@@Pat.hibuleire According to Islam, every person is born a Muslim somehow. Using Islam‘s own logic, no religion has more apostates than Islam 😂. It’s gonna take more than fake statistics to deceive people into thinking that a pedophile is a prophet and worthy of emulation. Jesus Christ our God be with you, my friend ❤️🕯️🙏🏾
Hi Kyle, Erick here. I appreciate your friendship and your careful research. My door is always open for further conversations. I'll take my lessons as you continue to out-put material.
@@ralphraymondsadlucapperez8235 He sure is. Lofton has even blocked me for not respectfully agreeing with him & was condescending, refusing to address my arguments, he couldn't take a challenge from me a *channel member* . He is used to fanboys who say yes boss for every shallow thing he says.
@@matthewschmidt5069 dude, I have all the screenshots of me schooling him, and I will expose him to the bare bone of how he was scared to answer my questions & only insulted, as well as him asking an immodest ukrainian woman to send to his e-mail mud about his holiness Patriarch Kirill.
Thomas Aquinas justified the persecution of 'heretics' (life in jail if thy repent and capital punishment if ther relaps) ein opposition of all the holy Fathers.
Thanks for the great content! I'm currently a catechumen from protestantism into Orthodoxy, and the fact that unity of faith was much more important than unity around the Pope (which evolved over time) seemed more in line with the heart and mind of the early church. ☦️
You're making a false & strange opposition between unity of faith & "unity around the Pope ". It comes across as inventing an opposition to try to feel more comfortable about a decision you've made/are making.
@@josephodoherty7864 I can assure you that I'm not inventing an opposition to feel better about my decision. Thank you for your concern though. It is a good reminder to always maintain humility on our pursuit of truth. Bless you brother 🙏
We still produce saints as well :) St. Paisios, St. Iakavos, St. Porphyrios, St. Sophrony, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Ephraim of Arizona.. and so many more
The things that were the "kill shots" to the RC argument for me when I was determining whether the East or West was right in the Great Schism: 1. Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Even though Rome at first rejected it because it changed the ancient order of the Churches, Rome eventually adopted the ordering in the 4th Lateran Council which has Ecumenical authority in RCcism. However, the real point of why canon 28 is significant is the fact that the eastern Churches believed that the Roman Church had been "granted privileges from the fathers", and that the Roman Church had preeminece among the Churches because it was situated in the capital. The eastern bishops did not believe the bishop of Rome had a special divine charism above other bishops. While RCs reject this reasoning the fact remains the eastern Churches believed this and thus didn't have a Papal mindset that RCcism eventually came to have of the Church of Rome. 2. Pope Vigilius was suspended and Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic. The eastern Churches understood that their authority, when gathered in Ecumenical Council, was above the Pope to the point that they could suspend him and/or excommunicate him for heresy. This is in contradiction to Vatican I which claims the Pope's authority is above an Ecumenical Council, and canon 1404 of Roman Catholic canon law that states, "The First See is judged by no one." Again, this shows that the Churches of the East didn't have a Papal mindset. 3. Constantinople I was convened without the participation of Rome and seen as dogmatically authoritative in the Christian East long before Rome signed off on it. Furthermore, the Council was presided over by Meletios who was not in communion with Rome at the time, and even died out of communion with Rome, and yet is considered a Saint in the Church. This demostrates that for the eastern Sees Rome's approval of an Ecumenical Council, while certainly sought for due to Christian unity, ultimately was not a deciding factor as to whether a Council was authoritative for the Church in the East. These, as well as other things such as Rome accusing the East of changing the Creed by removing the filioque clause (false), Rome changing the Apostolic Tradition of communing in both kinds and not communing infants, led me to conclude that the Orthodox position was the correct position of remaining more faithful to the beliefs and practices of the first millennium Church.
@@heinoschaapman1584no? Where do you get that from just because it’s looking back on that time of history it isn’t post hoc , post hoc would mean things that happen today prove they were wrong in the past (which I’ll admit i sometimes fall into) but this is simply comparing the facts of the situation
@david-468 frankly, I forgot what I meant here 😅. I find discerning between the two churches very hard. I'm leaning catholic. Wasn't pope Honorius affirmed at later councils and only condemned as s private heretic(not ex cathedra) for a heresy he turned out not to be holding?
