Thank you, brother. I am afraid the rot in Ecumenical Patriarchate is old (going back hundred years to Patriarch Meletios) and deep. A few years ago, I was a member of a Greek parish; first, my son received invitation to Sons of Pericles - I was not even aware of this youth paramasonic organization; then, I learned that a late president of the church council was a ranking freemason, in addition to his AHEPA leadership role; and then the unprecedented, since Ukrainian schism happened. My Christian conscience would not let me remain in communion with Patriarch Bartholomew, I had to go to another parish. My heart still bleeds. Nothing short of a miracle with fix this mess. Luckily, miracles is just the kind of things happening in the Church all the time. But the rot - the apostasy - must be surgically removed. Lord have mercy on us.
@@vsevolodtokarevyou're still in communion with Constantinople. Don't be so holier than thou. You know what's worse than being a Mason, and siding with the worldly forces in Ukraine? Ordering your temples to close their doors for a virus, and denying the Holy Eucharist to the faithful. And both Bartholomew and Kyrill are guilty of that without public repent. There's a huge portion within Greece that know exactly what's going on in Constantinople. It's been going on and off for centuries. We continue to worship and pray for repentance. Snubbing our noses and walking away only makes us schismatics. If you're doing well in another jurisdiction and your spiritual life is growing then Glory to God and I pray it continues. But if you're looking for the perfect parish and are ready to get up and walk away every time you feel better than the church you attend then you're days will be filled with gloom. Be careful.
@stanyukica382 Corinth was under Clemen's jurisdiction. He wasn't writing authoritatively to Alexandria. Also who do Arian and Nestorian movements even take off if all that needed to be done was a letter from Rome. I'm sorry but your view is as wrong as inviting pagans into St Peter's to worship demons is. Which is commonplace in the modern Vatican. You have no ground to stand on.
what do you mean? Do you mean doing away with national churches? From the outside looking in, it seems that's a part of the problem. The new Ukrainian church likely won't every accept Moscow's Russian World theology in Ukraine. Kirill is clearly a heretic and needs to return to Christ.
I on the other hand was raised into the Roman Catholic church from 1989-2001 until my parents divorced. I struggled with my faith until 2004 or 2005. I lost my faith for many years because of the church scandals and was diagusted by the lack of action of Benedict. Francis came along later and just made it all feel worse for me. I recently came back to church by some power I felt. There were no words, just this strange feeling of "I must do this" and "God is calling His children home". I joined an Antiochan Orthodox Church and have attended 3 Liturgies now. The first time I went I did so alone and it was in another language so I was a bit lost. But I went the following sunday with my fiancee and we both cried A LOT. We both found peace we hadnt had since we were children. We both had rough childhoods, both grew up Catholic, both left our faith, and both rediscovered it that day. We attended the following week also. I have already made some friends from the Church. We stay for lunch and bond with Fr. John; whom is our priest as well as the other parishioners. Ive never been so happy on my life. Pray for me and for my fiancee. Thank you and God bless!
As a member of the Greek church here in America it's a shame the both our Archbishop and the EP have fallen into schism. Pray for their restoration to historical orthodoxy
I am an enquirer into Orthodoxy, i'm RC at the moment. Can you help? does this schism impact on the 'normal' Orthodox worshippers? can a worshipper from the Russian Church receive communion in a Church under the EP for example?
The Greek people need to stand against what is a huge issue in this fall to sin. I hear you loud and clear. Please tell your church get firm with this schism.
If you believe that the Russian Patriarch should hold the church of Ukraine as hostage,when his country invaded Ukraine and the cry of Ukrainian people should be drown in the waters of Bosporus,in the doorstep of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,then you are victim of Russian propaganda...
Please help us to build Orthodox temples in latin america, the people are losing the faith in Roman Catholic Chruch here in Latin America cause a lot of "modern" priest wants to destroy the tradition, the new "Roman catholic" churches looks like protestant churches without Holy representations and not painting, and the music with guitar it looks protestant not Catholic anymore, 1978 did a lot of damage to the Church
there is absolutely a big push for orthodoxy in Latin America right now. There are Domicans at my church who say their whole home town switched to Orthodoxy. Their local Roman Church on the island decided to just switch to be orthodox
Most of us Orthodox Christian worshippers in the US decide which Orthodox parish to attend based upon the convenience of their locations and the pleasantness of the priest and parish members. They do not follow the twists and turns of these administrative rivalries. I am quite fine with that.
Is it “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church” ? Or is it just to make it sound like y’all are one. Without valid ordination and universal authority you get this mess we’re watching. Either your words mean nothing or your actions mean nothing. Y’all operate as islands so the correct confession should be “Many Holy and Orthodox Churches” It’s soo crazy to me how the orthodox try to jump around this reality. The Orthodox are valid, beautiful and true, but it needs to reunite with Rome asap.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 here we go 🙄 how about all the orthodox who don’t even listen to their own saints that embrace the filoque and the seat of Peter. Sit down 🪑
I have been attending a Greek Orthodox Church Australia. My decision to convert from Protestantism is based on Christ as the head of the 'all equal (including Chairman Status) Patriarchs'. The Patriarchate of both Greek & All English(GOC) that I have been attending is Constantinople. I can't unite with Papacy as Christ is head of the true Body. I don't know what to think now.... when Christ returns will he find any faithful? Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, on us ☦️
The church fathers teach us to choose our leaders and spiritual father's (priests) wisely and tread carefully. Later you may find a home you prefer in another church e.g. Serbian, Romanian, Russian etc if you don't feel at home where you are. Also, not all priests/clergy follow and adhere to a clergy decision strictly. Like us they follow God and Christ first, the church fathers, the saints. All before the Earthly church and its bickering. So if you have a good priest and parish don't worry too much. Talk to the priest if you need to. God will guide you. Plus there's also lots of writings from Saints, monk etc for help 😊
Christ said Peter was his rock and his successors. I suggest you actually follow Christ instead of your own feelings. The east is a mess without a head and it’s clearly showing, now we have Russia wanting to exert its power on the very church that gave them a patriarch. Make it make sense Reunite with Rome
As a catechumen I do not think I am in any position to confirm, deny, or even evaluate any of these allegations, but it's helpful to at least have this clear overview of the Russian-Orthodox position on the matter so that I can understand what is happening. Thank you.
