How Do Orthodox Determine What's an Ecumenical Council? (W/ Fr. Peter Heers) 

We're already in discussion about another!

@@GospelSimplicity That's great; thanks for your videos.

@@GospelSimplicity Thank you Austin! Can you tell us what subject do you have in mind for the next interview with Father Peter Heers? ❤️

Glad you're enjoying it!

Thanks!

Glad you enjoyed it!

@@GospelSimplicity very much so! May God bless you abundantly my friend!

@@GregoryDecapolite since on your chanell the comments are thurned off i like to say that The Tsar and Patriarch that was prophecied of holy Fathers from russia The most Holy theodokos revealed him thru a kid. The videos you can find on my chanel Josif Popov. Stay Strong God bless you and save you and your family. And also amazing work that you do on your chanell always puts a fear of God in me and i Repent and fix my ways! Glory to God.

@@pravoslavie123 Glory to God! Wonderful and thank you! I just subscribed! Will check out the videos!

Thanks, will do!

His channel is great! I wish he was still active

I too have learned much from Ryan Reeves channel.

I’m Orthodox and I love him.

Thanks! Glad you're enjoying it!

The 'clear changes' are affecting orthodoxy too, just slower. The reason is simple, its a problem that came out of the western world so the east takes that influance more slowly but surely all the same.

How has Roman Catholicism changed in the last 60 years? The Orthodox church is the one that has changed, in fact the Roman church is seen as backwards for the fact that they refused to change, even in the face of massive social pressure, even from within. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

@@magikarp2063 Nobody is denying influence of modernism, ecumenism or secularism (some named it segianism after traitor Sergei who created with Stalin soviet patriarchate named RPC) on some clerics in the Church. But Church will survive even all patriarchs become Judas Iskariots, because we don't have infallible vicar of Christ who should we blindly obey because Lord choose him as His vicar. We can kick out such a traitors, but you can't your infallible.

If you kick out apostate Francis who is openly antichristian, then you will also kick out papism. There is no win situation for papists, but personally they could win eternal crown joining the true Church.

Yes, that's problem in the west, can't bind Holy Spirit with some legal definitions. Are you sure that you are in the Church because you have heterodox teaching which is perfectly clear - Church are those who are under authority of roman pontiff, or Ecumenical council is for real if it is accepted wih the same 'vicar of Christ for the Earth'? If something is simple and easy comprehand and clear in the legalistic sense, that doesn't means it is true.

If you lived in the 5th century would you have advised Bishop Nestorius’ laypeople to obey him and follow his heresies, or would you have told them to follow the Saints of the day and “neuter” their bishop’s authority? I think everything depends on the context.

@@Yallquietendown What about listen to the Holy Spirit and not patriarch who became heretic? That's is clear difference in ecclesiology of the Church and some western sect which is blindly following someone who is pretending to be vicar of Christ. In the Church such a case, rebelling of lay people against heretical patriarch is possible, and was many times during history. But in that western sect it is impossible, because rebelling against someone in the west whith white hat is as rebelling against Christ.

@@emilbrusic6032 I agree. It’s also same in marriage. The Bible says the man is the head of the household and the wife should obey. BUT Christ is higher than the husband so if the husband asks the wife to do something against Christ the the wife must obey Christ first. There is a hierarchy of authority. Christ is the head of the church and above everything.

@@Yallquietendown It is important to know that 5 patriachates were established and recognize in the Church as something which is economy in the Church, those cities were the biggest and the most important cities in the Roman Empire and it was natural to organise Church arround those cities. Roman catholics believe that God from eternity have chosen Rome as city for His vicar, which is false because nobody in the Church during first millenium, even orthodox roman patriarchs believe in that middle age falsehood.

If someone is true christian, i.e. has within himself the Holy Spirit, he will know by the same Holy Spirit which council is guided by Holy Spirit. That's why apostle James (by the way notice not st.Peter) concluded apostolic sinod in Jerusalem with words - "the Holy Spirit and we ...". You have asked - how could christian after Nicene Council know that Council wasn't false because most bishops were then arians? If he was christian the Holy Spirit will let him know, more than that, he will know before Council that Arius was heretic. But as papist you can't understand that. Why? Because there is neither valid sacraments nor Holy Spirit in the antichrist idea that our Lord Jesus Christ elect someone in Rome to be his vicar and monarch in the Church instead of Him. You blindly follow false and blind leader with false teaching, but with very simple law - don't asked God to illumminate your mind, just follow orders from Rome and follow guy with white hat even he is kissing book of false prophet Mohamed.