Trying to make sense of why I need to submit to the papacy while the catechism says there is salvation outside of the church and that the Orthodox are a True Church… uh. Idk man, that’s a level of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics I’m not willing to entertain. The answer to that conundrum seems blatantly “self evident” as RC apologists claim. It actually doesn’t take a PHD in philosophy to make sense of that. If you feel and believe Catholicism is where the truth is and you believe you have Christ, by all means and God bless you ☦️ In all seriousness my friend, It’s a mess in the world.
I was lutheran - agnostic (hoping it was false) - non dom. Went looking because -- this wasnt the same. had all my arguments against catholics destroyed besides a few. tried to find the answers to those. Stumbled upon orthodoxy. Will be inquiring soon
I've also been questioning Catholicism lately and I've also been investigating Orthodoxy as a Catholic I always just assumed as a western person that you either had to be Protestant or Catholic
Please do not leave the one true faith. If there’s anything that is clear from history, it is that the apostolic see of Rome “has never erred “ and will be “undefiled unto the end” (Constantinople III)
its all slight of hand - protestants vs catholics- the only consideration amongst nearly everyone including myself until recently, meanwhile hidden in plain sight is the church
Honestly, most Catholic apologists caused me to choose Orthodoxy because of the historical conundrum that consistently manifest themselves. However, though there are still some weaknesses in Orthodoxy, none of it goes against it's own doctrine. Just surface level stuff like language, jurisdiction, and how they handle internal disagreements. But the faith doesn't change. Unlike Rome. Honestly, reading Vatican 1, Trent, and then 2 was enough for me when comparing that to eachother, but especially comparing to the first millenia. I watched the apologists try and explain that Rome hasn't actually taught anything different.... I can't see how they make that claim after reading them.
This is why I chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy ironically lol. Unlike the Orthodox, I'm able to accept doctrinal development and I understand the term binding and loosing. I also understand that there is enough biblical evidence for the Filioque and other Catholic teachings. The Orthodox apologists are also very unhinged for the most part and they have not fulfilled the great commission as the Catholics clearly have. The Catholics check off all the marks of the church Unity, Preaching to all nations, Worship, Scripture AND Tradition.
@@TruLuan RE: Great Commission - that is because we were too busy shielding you from, then suffering under, the Muslims. The existence of the Byzantine Empire bought the Latin West time to get out of the Dark Ages, through the Carolingian Rennaissance, the Italian Rennaissance, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, The Scientific Revolution and to the beginning of the Enlightenment. You are welcome, by the way. Except for the Spanish, and a short, 200-year period when your home territories were not at risk, Middle and Western Europe could develop unhindered the technology to spread Christianity to the rest of the world until Constantinople fell and the Turks were at the gates of Vienna 1683 (OK, the Knights Hospitaller should get credit for defending Malta, and therefore the Western Mediterranean, a century earlier - but they didn't go abroad to spread Christianity either). Nevertheless, during this time, the Orthodox Church managed to evangelize Eastern Europe - even having to deal with your Teutonic Knights, who decided it was less trouble to fight us in Livonia rather than the Muslims in the Levant or Iberia.
Great video I became orthodox last year and man it was a good choice so glad to be orthodox and I thank the lord yeshua for guiding me to his home ☦️☦️❤️
I’m ex orthodox and now Catholic. Both churches have issues and faults. Good fair charitable video. I’m an ex pastor too. But to me what made me go catholic was in how seeing all the church fathers and saints even eastern saints and councils always talked about the importance and headship of Rome and the Pope. I don’t see how anyone can get around that. This is key and crucial and once I couldn’t deny that among MANY other reasons. I knew I had to become Catholic. I also like it and resonate with it better. Also, in ortho I had way too many bad experiences and inconsistencies. But even though I’ve been also following all these channels and reading all the same books and studying both sides for 10 years and have been in both churches, but I’m still open to deeper research and more learning and discussion. Just curious what made you decide with the East.
On a slightly different note; I think Lofton would turn anyone Orthodox. His arguments are so badly formulated that in a strange way he's an Orthodox apologist.
On a similar note, there is book out there titled "Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity." If you like conversion stories, you might want to check it out.
As a Catholic who just discovered your channel, blessing to you in your faith. We are all apostolic christians and we are in a sad family argument. But at least we are eating the same meal. Praying one day the argument will ease and heal.
Always a pleasure to watch an RC earnestly follow the Truth in spite of their long-standing beliefs. May the Lord bless you and guide on your journey into Holy Orthodoxy. 🙏🏽
Really? Can you explain what is so important in this video? Because I have watched it, and I don't really understand, what his arguments are supposed to be. (if he has any)
I am sorry to see you go. No doubt it is part of your spiritual journey to wrestle with the Faith (like Israel wrestled with the angel). And I wish you well. May you, like Michael Lofton, return stronger and better-founded.