As a catechumen - continue to pay attention to your spiritual life and keep attending services at your local parish. There've been many internal disagreements in the history of the Church, so there's nothing new under the sun. But Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), focus on Him.
Dear SimpleAmadeus some days before the Russian unorthodox patriarchate spoke about a holy war in Ukraine who will stop only when the russian invadors liberate Kiev ! Patriarch Kyrillos blessed the unholy bloody war against the Ukranian Orthodox people . Please informe yourself and don't be victim of the russian propaganda.
Please also pray that russians will cease the aggression to Ukraine. Something "our" patriarch Kirill failed to do. Goes especially bad with his promotion of filetism heresy.
@@PUARockstari heard from ukranian priest that God allowed this to happened to Ukraine because of the persecution of the Orthodox church. Nothing can happened without God allowing it. Ukranians should repent and the war will be over quickly. I now that from my own experience. When i sin great tribulations are coming upon me. As soon as a repent everything changes. That's spiritual law
Ultimately the primary reason for this war is because of the actions of the US in the overthrow of a legitimate government in 2014 then encouraging the EP to grant autocephaly to a schismatic Ukrainian church in which he has zero authority. And don't forget that by doing this Constantinople receives millions of dollars as a result. A simple bit of research will bear out the financial benefits of placing Ukraine under the thumb of Constantinople.
As a Greek Orthodox Christian, I believe the greatest thing about our Faith is that nothing will be Hidden, and all darkness will come to light ... I think most important thing here is that Constantinople did not ask to enter into this pure political problem, not a religious one, though now made a religious one...... To my Russian orthodox brothers and sisters and by extension my Ukrainian orthodox brothers and sisters I have never meet either of you, but I love you both equally not an inch more than the other. To the Satanic powers who caused this, you can run but you can't hide. Look forward to re-igniting with you all soon .
This kind of thing happens a lot, just remember that we are blessed with our ecclesiastical structure, Patriarch Bartholomew is only the Patriarch of Constantinople and doesn't regulate every Orthodox Church. Unlike another church which I will not mention, whose prime bishop rules over multiple countries. Because of our sinful nature, any organization with humans in it is bound to have a few bad apples, times don't look good now, but with prayer and patience we can overcome any obstacle and trial. Also like no one even shows up to Patriarch Bartholomew's events, in one service less than 10 parishioners were there.
@@artifexdei3671if you want the truth,educate yourself, don't listen to one and the other. Constantinople is in Turkey and Turkey with great effort, expelled the Christians from it's soil-expelled being a very polite expression,better search for genocide of the Christians in Turkey.That for the Patriarch has no parishioners. Don't believe Moscow's propagandists...
@@kimphilby7999New Calendar, pews, no prostrations, no hair cover, immodest clothing, pro gay Elpidophorus, pro Abortion, marriage AFTER ORDINAION OF CLERGY,
Pray for the The brotherhood of the Kiev Caves Lavra and all the faithful of teh Ukrainiian Orthodox Church who are suffering due to the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch! I saw the beginings of this persecution first hand when I was in Ukraine in 2017. Ther was a rally calling for the seizure of the lavra from it's brotherhood. At that time it was more just show, but now it's becoming a reality with cooperation from the goverment.
This brotherhood is suffering because supports the russian invadors in Ukraine and because is faithful to Moscow Church who blesses this bloody war . Don't you see the reality?
Great video. So many others get too apecific and assume im an expert in church hiatory. This was a great overview for a layman in the Church. Thank you, said state of affiars. Prayers for his Emminence Bartholomew
The Ecumenical Patriarchate is the Local Church to Türkiye. His primacy does not place his authority ahead of any other Local Church’s. The claim Patr. Bartholomew makes to jurisdiction over the Metropolis of Kyiv is anachronistic to an absurd degree. The unilateral act of the EP to establish a new jurisdiction in Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine, establishing an autocephaly that is by no means simple and clear but is significantly compromised (subordinated to the EP in several specific ways) in the terms of its Tomos, is spurious and contrary to church canon, an act of ecclesiastic aggression that relies on faulty reading specifically of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon written in 451 AD. Beyond laying down terms of an autocephaly substantially less free than the existing autonomy within the Moscow Patriarchate of the universally recognized Ukrainian Orthodox Church, other autocephalous Local Churches that recognize and accede to the terms of the 2018 Tomos, curtail and compromise their own full independence. That explains why only Local Churches that already lack full independence from the EP, to whit Alexandria, Athens and Cyprus, have agreed to it and appended their Heads’ signatures to it. Since they already experience dominance by the Phanar, internal interference by it and dependence on it, the provisions of the 2018 Tomos pose no new burdens on them. The fact that in the near half-decade of its existence the 2018 Tomos by which the EP seeks to establish a new canonical jurisdiction in Kyiv no new signatories have joined it speaks volumes. Metr. Hilarion is joined by the single most reliable and respected Orthodox leader alive today, Abp. Anastasios of Tirana and Albania in resisting the imposition of a new Phanariot regime in the XXI c. No one but the weak Ecumenical Patriarchate needs or wants the Orthodox Churches to be subordinated to the Turkish citizens resident of the Phanar in Istanbul. The Tomos of 2018 is a dead letter that will be thrown on the trash heap of church history as an illegitimate document attempting to establish the Phanar as some new kind of Vatican for the Orthodox churches, where none is needed or desired.
Sir,under all these fat rhetoric, you're saying, underline,that the EP should be reduced to a little bishop,and then the vacuum should be refilled! But by whom? Oh,yes,the Patriarch of Moscow willingly will accept this, although with great humbleness,as he will do the same with the missions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate,and the Holy Lands of the Jerusalem's Patriarchate. What a humble and loving person,must be him!!!
As an RC who while accepting the institution of the papacy can clearly see that its wings need to be clipped from time to time, I found this fascinating. The points made were clear, precise and accessible to those not versed in church politics. There is a part of me that sees the wisdom of autocephaly, while recognizing autocephaly, just as the Roman papal system of church governance has its issues too. My question would-be that given that Constantinople and Moscow are "not" in communion, I presume this means that anyone subject to Constantinople would be denied the sacraments if he or she were to present themselves at a Mass in the diocese of Moscow. would I be correct?
Ok we saw the point of view of the Russian church. Shouldn't there be also a video with the Constantinople side explaining their points? We should not judge who is right or wrong by hearing only one side of the story.