The way I understand is that the Holy Ghost decides if it’s ecumenical and authoritative and prayerful saintly people are able to know the will of God having followed the threefold path of sanctification (purification, illumination, deification). Those of us who have not reached sanctity trust the judgment of those who have. So if there were an orthodox council on Pachamama, for example, it would be rejected because the holy bishops, laypeople, and monastics would have discernment to know it’s not of God and other laypeople and clergy that follow these holy people would trust their judgment.

@@Yallquietendown Agree with you as orthodox who was baptised last year. I am still on the first step.

That’s ALWAYS like this, my friend. I sense this gnostic mentality is not only corrected, but stimulated by Eastern Orthodox clergy. So the response, when they struggle to even make sense when in conversations with Catholics and Protestants, always come to one of those (or more than one combined): 1) “Western mentality won’t help you understand”; 2) “We focus on mystery, not on reason”; 3) “That’s so typical of Western Scholasticism!”; 4) “Only those inside the Holy Orthodox Church can perceive the mysteries”; 5) “You Latins are heretics”; 6) “Down with the West”. What your friend said to you, well, we are listening on the Internet everyday some of the variants out there.

How long must one wait to realize and recognize Supremacy and Infallibility? Until St. Peters death, say, to the familiar dates of 1054 A.D.? to 1870 A.D? This is the pot calling the kettle black.

Whenever a new idea came up that contradicted what THE CHURCH until that moment considered as truth, ecumenical councils were gathered. All patriarchs and bishops attended the council, and there they took decisions what is true and what is false. Everything that appeared later and was not part of a common agreement through democratic voting by the "one man - one vote" method (technically, the Church believes that the decisions in the councils are an expression of The Holy Spirit through those present) is not the "right way to glorify" Jesus Christ.

@@svecve what you just described could easily be used to justify robber councils as ecumenical, or the council of Florence

@@connorlong3553 yes logically it could. But you don’t find Truth through logical proofs- it’s found through revelation and direct experience.

@@Yallquietendown that's very subjective, lots of prayer and detaching myself from sins of my past I believe helped lead to my conversion to Catholicism from Orthodoxy, Mormons and Muslims also say they have personal experiences that convinced them, that doesn't make them correct

@@connorlong3553 I agree it doesn’t make them correct. But are we actually detached observers following the scientific method after weighing all the options or are we guided by our experience and the logical reasoning is just a post hoc for something we already wanted to do? A logical argument about religion to me seems artificial and is rarely convincing. I think most people are moved by their experience (or supposed experience) of God’s revelation in their lives. I know anecdotes are frowned on in an argument but isn’t that how most people actually make decisions and operate?

Bizarre, lol. Yet the Catholic Church never recognize any sort of guarantee of infallibility on disciplinary matters, nor in synods. Eastern Orthodoxy still has to learn to present their cases better, if ever possible.

@@brunot2481 No man is infallible, if you believe that some human is infallible, then you are pagan who believe in semigods.

@@emilbrusic6032 "I will give you (Peter) the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."

@@WhiteBraveheart1 The same words were spoken to other apostoles, and st.Peter has no authority over them, for example st.James concluded apostolic synod in Jerusalem. St.Peter never acted in the Church as roman pontiff does in the RCC. Every bishop has the same authority 'to bind on earth'. Even more, bishop of Antioch has more right to be call successor of st.Peter because that's the first bishopric which was established by st.Peter.

@@emilbrusic6032 The same words were spoken to the Apostles But, who got it first? And why was only Peter given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? ----- He didn't act like the Roman Pontiff Why was Peter the only one renamed by Jesus? Do you know te significance of renaming someone in the Bible? Why was Peter the only one renamed by Christ? ----- Antioch But where did Peter and Paul go to be martyred? Why did they go to Rome instead of staying in Antioch? God bless you

But that is the logical conclusion, because they somehow have to do mental gymnastics around some council while holding on to the infallibility of others

What would you expect for there to be to make it an ecumenical council if not that it teaches the faith, follows the holy fathers and is accepted by the pleroma? What legal, external security do you need to have peace that it is an ecumenical council?