@@ericgatera7149 He can chose any Orthodox canonical jurisdiction. He'll probably go to the closest geographically. It doesn't matter. We're all One Church, despite the jurisdictions and all this nationalism and geopolitics and whatever else. Try not to be bitter about this. I know how you feel. I also know people who became RC from Orthodox. One of them was my close friend. I feel the loss. So may God bless you in your endeavors.
@@KarenSarkissianActually it is not one church, hence they are called Eastern Orthodox churches. I am not bitter for I didn't know him. It is the first time to hear him. God bless you
@@ericgatera7149 I am sorry if I misunderstood you.The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has Christ as her head and is composed of various local churches under local bishops. But the Church is One, not many. God bless you too!
@@KarenSarkissian I see what you mean. But coming from a different Church tradition, I do not see a principled unity in autonomous/totally self govern Churches.
The more he is burning bridges against his former friends like Matt Fradd and Erick Ybarra the more obvious to everyone else that he is not helping. He is applying for priesthood in Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Please pray for Michael Lofton.
I think that's true for those highly intellectual Protestants. Ultimately the approach of Lofton will lead them away from Rome. But, I do think it should also lead them away from Orthodoxy. Lofton does do a good job of showing that the same arguments against Rome ultimately undercut Eastern Orthodoxy. Anyone who has been inside Eastern Christianity especially knows this to be true. I think Lofton especially pushes people towards the Protestantism of people like Dr. Ortlund and Dr. Cooper.
@@acekoala457 he can't be ordained due to his public apostasy. Many people saw his public debate with Erick Ybarra accusing Catholicism heretical. For an example both ex EO priests, Joshua Schooping and Matthew Joyner who left EOy can't return as clergy. Apostasy can be absolved but there's no possibility for clerical ministry due to lifetime penance as laity. He went to Vatican a few weeks ago. He had received annulment a few years ago before became Byzantine with his wife and her child. Barrier to ordination typically scandal. Some Ortho Bros told me they plan to release screenshot of him disparaging his ex wife. That's what makes me concerned for his soul and wellbeing because he might snapped like Frank Schaefer or Drake Shelton leaving Christianity altogether when not ordained. Hopefully he is not ambitious and humble to stay as a laity. Please pray for him 🙏
As a Catholic on the fence, the Loftdawg's hyper-ultramontane ecclesiology always pushes me to the Orthodox. Have you engaged with Soloviev's "Russia and the Universal Church"? It's often presented as a Catholic apologetic, but I find it more ambiguous than that-especially considering that it was influential for Dostoyevsky and Florovsky.
Michael Lofton has been getting more unhinged and arrogant in a way that's sad to watch. He seemed to be more stable previously, but as time goes on, he seems more concerned with engagement and brand. I hope life gets better for him.
@@eabm1984 "Ultramontanism" (meaning "beyond the mountains") was a 19th century ecclesiological movement that sought to transform the pope into an absolute monarch akin to Napoleon and Peter the Great.
As a Protestant/Evangelical youth pastor who isn’t protesting Rome or the East, I’ve been attempting to discern Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the past 3 years or so. The amount of material in the church fathers alone is overwhelming… Tens of thousands of pages of works as you know. I haven’t explored your channel enough, so forgive me if you’ve addressed this topic already, but did you follow a formal process in discerning between the two traditions claiming to be the one true church? (I use all lower case here on purpose…hah) I have many questions. Here’s one or two… How do you approach specifically the understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) that Rome accepts the Eastern Orthodox sacraments, but the Eastern Orthodox do not accept Rome’s? How do you grapple with Rome’s claim that those who understand it to be the one true church and then leave are not able to be saved? Thanks for any response in advance!
I specifically made a video for people in your position (I was once there myself, discerning between the two). I pray you find it helpful! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m1WACID4W4o.htmlsi=3Qpjcaream7g8LUP
As an orthodox I can't explain much about what the Roman Catholic Church believes because they self contradicted themselves on most major issues without ever admitting being wrong at some point. Correction : they are consistent on one point : people have to sbmit to the Roman Pontiff.
I think the Catholic and Orthodox Church should be working to reunify not persist in division. May Christ find us reunited at his return or ardently working toward that end.