Constantinople lost all its glory, it is now Istanbul and Muslim. Russian Orthodox is the largest church with more than 100 million members. Bit sadly Kirill is supporting the dictator and Ukraine OC wants independence.
Right ot wrong, he does have a point though. I understand historically the term "first among equals" for the the Patriarch of Constantinople. My understanding is that the Patriarch of Constantinople was stretching his authority a bit thin when he declared a new autocephalous church for Ukraine without consulting the Moscow Patriarchate. Worse the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine is now granted ownership of properties that historically belonged to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. (like the Monastery of the caves). Because of these actions a schism is unavoidable.
I'm under the jurisdiction of Moscow Patriarchate, but I don't see what's wrong with point 2. It was the well-known privilege of Rome which was also granted to Constantinople by the Council of Chalcedon, in its 28th canon.
Just read it. That canon gives simply transfers the honorary primacy from Rome to Constantinople. It does not address overruling anathemas issued by other churches, which is what point 2 is referring to. You can attempt to find a canonical precedent for that, but it isn’t in that 28th canon. In fact. I’ll paste it here.
Canon 28 Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
@@Texocracy I was not referring to the overruling of anathemas, that is clearly wrong. I was referring to Constantinople as the highest court of appeal, which is the second point the Metropolitan made in the video. That was a special privilege of Elder Rome which then was granted also to Constantinople, the New Rome, by that Canon 28. In fact, you can plainly see that it's stated there, that Constantinople, the New Rome, was given the same privileges as Elder Rome.
@@symphonymph3562 It is the same issue... because if Constantinople is the highest court of appeal, then an anathema issued to a person by Moscow, can be overruled by Constantinople. This is a natural result of interpreting primacy this way. This is what his 2nd point is referring to.
Not universally and certainly not against the will of Local Churches. Please see the following document, it partly covers that issue: mospat.ru/en/news/51892/
in 10 Years our Church Catholic/Orthodox is about to have offiacially 2.000 years of fundation (33 - 2033) i wish Jesus and Holy Mary helps to be one universal church again to fight paganism and sin toguether
There is an example of this in Acts. Peter came to Jerusalem to SETTLE the dispute between Paul, Barnabas, James, and James’ jewish Christian converts. They all knew Jesus gave Peter the Keys to heaven and was head of the church. James was Bishop in Jerusalem and leader of the church's "jewish wing" there. When the Bible states in Acts that ""Some who had come down from Judaea were instructing the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.', it's referring to JAMES and his disciples! Once the council is done debating the matter, Peter stands up, ENDING the debate, and gently corrects James (and his jewish Christians) through his authoritative teaching. After respectful silence, Paul and Barnabas back Peter up by further expounding on matters. Having been set straight on the matter, James stood up and affirmed Peter's authority and decision, in effect admitting he was wrong, no longer requiring gentiles under his jurisdiction to be circumcised. When James then speaks and gives his instructions and "judgement" (meaning he sees now he was wrong) and says, "brothers, listen to me", he's not talking to Peter, Paul, or Barnabas, that would make no sense, they're the ones who told HIM not to require circumcision for gentiles. He is talking to HIS jewish Christian converts, to HIS Jewish party, those that fall under his jurisdiction, affirming Peter's decision, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is most clear in verse 19, where it says: "It is my judgment (conclusion, to deem, think, etc. from greek krino), therefore, that WE ought to stop troubling the gentiles." Who was "troubling" the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter and his disciples, who had baptized the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY James and the Jewish Christians under him. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the "Jewish party" under his jurisdiction that James is giving a "judgment" to - the judgment given to them by Peter. Notice also that when Peter has heard enough of their debating and arguing, he gets up and addresses them and everyone goes silent automatically, but James waits for everyone to stop talking and then asks everyone to listen to him.
@SaintCharbelMiracleworker That's an odd reading of Acts 15! The text plainly states that the disputed matter was to be considered by the Church, the Apostles, and the elders (verses 2, 4 and 6), not by St. Peter alone. He was the first to speak after the debate because his position was based on a previously experienced Divine revelation (See Acts 10:10-15;27-28). Then, after testimonies of Ss. Paul and Barnabas (verse 12), St. James, being the head of the Church in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Apostolic council, declared his opinion on the matter (verses 13-21). "(James) was the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem - hence he is the last one to speak" - writes St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on the book of Acts. And no, James does not simply affirm Peter's "authority and decision", but rather voices his own judgement (verse 19) which became (word for word!) the foundation for the final decree of the Council (compare verses 20 and 29). St. Peter was the first among other [equal] Apostles, sure, but your reading of Acts 15 is still anachronistic.
Actually, the Eastern Roman Emperor held a power similar to the pope. He could call for councils and every patriarch was supposed to show up. That way they could vote on matters of the faith. The church in the east is set up this way still I believe, it’s just Byzantine empire is no more. Someone has to have the authority to force the bishops to solve their issues. If not the Patriarch of Constantinople, then who?
No, many powers the pope claims for himself were not in the hands of the emperor but rather in the bishops, and many others had no parallel at all in the East. The emperor could call a council and pay for the travel of the bishops to get them to show up. But they could always not come. And they retained the power over their diocese. The emperor could not come in and claim a legal right to force the church to change its doctrine. The emperor tried to do just that during the iconoclast controversy, which was eventually opposed by the whole church in part because the emperor was daring to put himself in the shoes of the whole council of bishops. So we roundly defeated such Caesaropapism long before the Byzantine empire fell, and it was illegally done according to the canons of the church when it was imposed on us by force during the reign of Konstantin V
@@CHURCHISAWESUM Thanks for the clarification. How are councils called today? How could, for instance, could a nation like USA creates its own autocephalous national church? Who has that authority? I’m not taking sides, I’m western catholic outsider. I’m just genuinely curious. Is there recent precedent that most of the patriarchs would probably go along with? Is there canon for that?
@@CHURCHISAWESUM this is historically so fcked. 1. The emperor indeed FORCED his belief, appoited bishops he wanted, hence INTERVENED in so many level. Another solid proof is your system of HOLY SYNOD IN EACH PATRIARCHATE! it was INVENTION of Peter the great in moscow, he literally ABOLISHED the patriarchate. So, it is bs to say he couldnt force, since HE INDEED COULD AND HAD DONE IT! 2. The only reason iconocalsm wasnt victorious WAS BECAUSE OF ROME! It was not ALL CHURCH AGAINST IT, it was THE OTHER WAY AROUND. ALLMOST ALL CHURCH SUPPORTED IT. At least learn history!