@@pah9730 But the issue is, it wasn't accepted by the pleroma, so on that issue - how can one have security that it is an ecumenical council by that purported criteria? How do you know it teaches the faith as well as follows the Holy Fathers? Would that not tie into the pleroma? Because in Chalcedon, a large large portion of the Church would have rejected that it did follow the Holy Fathers, and obviously the Pleroma did not accept it. It would seem the discussion must move to, what is the bare minimum proportion of the Pleorma that must accept it, which means getting into percentages and that just feels wrong, no?

@@michaeldonohue8870 Why, was it not accepted by the pleroma of the faithful? Are you implying that since Judas fell away that the Church (the pleroma) did not embrace the Lord? Or that because the Judiazers did not accept the Apostle Paul’s teaching that the Church (the pleroma) did not follow Christ’s teaching as laid down by the Apostle. Or, that since the much more numerous Arians (who called themselves Christians) and the political powers of the 4th century largely rejected the First Oecumenical Council that the Church (the pleroma) did not accept it. Chalcedon is no different than other Councils just because it is contended that there was a larger number of bishops or monks who did not accept it (actually, iconoclasm had a much larger number of supporters). Neither the truth nor the pleroma is determined by numbers or purely externally. If it were a matter of quantity, then there are many councils which could vie for legitmacy and a few of them for the title ecumenical, as well. As I said in the video, the council of Hieria, an iconoclast council with the emperor present, was very large, such that those judging only on the basis of it being “official” and the “entire hierarchy” being present, would have had to conclude that this council was ecumenical and authoritative. Again, there are no external signs, per se, of a council being an orthodox ecumenical council. For this, one need not be Orthodox to see; history witnesses to this. So, we cannot look at the reception by the pleroma as being a quantitative matter first and foremost. Christ is the pleroma and He is only full, and all those who are faithful to Him are in His fullness, those who have reached, or are reaching, the “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” The Church, the pleroma of the faithful to Christ, is that “spiritual man,”* that judges all but is judged by no one, such that no external authority or external, non-initiated observer can sit in judgement of Her and Her criteria. One has to enter into Her and then gaining the same experience of His Fulness have the epignosis of the truth and see that the pleroma of the faithful have followed Christ in this or that council. Of course, to the outside observer this will be just “circular reasoning” and “prove” nothing. But, this only makes the point, I think, that the Incarnate Truth cannot be “proved” on the level of the rational and logical only, it can only be pointed to and witnessed to. Which Council is authoritative and accepted by Christ (i.e. the Church, the pleroma of the faithful) is a matter of Truth, of Christ, and knowing Him is a spiritual matter surpassing the confines of the “natural man” (i.e. rationalist) who cannot discern matters spiritually. *(See 1 Cor. 2:14-15: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.)

@@pah9730 That is just a long winded way of saying, the pleroma is actually not a visible way of identifying the council, contra what the priest said in this video. As you can see, there are tons of problems with appealing to the pleroma.

@@pah9730 If it's eventually approved by the pope, it's ecumenical, pretty simple

It's the historical reality though. It's an ex post facto designation based on what you agree on after the fact. At least he's being honest even if you don't like the ambiguity.

Interested to hear what you believe, or what your denomination believes determines the legitimacy of an ecumenical council.

Whenever a new idea came up that contradicted what THE CHURCH until that moment considered as truth, ecumenical councils were gathered. All patriarchs and bishops attended the council, and there they took decisions what is true and what is false. Everything that appeared later and was not part of a common agreement through democratic voting by the "one man - one vote" method (technically, the Church believes that the decisions in the councils are an expression of The Holy Spirit through those present) is not the "right way to glorify" Jesus Christ.

@@aGoyforJesus It isn’t any sort of historical, my friend. But that’s the explanation a lot of Protestant denomination gives though. Since you are of a Calvinist background (if I am not mistaken) then your “retrospective judgment” based upon “what one agrees” or “don’t agree on” made Calvin reject the 7th Ecumenical Council about iconoclasm, for example. There is no way out: anti-Catholicism will eventually come to relativism, based upon subjectivism (like in Protestantism) or in pure abstract conventionalities - like saying the saints are the “authorities of the Church”, not the hierarchy or the pope - that are not entirely objective and freed from pure subjectivism either (like in Eastern Orthodoxy).

