jesus is dangerous or that atheists can go to heaven or that their should be a one world religion.
The Pope is the pastor of The Church. Every church has a pastor. Every church has deacons, teachers, elders, people with authority over certain aspects of the church. It's all about Unity. This is why not all Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other. This is why Protestant churches are split into thousands of different cults who teach opposing doctrines. The Church needs unity. The Church needs a pastor. That's why we have a pope. That's why the dozens of different Catholic churches are in full communion with each other, whether they are Eastern or Western, they all have one pastor, one Bishop. Amen
Yes. And that is by being in communion with your brothers and sisters in Christ. Which is why a Church is necessary. The Truth lies in Orthodoxy, in it's full, uncorrupted form. Please, come to a service some time. Peace be with you 🙏☦️
@@ElDogeRenacidoI don't agree with the orthodox church that it's compelling to me and should be to all catholics it isn't the true church and the apostolic consensus that Jesus founded. But peace to you
@@a_person737wrong. The Byzantines accept all the beliefs of Rome but keep EO liturgy. That means they accept filioque, immaculate conception, and papal fallibility and supremacy. All catholic beliefs that EO reject
im a former catholic who worships as a Born Again Evangelical Christian... although we belong to different denominations I appreciate how you defend Gods word and the Bible online
Religion is not the way to heaven having a relationship w Jesus christ is. Stop arguing about which denomination is right bc Jesus wouldn't and he doesn't care
@Marcel---- ok but the only way to go to heaven is having a relationship with Jesus. Christ doesn't care about ur apostolic succession. I can be apostle Paul's son and christ wouldn't care.
@@jonathankuruvilla5688 I agree to some extent. However, I'd say that confessing Jesus is Lord with our mouths and believing he rose on the third day will save us. It requires our faith but also our deeds to make us righteous. Jesus christ cares about us, and he makes his church and gives the keys to Peter. Whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven. His church is the piller of truth. The church is the body of christ
@Marcel---- yes I agree but people get so caught up whether their catholic ortho protestant ect but rather they sould say they are a follower of christ.
@@jonathankuruvilla5688 Yes and no (in my opinion) you see my problem why I'm not Protestant or even a person who considers themselves only a follower of christ which disassociate with churches is with "sola scriptura" or "only scripture," like you said, had said to build a relationship with Jesus christ but some people accidentally delve into a wrong faith or "heresy" even defenders of sola scriptura say its no surprise that some wander off its because mainly what scripture teaches is what jesus said and what God intended however people get so many things wrong like "the Trinity is wrong" or "hell and heaven don't actually exist its just a state of mental" or Arianism or some Hersey even said Jesus was a demigod its unreliable for someone to read the Bible without some help that's why people who don't associate with churches look up to their pastors or even some others like Martin Luther or Calvin that's why it's not really only scripture any more its more like protestant reformed founders or like your idea that it's important for people to have a relationship with Jesus christ which I agree but that doesn't explicitly mention in the bible (it can be implied) but the reason why you even have that conclusion is because of teachers or protestant theologians who actually helped develop the importance for relationship of christ while I'm not against I'm certainly sure that sola scriptura isn't reliable. Basically, I'm going with the early church fathers like Saint ignatius of antioch, who was a disciple of apostles, John and him saying that wherever christ is, there is a Catholic church or saints who talks about the pope.... my rationality is that if people are thinking new theologians like Calvin or others, I think people should acknowledge that early church fathers are closer to christ in relationships and time being martyrs and dying for christ because of their love for him. But if I'm going to have to summarize Catholic Church in two chapters, I recommend reading James 2 and Matthew 16
I can't believe that the pope is infallible or sinless. Only one man has been without sin and that's Jesus. Between that and asking the Mother of God to pray for me? I cannot get my head around that either. Unfortunately, that means I'm not a catholic.
There’s one thing I don’t get about the East… they don’t believe in a burning 🔥 hell.. or in the Lake of Fire. If so, then why did Jesus come to die on the cross?