The power to call a council is not unique. The Eastern Roman Emperors held an honorary title, but had no authority within The Church. The Pope did not claim to have the ability to call councils, nobody would have disagreed with that, he claimed to have the ability to change Councils which had already taken place.
Isn't it strange that The Savior Jesus who started His Church, prayed that all of His followers would be ONE as He and The Father are ONE! We've done anything but that. From the split between the Catholics and the Orthodox, to the Protestant Reformation, and all the odd individual branches and little churches that spun off of that fiasco! Jesus has to be disappointed with what we've done to HIS Church!!
As a Roman Catholic, deeply wounded by Pope Francis' modernist agenda, I see Patriarch Bartholomew's approach to Rome as potentially catastrophic for the Orthodox Church.
We are used to live under constant persecution. Fall of one Bishop does not mean fall of the entire Orthodox Church. That is beauty of Orthodox organization and what many think of as about weakness is in fact the strength of the Orthodox Church.
Can we skip all the lengthy words and come down to the real reason Moscow is at odds with the Patriarch. Constantinople recognizes the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox church. Russian Orthodox church has no right to tell Ukrainians anything at all.
Oh,yes,my beloved brother! He must be replaced by the glorious Patriarch of Moscow,the Prince of the church,the long hand of Vladimir Putin.... Behave yourself, brother!
@@kimphilby7999 what will you do Phillby after Bergolio breaks a 2,123 yr tradition of the priesthood by ordaining priestesses ? Priests craft if for men . Dear Philby . What then ? Will you somehow justify it ?
Truly, satan is attacking all churches. Turning each one against the other and against themselves. Thou I'm not an orthodox I pray that those that are true to truth and the process our old put in place be safeguarded. Many blessings to this father. Please keep up the fight.
@@philliponfri7938lack of education, pride and pure hatred. That’s how you get someone to say something as dumb as saying Islam came from the Christian church
Nor is the Phanar. The recent adumbration of titles and accolades is a PR effort to subtly pervert the language of Orthodoxy to include a novel ideology placing the EP above other churches. They’ve even introduced a notion of subsidiary autocephaly to convey the notion of Pentarchy as existential to the sees of (Rome), New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and that Local Churches established more recently enjoy some lower grade of autocephaly which can be removed by, you guessed it, the EP. Using this tool of polemic, actors in the Phanar have argued that the EP can unilaterally reclaim control over all of Moscow’s churches. I suppose that number would also contain the churches of the OCA which in Phanariot eyes is illegitimately autocephalous from Moscow already, since by other related Phanar ratiocination the OCA cannot have received its autocephaly in 1970 from Moscow, because by the light of the Phanar, only the EP can grant any autocephaly. Now since 2018 they can grant it anywhere for any reason and don’t need conciliar input from any other Local Church. The language of the 2018 Tomos makes that clear, which is why only Greek-run Local Churches that have seriously compromised independence from the Phanar have singed on. What a xit show!
@Ettoredipugnar Jerusalem only has significance to those people who are in love with Jews, their religion, their texts, their society, their culture, and their god.
@@theosteven3362 the thrown of Antioch is twice blessed both Peter and Paul the patriarch of Antioch is the successor to both Peter and Paul. Fuck my butt Peter wasn’t in Antioch Galatians chapter 2, verse 11 Saint peter was an Antioch first not Rome
We appreciate so much Metropolitan Hilarion's comments explaining the problems we are facing because of our leadership: our videos try to present His Eminence along with many valued teachers- in some cases not well known. We present the basic teachings of our Holy Faith with permission from our Holy Hierarchs to spread the Faith in all Media to make the Orthodox Faith better known: ru-vid.com/show-UC53gb9xym8zR57vd_H4ztwQ
The one(s) that teach and hand on the teaching of the apostles, that is, the gospel. The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ came and died and paid the penalty for your sins in your place. That is how you can be reconciled to God and right with Him, in the new covenant with Him, because Jesus Christ has taken your filth and given you his perfect righteousness. The churches I know that teach this, officially and explicitly, are evangelical protestant churches.
@@tjkhan4541 I never said they didn't. I'm saying all of the Apostle's teachings aren't in the Bible. Important teachings are indeed in the Bible. But the Apostles did teach tradition which was also considered the teachings of the Apostles. (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2) After all, the Church came before the Bible. The Canon Letters and Epistles of the Apostles (NT Books) were written to Churches after all. I'm pretty sure the Church in Thessalonica is still there.
Wasn’t Constantinople the first among equals and head of the Orthodox Church since the schism in 1054? If so why does the Russian Church think this should no longer be the case? First without equals seems like it’s gradually going to become the very thing it objected to the RC Church and pope becoming? Please let me know if I’m wrong on anything?
The Oriental Orthodox have amazing relations with Rome and are possible to come into communion sometime in the near future Don’t really think they want the Russians to come into that
As is the same with the Bishop of Rome, Pope and Vicar of Christ in Rome of the Catholic Church! They are not ‘without equal’ as they now claim. They are successors of Peter but are notChrist on Earth. The Holy Spirit is God’s presence on Earth until Jesus returns to pass judgement on all man.
"honorary primacy" means absolutely nothing, if someone is first among equals that means that person holds a primacy that means something, what is "honorary primacy"? you treat him more kindly? that notion of autocephalous Churches shows that there isn't a full body with an incarnated head, the director of an orchestra is a first among equals, he has the capability of directing through moderating the parts of the body (orchestra). When you don't have an incarnated head that is bounded to the invisible head that is Christ himself, and you don't have members that are bounded to that incarnated head, that Church will be full of schisms all the time. People hate having an incarnated head so they develop either their own sects or they make schisms with the visible head to have no moderating human principle.
What are you suggesting then? The Roman Papal model? The Western church is barely pulling itself together - a number of bishops are more or less schismatic by not following Church Faith and/or Morals
@@batnayanineveh6082 The problem has nothing to do with the hierarchical structure, it has to do with sin. If there is a hierarchy and sinful people hate that hierarchy they will do everything on their power to destroy that hierarchy. Revolutions destroy empires not because the empire structure is wrong but because sinful people corrupt everything and want to destroy that imperial hierarchy from within and from without. Now the lack of a governing principle on earth shows a problem and not a good, just like the lack of obedience is a problem in the west. Everybody wants to flaten out hierarchy, so they want God to come down to the lowest and rise themselves to the top.