​@@aGoyforJesus nice username

Well, I suppose it depends on who you ask.

They would probably concede that you can’t. That they can only have pan-Orthodox synods after 1054

Saying there is no distinction between essence and energies is the same as saying there is no distinction between noun and verb. God answered Moses and said, I am the I AM, ὁ Ὤν, the BEING Who _makes_ all things. That there is a distinction between Maker and His act of _making_ is not a matter of development.

@@MikhalisBramouell I wasn’t even discussing that (and I do not really want to engage in what you said about Palamas), but I was only talking about ecclesiology and the theological understandings of Councils and, last but not least, the inconsistencies of the EO position (the way I respectfully think). But since you said so, I am curious. For you the series of synodal acts that took place in Constantinople from 1341 to 1351 to discuss and decide the so-called “Palamite controversy”: (A) was a Council and not only a series of synods, but not an Ecumenical one; (B) was an Ecumenical Council, but not a dogmatic one; (C) was only a series of synods and not a Council; (D) was an Ecumenical Council that proclaimed a dogma of faith - and it is the 8th Orthodox Ecumenical Council; (E) was an Ecumenical Council that proclaimed a dogma of faith - and it is the 9th Orthodox Ecumenical Council. So what option is yours, my friend? I’d like to know the reasons for the answer, please.

@@brunot2481 The 1st Canon of the 7th Œcumenical Council states clearly what makes a Council acceptable, namely its reception by the Saints (and invariability from the teachings held throughout all time), who become Saints by God's election and not by any choice of the Church, which is shown through their lives, miracles, martyrdom, and often the incorruption of their relics. In this case, we can see that men like Pope John Paul II, who worked no miracles, regularly broached on heresy and outright apostasy, who devoted his life to "world peace" and various other causes rather than the singular Most Holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose "relics" rot to this day, was canonized in the absence of the Holy Spirit and not by God's Election. St Gregory Palamas, on the other hand, still answers prayers and is responsible for various miracles even centuries after his repose. As to whether a synod/council is Œcumenical or not has everything to do firstly as to whether or not it is dealing with a local issue within limited jurisdiction(s) or if it is handling a major heresy which threatens the entire Œcumene, i.e. Christendom. According to the 7th Œcumenical Council, even local councils are considered as guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible, insofar as they are accepted by those whom we can see (after the fact) were elected to sainthood by God.

@@MikhalisBramouell Ok, friend. I thought you could give me a simple answer, not an offense over a Catholic canonized saint like Pope St John Paul II, whose death was received with great sadness and an enormous chant in St Peter’s Basilica of “santo subito”, which means immediately the faithful were asking for his canonization. Contrary to what happens in Eastern Orthodoxy, we have a commission to check the claims, scientists to analyze the cause prior to state a miracle happened through intercessory prayers and a solemn information formed to instruct the Pope who is proceeding with beatification or canonization, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints" or, in Latin, the _"Congregatio de Causis Sanctorum"_ . And the Church only proceeds after a series of prayers asking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. On EO, maybe you call your saints post-schism just as arbitrarily as you do your ecclesiology, to be sincere - so you should at least be more respectful towards a Catholic canonized saint. I am devout of St John Paul II and maybe I should respond strongly and adequately, but actually this won’t put us in a nice place. And I should have known better you wouldn’t even give me an adequate answer in the first place. Greetings from Brazil.

@@brunot2481 I understand: so your response is to tell me that _you_ made him a saint (and still not the Holy Spirit). To us Orthodox, everything we believe comes by divine revelation, not what we wish to be true. And not what so-called "scientists" tell us is true (which is explicitly anathema according to the 7th Œcumenical Council).

The Orthodox view is much more inline with the history of the church councils. The Catholic view is a modern view.

@@diegobarragan4904 I don’t think so, I need to check it out myself. I think the idea that the church holding a council and the pope ratifying it makes it more simple and less ambiguous.

@@thelonelysponge5029 there has been councils ratified by popes and meant to be ecumenical but never became an ecumenical council. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s true. The externals are simple and necessary, but there’s a bigger part to it than just the externals being checked off

@@diegobarragan4904 name a few, I’m still learning so it might take me a while.