For me, Christ giving the keys for Peter only is something that protestants and orthodox fail to give a satisfying explanation without twisting the words of Christ in ad hoc way. Christ instituting the papacy was the decisive factor why I converted to Catholicism instead of EO. The authority that Christ himself instituted simply overrides ancient liturgical traditions, my preferences about them, and even the confusion with contemporary doctrinal documents. The current noise in modern church doesn't make the words of Christ less clear.
I may be but a simple Catholic convert…. I can’t see leaving the oneness of the holy Catholic Church for orthodoxy, because I know the same “problems “ will exist everywhere.
I've seen some decent arguments concerning "thou art Peter and upon this rock..." but none concerning the keys. Just as there are OT/NT types and anti-types (OT Ark/NT Mother Mary, 12 tribes/12 Apostles, OT 70/ NT 72 (Tradition says 2 guarded the tent of the 70, etc, etc, etc), there was one person in ancient Israel who was the chamberlain who had the keys, not 12, and not 5 either (i.e., Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, etc).
@@RayMack-xz7xg Exactly. The authority given to Eliakim over people of Judah is described in Old Testament with: "And *the key* of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." (Isaiah 22:22)
@@RayMack-xz7xg The "keys" represent the authority of the Church to teach, to forgive sins, and to bind and loose, which is a mark of the apostolic office. And if you wanna use typology, the "Chair of Moses" is a precedent mentioned by Christ himself to the position of authority held by the scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 23:2-3 - "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice." The "Chair" operated in a conciliar manner. Just like the Orthodox tradition believes that the unity of the episcopate and of the Church is symbolized.
@@LoveLove-jk9kz However, this explanation doesn't really touch on why the only pair of keys were given to Peter. Only Peter has given the authority, which the rest of the apostles point to in their vocation when they genuinely bind and loose (Matt. 18:18), but only with the keys given to Peter. This is what the Catholic hierarchy looks like still today. Strictly speaking, pentarchy would imply more like five sets of keys for five heads of the church sharing the same amount of authority. Or do EOs symbolize Peter as pentarchy?
As a Catholic, I have nothing but respect for your decision. There are things that I like about Orthodoxy compared to Catholicism. I’ll be praying for you on your journey!
He's done a lot of great interviews in his work, and I'm very grateful for him in being and providing mediating voices of reason amongst a lot of confusion and polarization. I haven't kept up with his more recent stuff which seems like it's been missing the forest for the trees somewhat - I think Michael has a kind of left-hemisphere sort of thinking that in the Catholic case can tend toward Magisterial fundamentalism. That said I basically agree with Kyle's points here; again on more of a gestalt / forest level of the stronger claim. May God have mercy on us all and bring about true unity in charity.
I’d respectfully disagree when people say orthodox are united in matters of the faith. Most orthodox cannot agree on re-baptism or christmation for converts,when the convert has already been baptized. Rebaptism is a sacrilege.Or on the use of contraceptives or on divorce you get differnt answers depending on which Orthodox Church you go to. Yes Rome has problems but orthodoxy seems to have more issues. liberalism and modernism is infecting every body.Look at whats going on Greek Orthodox archidiocese of America Church as an example. ROCOR and the Serbian Orthodox Church thinks all the other orthodox churches are liberals and not “true orthodox “. Just like how SSPX and rad trads think the ordinary form is evil. The grass ain’t greener in orthodox. i’d say the Byzantine/eastern Catholics have it right when it comes to liturgy and not being ambiguous on Faith and morals and being in communion with Rome. Praying for Christian unity 🙏🇻🇦✝️
The Council where the controversy was solved allowed for both methods of reception for Heterodox Converts and Applications to be decided by Local Synods. There is no confusion.
I actually agree that confusion arises when individuals in the Church do not properly understand the Church's teaching, and that could be the fault of clergy or individuals. However, the truth of the Church remains inviolate even if individuals within the Church disagree about doctrinal points at certain times. The truth prevails and it is revealed in time. One can see this principle playing out during the Arian crisis, when there was only a handful of bishops in the Church (which you probably believe to have been the RC Church at that time) who clung to Orthodoxy and didn't fall into heresy. I'm sure that it must have been confusing for an Orthodox Christian at that time to discern the correct faith with so many in the Church not understanding it, and yet the number of Arians in the Church did not compromise the purity of the Church's doctrines. It is a different story entirely when a system proclaims a particular man to be indefectible in matter of faith and dogma, then to have that man constantly err in matters of faith in dogma. That is a fundamental contradiction at the paradigm level.