I agree that the EP has Pope envy, but with regard to Point 2, certainly the cleric being deposed would be able to appeal to an Ecumenical Council, wouldn't he? Isn't this what St. Athanasius did when he appealed to Pope Julius of Rome (who, contra claims of Papal Supremacy, wrote to the bishops in Egypt asking them to reinstate Athanasius and when that didn't work, called a council to examine the matter)? Or is his case different because he was a Patriarch of one of the Pentarchy?
Ecumenical Patriarch is NOT Ecumenical Council. Read about the Ecumenical Councils and learn the difference. Ecumenical Patriarch is a Bishop of Constantinople (now Istanbul) and does not have authority outside of the territory of his Bishopry.
You can't understand the situation if you don't study the destruction of the Greek orthodox population of Turkey since 1942 (Varlik Vergisi, 1955 pogrom, 1960s expulsion, Turkey considering that the Patriarch must be a Turkish citizen). The Patriarch of Constantinople is seeking for protection because all those measures made him weak. I believe the best solution would be for the Patriarch to leave Turkey to be more free. But if he does that, some other churches will consider he's not legit anymore. If Moscow had shown a will to protect the Patriarch of Constantinople, the relationship between Constantinople and Moscow would have been better. This has not been done and as a consequence, Constantinople is trying to find recognition through a bigger leading role, and they hope the US will protect Constantinople.
Tell it how it is and stop tippy toeing around the subject. You are dirty on them because they are now doing their own thing. It upsets you that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is their own church now. I'm not sure why this is such a surprise to you, after all you have your own church in Russia yes? Admit your gripes are politically and culturally motivated and not church related...
@@bad_covfefedoesn't change the fact that all organizations on earth need a central authority. A unifying leader. We have kings, presidents, prime ministers, chiefs. Why wouldn't there be a prime leader for the church? This kind of power struggle doesn't happen in situations where there is a leader
@gamingterrain3703 very few organizations on earth today have a central leader that has unchecked power. The only ones in fact are dictatorships. The president does not have unchecked authority. Many organizations don't have a central leader at all, such as the US Supreme Court. Kings, prime ministers, chiefs, etc, do not have overriding authority over all under them. Even if they did, that wouldn't make it obvious to me that the church should also have a central leader. Are we to model the Church after worldly organizations?
This kind of division has happened before in history and it will be resolved. I know presbyters and bishops in the Greek archdiocese that do agree with you and they are very saddened about their leader in America and in Constantinople. There should be a way to throw out these two bums.
At 1:17 he stated it was the bishop of Rome who was head of the churches I guess it was ok for the eastern churches in the first millennium then it’s not ok?
Not True. The Bible was written in GREEK 🇬🇷 , Greek is the Holy language and Constantinople was the capital of Greek Nation for over 1.000 years. Constantinople Church is second after Jerusalem only .
@@pepejimenez9295now Constantinople is no more Greece, but Turkey, a muslim nation. Constantinople is fallen and its patriarchy represent just a small slice of orthodox people.
The Greek parishes should all stop going to communion in any church that considers Patriarch Bartholomew to be in the right. Simply stop going and stop tithing and go to another Parish. Speak with your priests, monks and spiritual fathers about why you are doing what you are doing so that it reaches Constantinople . You can make Patriarch Bartholomew repent. Glory to God for all things and may he have mercy on us 🙏☦️
Since at least hte time of Jhon Crysostomos constantinople has been equal to rome, it just went into unia and must have repented, as to decisions church is universal and depending on the case, if local decision is not enough the final decision is at global universal level, for such cases heretics were exposed and decided. church is not local, i if it is you can be in communion with arius and nestorius and soon now you see ! may be in comunion with rome too, since it is local who cares what you do globally if locally you are orhtodox, but globally you are a something else, though we care about what you are globally and hten locally never forget this ! christ rules the church amen !
Except the Vatican is in the bag for the globalists since Gladio and Consrsntinople with tge other subversives want reunion with Rome, and are under the revenge of the protestant and capitalist West that infiltrated the Vatican and uses Turkey to pressure Constantinople, as well as having funded degeneracy from the French Revolution to Spiritism and Sophiology in Russia and the Babylon Berlin degeneracy, and then funding Lenin and Trotsky to take out the Czar and church: as enemy number one. Today, That very infiltration comes from Jesuit Fordham as a locus for NGO spending and think tank papers/books to be referenced for the corruption of all churches. Pope Francis had his friendly letters in support of Fordham leaked during Pride month while inviting the piss xist artist to the Vatican, picking Hames Martin and his other college picks, while siding with academic UN type theology, and clearly being ready to be a part of the WEF UFO disclosure.
Right, the Catholic Church has had no problems! The Catholic Crusaders Sacked Constantinople! Catholics had a inquisition that’s really scary and did great harm to indigenous people in the Americas! Don’t get me started!!!
@@johnnyd2383 I can actually. It’s ALWAYS been about politics, power and money with the EO. Y’all don’t actually care about “peace” and “unity” Russia must be stopped
@@LorenzoMasterConnector Stopped from what.? Showing to the CIA agent in Istanbul his proper place and not letting him to proclaim himself "infallible" like the other heretic sitting in Rome did.? Oh... Gimme a break, will ya...
According to the canons of the Councils, particularly Constantinople I and Ephesus, the Ecumenical Patriarch had authority over the lands outside of the Empire. Therefore, Constantinople has always had full authority over the lands of Ukraine. It is his prerogative to grant autocephaly to Ukraine; the current Patriarch of Moscow de facto ceded authority over Ukraine when it unilaterally moved from Kiev to Vladimir. As for the diaspora, particularly in the United States, it was a matter of necessity to fall under Moscow. Patriarch Nikon absolved allegiance to Moscow in the aftermath of of the Bolshevik Revolution, until such time as normal relations could be reestablished. Therefore, the Ecumenical Patriarch is right in asserting his authority, and it is Moscow that is schismatic, and is nothing more than a continuation of the Russian Church as existed under the Soviets.