The strongest example is the Lateran Council of 649 which was a failed attempt of Pope Martin making an ecumenical council. The council itself was good, but it shows that the pope didn’t have the power to make an ecumenical council by his own authority.

No, if you were orthodox you will know before Nicene Council that Son has the same divine essence (homousios) as Father. Otherwise, someone with such formalistic view could conclude that even apostles didn't believe in the Holy Trinity. And for anti example, papists didn't believe in papism till first vatican council of RCC.

@@emilbrusic6032 We are talking about how you can be sure that a council is binding to the faithful or not. I understand your point but its irrelevant. Ofcourse people could believe in the right things before a council approved it as binding.

@@magikarp2063 Similar as two disciples after seeing Lord tell each other: “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” So, there is no legalistic formula such as - I will follow roman pope and what he was proclaimed, for example - this Council is binding, I will accept also. Become saint, which is aim of our life anyway, then God will give you after repentence, illumination - i.e. true knowledge. And that is what told you fr.Heers in video, Council is valid and binding if it is accepted by saints.

A person may be a material heretic before a council defines a doctrine but generally not a formal heretic. Leniency and charity is usually given by the church to people who had erroneous beliefs before a doctrine is formally defined. The council and history itself can more fully explain the reasons why a doctrine is heretical and such information and guidance, possibly not being available to people before the council, not having been available is not held against the believer who held them. That’s why, even church fathers who in some respects may hold beliefs that are later be held as heretical are still admired and respected. Also, the individual believer is not expected to understand doctrines to the level of a PhD in theology. A believer who mistakenly believed that icons were idolatrous because that’s what the bishops around him taught, would not be in jeopardy for loss of salvation. The church has at its best believed in the principal of oikonomia and when this has broken down it has caused great destruction in the church. Austin is in his very nature a living example of oikonomia. It’s high time we start looking at each other with a little more charity and not expecting the worst intent in what we hear from our Christian brothers and sisters but instead looking at what they say with the best intent. Christians should be optimists.

Vatican2 is a Ecuminical council yet majority of RCs say it’s not binding ect.. not to mention the schism it caused. RCs have no argument

Thanks for sharing

So, do you believe in the 'filioque' or not? Ukrainian greek catholics don't believe, others believe as latin papists. Maybe that is not bothering you, but question about when the Council is accepted, and you finally know - when it's accepted by 'vicar of Christ'.

@@emilbrusic6032 Catholics whose theology is based on Greek do not use Filioque because when written in Greek it is a heresy. The difference is in linguistics. Latin and Byzantine Catholics reached the agreement that the Filioque could be expressed as an equivalent with the phrase "from the Father through the Son." Inclusion of it in the west was to combat Arianism because in Latin it can be interpreted as the Father having more or being superior to the Son. For us the Filioque is a non-issue and purely linguistic. Most Orthodox theologians including the highly respected Kallistos Ware agree.

@@themorbidmole9247 You are correct in general, although I wouldn’t agree on it signifying heresy “if in Greek”. That would depend on the word used. But not only this. Some Oriental Orthodox Churches (pre-Chalcedonians), more specifically the Coptic Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox, who are not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, agreed with us Catholics on the "Filioque". So both of them, not using Greek nor Latin idioms, agree with us on the “Filioque”, showing the idiomatic obstinacy on the part of the Byzantines in schism is not really justified. Almost every Protestant denomination agree with us too. The total union with pre-Chalcedonian was not possible though. I am referring to the bull "Cantate Domino" (1442) in the Council of Florence (check Denzinger-Hünermann, n. 1330-1335). So that simply shows the way it is with Eastern Orthodoxy.

@@themorbidmole9247 I heard many complaints about that USA cleric. In the case of USA, believe more to saintly Seraphim Rose who was, as true orthodox, against heresy of ecumenism. Anyway, filioque is very important because that western heresy destroys relationships between Persons in the Holy Trinity. We believe in the One God, the Father, the monarch, not to three gods. God the Father is the Cause, and if the Son is also cause, then Son could be cause of the Father, which is meaningless, and the Holy Spirit is bellow them. Other problem with filioque is papism alone, because Councils anathemizes anybody who will take or add something to the Creed, but your 'vicar of Christ' think he is above Church. And now it is your problem also.

Besides, you are entirely correct on the issues over the idiomatic struggles. The Greek idiom is astonishing rich both in vocabulary and in verbal or nominal constructions; the Latin idiom is rich only in its phrasal construction, but it is consistently poor on vocabulary. Some philologists/linguists suggest emphatically that the Latin use of words (vocabulary) is directly connected to the tradition within the West to develop scientific and philosophical explanations, what Easterners may understand as “dogmatism”. But to see it as a linguistic problem is not only attributable to modern philologists, but that’s the exact argument - language caracteristics - St Maximus the Confessor used against the Bizantine Empire when he explained the Emperor that the Latins were perfectly orthodox around the "Filioque" (he is considered "the last martyr of the Roman Empire" because later he was killed under Byzantine Emperor's order, being a saint both to Caholics and Orthodoxs). So because vocabulary in Latin is poor (even though the phrasal constructions are not) compared to the much richer Greek vocabulary, explanations were more or less always needed so as not to incur in wrong or imprecise theological understandings. If that is understood, then it explains also the adding of the clause “and the Son” after the word “procedit” in the translated Creed, which means literally “come-forth from” (not the word “procession” as in Greek). Please notice the Greek Scriptures use different Greek verbs to speak of different kinds of “going forth” from the Father (a cognate of “erchomai” in John 8, 42, for example, but “ekporeusthai” in John 15, 26), BUT the Latin Scriptures (the Vulgate or earlier manuscripts) translate these different Greek words by the same Latin verb, “procedere” (to proceed), the word from which the past form “procedit” comes. The whole problem with the Greek-speaking Christians was the possible understanding of the “double origin” as both the Father and the Son would be like two autonomic principles of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit on the love relation operating between the Father and the Son on eternity, from which the Holy Spirit is spired as one sole principle. But it is NEVER taught by the Catholic Church; it NEVER taught the Holy Spirit have two autonomic principles within the eternity of the Holy Trinity. Pope John VIII actually ordered the Bishops from the West NOT to press the Greek Churches to add the “Filioque” in the Greek and original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Not to remove the “Filioque” from the Latin Creed. The “Filioque clause” is endorsed and in use in the Latin West since the very beginnings of the Creed’s usage. For example, in the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447); in the so-called Athanasian Creed; in the several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI); in the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521); in Pope St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655; in Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795; in the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680); in the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem; in the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii. An so forth. Those are the historical facts. And that’s exactly one of the issues taught by “Orientalium Dignitas” of Pope Leo XIII and “Orientale Lumen” of Pope St John Paul II: to avoid the Latinization of the churches and to preserve their identities in the “oikoumené”. To say otherwise is simple stubborness and falsification of facts on the part of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Nice!

Thanks for these thoughts

@@GospelSimplicity Thank you for being genuinely kind! God bless you, Austin!

Which Catholic saints or doctors (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "papists") were "looking for an organisation" as opposed to God and its mystical body?

@@crca486 All of those who supported the papal totalitarianism could never be guided by the One in Three True God.

@@dimitrispeiraias If you can't even quote any writings, why would you want to tell Catholics what they believe in, or are really looking for? Don't you think they'll know better?

And was I the only one shocked at how casually he dismissed the current Moscow-C'ple schism? Like, "Oh yeah, these happen all the time." Excuse me, but they're not supposed to happen at all.

@@TheJason909 The reason that you’re not understanding Fr. Peter Heer’s is because of your worldview. Westerners want a formula for everything.

@@TheRealRealOK So it's "western" and unreasonable to think that we should be able to consistently identify what is theologically binding?

@@TheRealRealOK that sir, is a very callous and fairly arrogant viewpoint. Who can entirely decide their worldview? Who can help what culture, race or family they were born into? Imagine a missionary telling other cultures this! This question deserves an understandable answer, no matter who you are.

Western rationalism is incapable of understanding the mysteries of the faith. Big picture is definitely difficult for small focused minds.

It’s not difficult, non-Orthodox just don’t understand it.

Orthodox are the original hipsters: "Oh, you wouldn't understand it." ^_^

@@TheJason909 Hipsters wouldn't die for their Faith and aren't genuine. Get real.