No. 1. The idea that all territory 'in the diaspora' belongs to the Patriarchate of Constantinople is called 'the Barbarian land theory' and it originated only in the 20th century. See the following article: orthodoxhistory.org/2022/10/12/the-origins-of-the-barbarian-lands-theory/ And this document as well (Paragraph 8: The claim by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the sole right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diaspora): mospat.ru/en/news/90540/ 2. The Metropolitanate of Kiev has been part of the Moscow Patriarchate since 1686 and that was never disputed by anyone in World Orthodoxy (including Constantinople). See Paragraph 7: The unilateral revision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of acts that have significance for establishing legal precedents: mospat.ru/en/news/90540/
@@JesusPortalEng 1. It is no "modern theory". It exists in the Canons of Chalcedon (ie in ancient times; see Canon 28). Barbarian land means land where there is no Church presence. Otherwise who would have jurisdiction there? 2. The Moscow Patriarchate was at first "barbarian lands", when Kiev was already under the Jurisdiction of Constantinople. Also Moscow was Autocephalus at the time when Kiev was under Constantinople's jurisdiction. Because of the wars with the Ottomans, the Ecumenical Patriarch granted the administration of Kiev to Russia, but no full Jurisdiction, and with conditions on appointing Metropolitans etc. Many in Kiev did not like Moscow being involved... As about whether that being allegedly "never disputed by anyone in World Orthodoxy", one can see what Dositheus II of Jerusalem said about Russia interferring to Kiev: "But you also wished for a foreign province! You would be able to remain a commissioner of the Patriarch of Constantinople in relation to the Metropolitan of Kiev. You say that it was a necessity and you praised the Metropolitan of Kiev, but we think that there was no necessity, but love for acquiring. Without need, why divide the boundaries of the fathers? How can this be forgiven? By doing this, without any need, but only to satisfy your excessive ambition, instead of good, you bring harm to yourselves and to the Church" [...] "According to the definitions of the fathers, the provinces must remain inviolable within their own borders, therefore no bishop has the right to ask for authority in a foreign province, but you are asking to occupy a foreign province. You may well justify this deed, but only a disgrace to men and a sin to God will fall upon your name" He also said amongst others: "“to grant . . . Kyiv in trust (ἐπιτροπικῶς) to the Moscovite due to the prevailing tyranny, until the day comes for divine reckoning" Besides Dositheus, others have mentioned about Ukraine not being in Russia's actual jurisdiction; like in the 1924 Tomos of Autocephaly of the Polish Church. So the 1686 Letter did not give jurisdiction but administration and it was revoked because conditions mentioned in the letter were not met. Moreover, all the arbitrary points raised by the present video have been answered one by one by various members of the Church. In fact it is the Russian Church that has been acting like Rome in recent times... About the latter, one can watch the video titled "*Ad hoc | Russian Ecclesiastical Expansionism: Before Schism - Metropolitan of Peristeri Grigorios*". It is in Greek but one can turn on English subtitles... Also google and read the text titled "*THE ECUMENICAL THRONE AND THE CHURCH OF UKRAINE*". One can also check "*From Mstyslav to Makariy: The Apostolic Continuity of the UAOC*"..
@@konstantinospapadopoulos7735, 1. It is. Please read the article we posted previously. It explicitly deals with the 28th Canon of Chalcedon as well. 2. You've mentioned the 1924 Tomos of Autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox Church. Indeed, that was actually the *first time* in history that the canonical Russian Orthodox jurisdiction over the Metropolis of Kiev had been disputed. The Russian Orthodox Church had never recognized that Tomos. Let us quote the relevant statement of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate from 2018: "Regrettably, this is just one of the examples of the intervention of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the canonical territory of the Russian Church in the 1920s and 1930s. At a time when the Russian Church was subjected to the atheistic persecutions unprecedented in its cruelty, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, behind its back and without its consent, took uncanonical actions against its parts - the autonomous Churches in the territory of the young states formed on the borders of the former Russian Empire... It was particularly unseemly of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to engage in attempts to depose the Holy Confessor Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, canonically elected in 1917." mospat.ru/en/news/47198/ So the Polish Tomos in 1924 was just another attempt to attack the only canonical Church in Soviet Union which at that time was heavily persecuted by the Bolsheviks. What's also interesting is that to this day the Polish Orthodox Church does not recognize the so-called 'OCU' (orthochristian.com/147870.html; mospat.ru/en/news/89573/). The 'OCU' is also not recognized by the vast majority of Local Orthodox Churches. 3. You write that 'the 1686 Letter... was revoked because conditions mentioned in the letter were not met.'. Unfortunately, the 1686 Synodal Tomos states nothing about either a temporary nature of the transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate or that it may be cancelled. Moverover, the Kiev Metropolis has been part of the Russian Orthodox Church for more than three centuries. Orthodox canons do not allow the possibility for reviewing established Church boundaries that have not been challenged for a long time. For instance, Canon 129 (133) of the Council of Carthage reads, ‘If anyone… brought some place to catholic unity and had it in his jurisdiction for three years, and nobody demanded it from him, then it shall not be claimed from him, if also there was a bishop during these three years who should have claimed it but kept silent’. And Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council establishes the thirty years’ term for a possible conciliar consideration of disputes over the belonging of even particular church parishes: ‘Parishes in each diocese… shall be invariably under the power of bishops who manage them, especially if for thirty years they undoubtedly were under his jurisdiction and governance’. When Patriarch Bartolomew visited Kiev in 2008, he never objected to the fact that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was part of the Moscow Patriarchate. His unlawful decision to 'cancel' the 1686 Tomos was not linked with Orthodoxy, but rather driven by political motivations. 4. You're suggesting to read a text called "From Mstyslav to Makariy: The Apostolic Continuity of the UAOC". That's great, because both of these men had *NEVER* been canonical Orthodox Bishops. We greatly encourage our readers to google them and see for themselves that the so-called 'Ukrainian Autocephalous' movement lacks the chain of episcopal ordinations (see the following document: mospat.ru/en/news/46039/. That is why they are not accepted by the vast majority of the Orthodox Church. See the multiple letters of His Beatitude Metropolian Anastasios of Tirana and all Albania on this issue.