@@LadyMaria I was trying to lighten the mood with a bit of humor. Geez.

@@benjamind547 Timothy Ware seems to reject receptionism.

Many men are better at answering a question than one man alone.

@@CashFreedman history begs to differ. If thats the case then we wouldnt have heretic council. And by the way, all those councils deemed as heretic cause it is declared so by ONE SINGLE authority.

I agree that the reception Theory is completely Heretical and basically proves that Orthodoxy is devolving into straight up protestanism, in which the Church doesnt choose the doctrine for believers, but instead the believers choose which doctrine they assent to.

When they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome or get full ratification by the Bishop of Rome and they are addressing issues universally, not locally or regionally. So the answer is: the same that was always given during the first millennium. Heretical and “rubber” councils are there, right? But all in the East and none with papal participation, approval or ratification. Simple as that.

@@brunot2481 Basically when they come back :)

@@brunot2481 I trust you are aware that the 6th ecumenical council declared the Bishop of Rome - the Pope - to be a Heretic

@@George-ur8ow Yes and no. Yes on the anathema; no on the reasons. There is this strange habit of accusing Pope Honorius of being a teacher of the Monothelitist heresy. But I would seriously disagree with any assumptions on him “teaching” direct heresy because it is historically false, let alone on what conditions that “teachings” happened. Honorius, as the Bishop of Rome, was actually addressed a letter with questions by the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius, a heresyarch himself, asking about things concerning the theological issue of monothelitism. Again, just to get the starting picture: it was Sergius who actually taught direct heresy, NOT Honorius; it was Sergius who was having doubts on how to address his theological propositions. So the whole thing was the letter Honorius wrote in response to Sergius, the heretic Patriarch of Constantinople, in which he arguably agrees that suppressing parts of the letter would solve the problems in the heterodoxy of Sergius’s proposed direct teachings. Apart from the arguable bad translation to Latin, it is clear that Pope Honorius was anathematized for being unable to teach clearly whatever was in need to cease the state of doctrinal confusion, but not on formally teaching direct heresy to the universal church himself. That simply was not the case, apart from a very distorted interpretation of historical facts, even omitting the way the precise same Council addressed later on to Popes St Agatho and St Leo II. On Catholic encyclopedia we see it is very carefully described (link below): _“(...) It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends (...)”_ . “(...) _The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things", and Macarius with his followers. The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter "which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the pope receives no support from the Acts. On the contrary all the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently delighted with the possibility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to approve the policy of silence enforced under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban”_ . “(...) _The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, _who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”_ . www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm So if you put hands on the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople and the documents by Pope St Agatho and of Pope St Leo II about monothelitism, it becomes clear enough that Pope Honorius was *NOT* blamed for teaching any sort of direct heresy, but for giving assent to the artifice proposed by Sergius of Constantinople to somehow avoid the theological struggles presented on his text, by simply omitting the “one operation” (of will) positive affirmation, instead of proclaiming any objective doctrine of faith and morals whatsoever in his response letter to Sergius. So he got anathematized because he wasn’t able to convey the right doctrine and for spreading severe confusion in the Church and on his ambiguity. The facts are simple as that, even though it is from time to time presented a sort of onslaught on the Catholic position on “infallibility”. If so, it would not even be any proof against the papacy, since all documents of the Council (Third Council of Constantinople, 6th Ecumenical Council) even ostensively affirm the papacy and salute the “headship of the Apostles” when praising both Popes St Agatho or St Leo II’s anathemas on Honorius. More so, for this fact/controversy to pose as evidence against infallibility it would presuppose Honorius’ letter to Sergius was somewhat attending the papal infallibility clause as later defined, which would need some very serious ignorance on what the 4 (four) conditions for infallibility according to the Catholic teaching are, since in no possible way Honorius’ personal letter to Sergius, its formal structure and its content could attend those. So to look for Honorious anathema in the 6th Ecumenical Council (specially in Papal documents) as if it posed as a proof agains the papacy is to presume all popes must have been good popes or maybe saints, which clearly is not the case. On the other hand, if we see the specific reason for the anathema, he was accused of being confusing, but not accused of being authoritative, rather for not being authoritative (and doctrinally secure) enough. So if we REALLY look at the documents, specially how the Third Council of Constantinople (6th Ecumenical) again referred to Pope St Agatho and to Pope St Leo II, then it seems very evident that non-Catholics are maybe distorting facts to deny obvious realities (the papacy) and to imply other facts that are not in accordance to history (to pretend it was Honorius who was actually teaching Monothelitism “ex cathedra” to the Universal Church, which evidently was not the case). I really hope you get those facts right, George.

@@brunot2481 Your response reads like the "Chewbacca Defense", a legal strategy wherein a defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury, rather than refute a clear case. It is an intentional obsfucation and distraction. Nothing is going to change the fact that an ecumenical council specifically recognized by both churches anathematized Pope Honorious. Fact: he was anathemitized by an ecumenical council, for, as you put it in your own words, "he wasnt able to convey the right doctrine and spread severe confusion in the church". No amount of wookie obsfucation is going to change that; no, not in the sunsequent rehabilitation of Honorius by the Roman Church; and certainly not through the second millenial ex-post facto doctrinal innovations of supremacy and infallibility. Explaining away the anathema of a Pope through a pre-determined, hundreds of years after-the-fact legal framework set up specifically by the Roman church is hardly the prism by which one should objectively view the anathema of a Pope.

The faithful Uniates in Roman Catholicism disagree with how many as well. It isn't an Orthodox only thing.

If heretics reject the Council, even whole patriachate, doesn't matter. You think Council is some kind of Congress where some have right to veto. No, the Holy Spirit is in charge, not some non existent counting and similar rules. And it is possible that all patriachates fall away from the Church, even our Lord told us - will there be any faith when He will come second time. So, it is very likely that many patriachates will fall away, and again gates of hell will not prevail over Church. Rome fell away, it was the most tragical event, but the Church continue to live.

@@emilbrusic6032 What? Do you even considered the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church that Orthodox and Catholic believe? Convert to Orthodoxy, I presume.

@@namapalsu2364 So, you believe as dogmatic teaching of the Church, all 5 ancient patriarchs will be there alive and orthodox when our Lord comes second time? Please enlighten me if you know that prophesy and when was that dogma proclaimed? I know as ex papist that first vatican council 1871. declared similar for roman pope, but that doesn't count for me any more, so please refer to councils of the true Church.

@@emilbrusic6032 Five ancient patriarchs? That shows that you have much to learn about Church history. There were, at first, only three patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Later, Jerusalem was added an horary patriarchate (I believe at Nicaea I). Constantinople styled themselves Patriarch for a very long time without any other recognizing. Only way, way later, as concession, it got elevated into patriarchal see. Now, for the main point, there's no dogma that ALL patriarchs will still around and Orthodox. The dogma are: 1. Only the successor of Peter whose faith will not fail (Luke 22:32). 2. The Church is indefectible (Matthew 16:18) 3. The Church is infallible (Mat 16:18, 1Tim 3:15).

@@namapalsu2364 The successor of Peter, who oversaw the burning of Joan of Arc as a heretic, only to later canonize her? The successor of Peter, who severed communion with the east, in part due to the Papal reading of a forged legal document, and in part due to differences in liturgical praxis, only to later admit the Byzantine uniates, having that same praxis, to communion for geopolitical purposes? The successor of Peter, who publicly venerated the Qur'an, which denies the divinity of Christ? The successor of Peter, who, through his so-called infallibility in teaching, changed the teaching of previous successors on the death penalty? The successor of Peter, who now advocates for same-sex civil unions?

You didn’t listen very closely to the interview

@@pah9730 There was false Council in Crete couple years ago. Reason for that sinod was following of papism and ecumenism of some high clerics who should be deposed. Faithful rejected that Council as it was rejected false Council of Florence.

Pope has no beard; how can we trust? Sad!

@@Yallquietendown :) All orthodox roman patriarchs had beards. Maybe that is the root of western problems.

Whenever a new idea came up that contradicted what THE CHURCH until that moment considered as truth, ecumenical councils were gathered. All patriarchs and bishops attended the council, and there they took decisions what is true and what is false. Everything that appeared later and was not part of a common agreement through democratic voting by the "one man - one vote" method (technically, the Church believes that the decisions in the councils are an expression of The Holy Spirit through those present) is not the "right way to glorify" Jesus Christ.