@@JesusPortalEng 1. Well, just to get it out of the way, the article that you "posted previously" staes among others "I am certainly open to being proven wrong about this. I’m not a canonist or a Byzantine historian"... No further comment from me here... 2. Previously you said that "that was never disputed by anyone in World Orthodoxy (including Constantinople)", but now you said that it was "disputed" in 1924... But I also mentioned Dositheus of Jerusalem who was somewhat of a mediator in Russia and said that it was given "in trust" etc. One has to also read the text of the 1686 Letter (see the document that I posted previously here ("THE ECUMENICAL THRONE AND THE CHURCH OF UKRAINE"), particularly pages 9-14.. Also citing a 2018 denial by Russia makes not much of an argument here; ie years after the occupation of Ukraine... And what is "also interesting" is that the Polish Church recognize the 1924 Tomos AND recognizes the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself (which the Russian Church did not even call "Ecumenical" as if Canon 28 of Chalcedon does not state that it has the same priviledges with Rome (and that is also why one can make an Appeal there too)). The Russian Church, as shown in its texts, seems to be an extention of "ex-communist agent" Putin's meta-Soviet propaganda. (see the video I mentioned here previously where it talks about who is considered by the Church of Russia to be "Russian Orthodox"...) Moreover, there was no "Tomos" but a Letter of Issue in 1686. Tomos exists when one grants jurisdiction... Also Tomos has to mention "Tomos". The Letter of Issue here lays the relevant conditions... Let me give a quote from the same document as in point [2.] above, talking about the text of the Letter: "The permission granted to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv and only him, after the latter is elected by the clergy and laity of the Eparchy of Kyiv, implies a significant degree of autonomy and self-sufficiency for this eparchy. Moreover, this autonomy is not granted by the Patriarch of Moscow as the supposed overlord of this region in question, but rather the Patriarch of Moscow is compelled to accept this as a condition stipulated by the Ecumenical Patriarch and which the Patriarch of Moscow is obliged to respect. In accordance with this condition, the Patriarch of Moscow does not have the right to proceed with any integration, division or abolition of this metropolis. This means that its administrative assimilation into the Patriarchate of Moscow is entirely precluded. The requirement for every Metropolitan of Kyiv to commemorate “among the first” during the Divine Liturgy the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch constitutes the clearest evidence that the Eparchy of Kyiv was not granted to the Patriarchate of Moscow as its canonical territory" Obviously, "Canon 129 (133) of the Council of Carthage" and "Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council" talk about disputes in the same jurisdiction (ie Autocephalus Church) and do not apply here. When Bartholomew visited Kiev the latter was administered by Russia. But after that Kiev appeled to Constantinople for the latter to return to Constantinople. Bartholomew did that because Ukraine and Russia did not want to be close anymore, as they had war...If things had panned out differently maybe he, or some other Patriarch after him, would grant the jurisdiction of Ukraine to Russia.Ukraine among others could not have priests saying things "how right Putin was killing Ukrainians". Now you tell me that this was about "political motivations" of Bartholomew? But Bartolomew, UNLIKE Russia, did not retain jurisdiction over Ukraine, but he gave the Tomos of Autocephaly instead... Russia played political and also military games. Russia did the same in Latvia where it tried to gain jurisdiction by guns. THIS was not Orthodoxy. Before Russia, the Orthodox suffered persecutions under the Romans and did not gain Jurisdiction by army or weapons... Russia should also learn Orthodoxy from history. Similarly, what about the Polish Tomos? Was it political games? Then why does Russia recognize the Autocephaly of Poland now? Why not to do the same about Ukraine? Let me answer myself that it is because of Political motivations of Russia in a separate country. By the way, not even the Ukainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate commemorate the Church of Russia anymore... At the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate commemorates everyone, even the ones who do not commemorate it... Again, 1686 Letter was no "Tomos" as no such word was mentioned anywhere in the text... 4. I am not sure where to begin from about this point. It is simply unbelievable. It is extensively dealt with as about where these bishops draw their ordinations from. It is clear and with evidence and ordinations were done with [more than] due canonicity... What I particularly cannot believe though is that the Church of Russia complains about lack of canonicity when it accepted itself, in more than one instances, uncanonical bishops with a simple agreement or prayer (no chrismation or whatsoever). Namely, Uniates were accepted on 1840, and "Schismatics" from ROCOR in 2008. Really, I find it hard to talk about this argument about canonicity when it is given in such a pretentius manner. About Makariy and the rest, one can see the line of ordinations that took place. Russia disputes some of these, but, even in this [worst] case, there would be still valid ordination by one bishop which, if accepted by the rest of the church, can be seen as good enough in "economy" (various such examples are listed in the texts below)... (look for text in Greek titled; "On the treatment of the ecclesiastical issue in Ukraine by the Mother Church of Constantinople - the issue of ordinations" Also look for the text by a Greek Bishop Cyril "Ἡ Αὐτοκέφαλη Ἐκκλησία τῆς Οὐκρανίας. Ἐπισκόπου Ἀβύδου Κυρίλλου" About the latter, there is also a video of Bishop Cyril where he presents the points in the text himself; see video in Greek with title "Η αυτοκεφαλία στην Ουκρανία και η εκκλησιαστική ενότητα - Επίσκοπος Αβύδου Κύριλλος Κατερέλος " One can perhaps find and google-translate the following text about ordinations in the Autocephalous Ukrainian Church (includes signsture by Varlaam); "Περί των χειροτονιών στην Ουκρανική Αυτοκέφαλη Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία") If you do not know Greek and you really care about the matter, you may ask someone to translate. I remember I gave these resources to Father Peter Heers once that we had a chat online, under some video. He did not object to these by the way while he knows Greek... PS Also you did not tell us who can give autocephaly and who has jurisdiction in "barbarian lands", like the US. In the US by the way, the first orthodox who made a community there were the Greeks and they are also the larger Orthodox group... PPS The last link that you provided is broken/faulty...
@konstantinospapadopoulos7735 , 1. That's an ad hominem. It's best to engage with one's arguments, rather than with the person itself. However, if you're not satisfied with the article, please see the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate here: mospat.ru/en/news/90540/ *Paragraph 8. The claim by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the sole right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diaspora.* The document deals with the 'Barbarian lands theory' in great detail. 2. The 1924 Tomos is not a good example, because it didn't play any significant role in how the Ukrainian question was perceived in World Orthodoxy. The entire Orthodox Church continued to perceive Ukraine as territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. Patriarch Bartolomew himself had always recognized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as the only canonical Church in Ukraine (see the following proof: mospat.ru/en/articles/87853/ ). And no, he didn't change his position in 2018 'because of the war', he did it because the Russian Orthodox Church did not attend the "Council of Crete" in 2016. That's a well known fact. You're asking: "Why does Russia recognize the Autocephaly of Poland now? Why not to do the same about Ukraine?' The Moscow Patriarchate recognizes the autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox Church based on its own decision from the 22 of June 1948. The main difference with Ukraine is that the autocephaly was given to the canonical Church and not a group of schismatics (in 2019, Patriarch Bartholomew 'granted autocephaly' not to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but to the non-canonical 'OCU' which merged from two schismatic communities: 'Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church' and 'Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate". Both groups had never been recognized by anyone in World Orthodoxy). 4. The issue of canonical chains of ordinations (or rather, lack thereof) of the 'OCU' has not been 'extensively dealt with'. The fact that they have no such ordinations is the main reason why they are not accepted by the vast majority of Local Orthodox Churches. Here's the detailed analysis of the question: mospat.ru/en/news/46039/ The analogy with ROCOR is false. See the article by the Ukrainian Bishop Sylvester of Belgorod, rector of the Kiev Theological Seminary and Academy: mospat.ru/en/authors-analytics/89418/ 5. You're asking 'who can give autocephaly?'. That's a very good question that should have been answered on a Pan-Orthodox level. It had almost been decided in 2009, at the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in Chambésy (see: www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5208949.html ), but unfortunately, no document had been signed. We can only hope and pray that this problem will be resolved in the future. P.S. The Russian missionaries came to Alaska in late 18th century. See the official information on the OCA website: www.oca.org/history-archives/oca-history-intro If anyone's interested in the history of Orthodoxy in America, please read this: spzh.news/en/zashhita-very/77241-kak-rpc-v-ameriku-vtorgalasy-chetvertyj-otvet-kir-khrizostomu-ch1
@@YouNoob573 They are so obsessed with being “not Catholic” that they think in order to deny the papacy they have to deny all the powers of the Ecumenical Patriarch as well. Christ was wise to appoint a highest court of appeals for the church. It’s so that when you have a patriarchate with de facto rule like Moscow, it still has a De Jure superior who can hold it to account in times like this, where Moscow refuses to participate in councils and intrachurch dialogue, but is just a puppet of Russian nationalism.
Primates...hmm, primates. Where else do we make discussion over primates? None-the-less--let us not overlook how the Roman pontiff is conducting his version of autoencephaly--" don't align your bishopric with my authority? I will force you to resign." The term orthodox in common usage means, basically, adhering to a norm--a cultural or socially accepted normalcy of behavior. Capital "O" orthodoxy isn't truly adhering to Jesus, or the Father Creator, or the Trinity--the norms arise from mannerisms, modalities of hirsute preferences, frocks garments and headpieces and such. And this is ALL about power, control, and authority of a temporal sort--wielding the mitre--not as a shepherd's crook, merely as a crook. Jesus would say "hireling."
Russians believe they can overthrown Constantinople,with the help of the other Slavs,only for the cosmic power. If they were mind their business,no issues would appear.
I'm sorry but if Bulgarians, Serbians, Romanians has their own church then the Ukranians also deserve to have their own church. Ukraine is an independent nation. I love the Russian Church but they have enought work to do converting the islamic in their nation to the Orthodox Faith ☦️ before wanting to controle Ukraine
Ukrainians already have a canonical Church of their own, it's called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and it is headed by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry. The debate is not about whether a particular nation 'deserves their own Church', it's about canonicity and Apostolic Succession which the so-called 'Orthodox Church of Ukraine' objectively lacks.
@@JesusPortalEng I do agree only Apostolic Succesion make us Orthodox but in the video you can hear him saying Ukraine and Belarus are under Russian administration
@@JesusPortalEngthe Russian church didnt have apostllic sucession too they have their own patriacht since the 1448 so who are they to tell that the Ukrain ortodox church cannot be under themselfs when they could become themself like that
One thing to understand about Russia: Moscow is the Third Rome (two other ones have fallen). So both the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Istambul should bow before Moscow and keep their mouths shut!
With all due respect, we'd have to strongly disagree. The current conflict has nothing to do with the 'Third Rome' theory. Moreover, the idea of Moscow being 'the Third Rome' is not reflected *anywhere* in the doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Moscow Patriarchate has *always* recognized the primacy of honour of the Patriarchate of Constantinople - primacy of the "first among equals" (primus inter pares). What is *not* recognized is the idea of Constantinople being the "first without equals" (primus sine paribus).
The only reason why the African Exarchate was created was because Patriarch Theodoros had begun to commemorate Epiphany Dumenko. The Russian Church is therefore ministering to those who do not want to be affiliated with schismatics from the so-called 'Orthodox Church of Ukraine'.
You long for a "mighty" Pope who will hold it under his fist.? ... and when he decides to bless Sodom & Gomorrah everyone must accept it because he is "infallible".?
How can people trust the foundation of Constantinople when it was founded by Constatine- not one of the 12 Apostles? ( Constantine was NOT a real chrisitan. He was baptized by an Arian elder soon before he died.)
Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). Apostolic succession is not biblical. The true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared to (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
Without the church that was carried on from the apostles and their successors, you would not even have those scriptures. The Church is older than the canon of Scripture.
@@alabamamotionpictureproduc6626 Wrong. God gave us the Scriptures, not the church men. You do not follow what is written by God. You follow men who want power.
@@jjmcgee5902God did not give us scriptures, they were written by men of The Church, then compiled later by Councils of The Church, into One Canonical Holy Bible. In a way, God did give us The Scripture, because both The Writers and Councils were divinely inspired by The Holy Spirit.
Ordination of Deacons and leaders (martyr and Deacon St. Stephen) the first Bishop of Jerusalem mentioned in scripture, James. There are records of presbyters, deacons, bishops from the first century onwards ordained in the biblical manner by the laying on of hands. The Church had structures, order and administration.
I am Greek Orthodox, so I have no bias in favor of this man, it’s his argument that matters. I can NOT see how his argument against our Patriarch is wrong. I also pray that our Patriarch Bartholomew come to his senses and accept his proper position and turn away from his path. I also pray for peace, reconciliation and love between my Orthodox brothers in Russia and Ukraine… though I know how naive that sounds ☦️. Lord Jesus Christ have Mercy on us. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal have mercy on us.
My brother you clearly Dont know thats just policitcal cyrill has a good relationship with Putin thats why the russiam ortodox church wants ukrain ortodox church under themself to Controll them they are schismatics and they are lacking on apostolic succeison without constanipopel