The filioque was affirmed by the fathers as sent by the son, not an eternal head procession. Besides, this is not about the filioque, it's about the papacy. God bless
Michael Lofton just makes great cases for Orthodoxy. Whenever he makes a video criticizing or "debunking" Orthodoxy, it's always against schismatics, newly-converted that are euphoric and make uninformed videos. He never goes against priests, experienced apologists. Midwit levels of understanding Orthodoxy. I doubt Catholics hating on Orthodox converts, because we've always been taught to trust and pray to God for the truth. If they can't accept that a journey towards Orthodoxy is God leading us by showing the fallacies of the Catholic Church, are they faithful to God or the papacy?
That’s simply a product of belonging to a smaller more committed self-selecting grass-roots community. People also find that in Catholicism. It’s called a bubble.
@@Ananias17nope, but the Church has the authority to counter heresy by adding true things which we believe to the creed. that’s what creed means. praise God.
@@ryanbasel8670 1.how do you reconcile canon 7 from Ephesus regarding additions or subtractions to the creed? Is not the filioque a violation of that? 2. Are you aware of the theological implications of the filioque and how that changes the entire previously understood concepts of the trinity and the positions and relationships between the 3 persons? 3. Are you aware of the argument as to why the original nicene creed without the filioque is actually more biblical and that’s why it was the consensus of the church to write it without it?
@@ryanbasel8670 also 4. creed means “I believe”. If the Latin churches are reciting a different creed to the Eastern Orthodox churches wouldn’t that imply they have a slightly yet significantly different set of beliefs about the profession of the Holy Spirit?
@@Ananias17 1. The Church has the authority 2. Fully aware of the implications - to deny them is heretical. Christ breathed the Holy Spirit. 3. Fully aware. Sounds like protestant garbage. I deny it entirely.
Well stated. Years ago, I might have become Orthodox. By the time I was ready to convert to “ancient faith”, I lived on an Island with no Eastern Orthodox (EO) parish, nor Eastern Catholic (EC). So the choice was relatively simple for me to become Roman Catholic, but I admit my first choice would have been EC, and if there had been an EO parish, I wonder if being able to attend Divine Liturgy locally (I used to when I was younger living elsewhere, and a Greek EO priest is a major mentor in my life) would have influenced me and altered my course. I respect where you’re coming from - as a former pastor, I would have preferred to continue my ministry, and hypothetically that could be an option in EO or EC churches. But not an option here on this Island! Such is life.
I'm glad you are open about the weaknesses of the contemporary Orthodox Church. I admit that when I converted in 2017 I was wearing rose-colored glasses, perhaps to a fault. Over the years I have begun to see where we are lacking. The reception of converts is an issue that needs to be resolved, for instance. But the history of the Church is issues coming up and being answered. Additionally, while there are many attributes of the Roman Catholic Church that I admire, I cannot in good conscience accept the whole package. It seems like you are in a similar place, or maybe I am off base 😁 however it is, I wish you all the best. I am looking forward to future uploads!
"wearing rose-colored glasses" is a temptation for anyone who has experienced a powerful and good paradigm shift. Think of a pagan who begins to believe in Christ who quickly discovers there are pretty difficult Christians out there to get along with or that their pastor might be crazy or preaching a form of heresy. It can be disillusioning. This can happen with anyone which is why it is good to constantly read Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, and lives of the Saints. People have said to me, "Oh you chose Orthodoxy because the grass is greener than Catholicism for the time being." My response is, "I hope I would have chosen Orthodoxy for its Orthodoxy even when a Pope seems very holy and dynamic because I need to avoid teaching and passing on theological error to others." For me, it was more of an issue of being a person of integrity than "being tossed about by the waves" of doubt as the Book of James warns us about. Thanks for chiming in!
To me, the main issue is the Filioque, and the Orthodox arguments against it are unconvincing. By the way, I'm referring to defense of the Filiqoue made by theologians like Franzelin, not youtubers like Lofton, lol. Additionally, I find that youtube apologists like Christian Wagner (Scholastic Answer, Distinguo) and dwong address Orthodoxy much more effectively than Reason and Theology. It seems to me that Eastern Orthodox proponents struggle to counter their objections, often ignoring the evidence or obviously twisting things to fit their viewpoints.
Eric Ybarra’s book on the Papacy is quite good. However, it is all the Roman Catholic books and articles I’ve read that have convinced me of Orthodoxy.
I have read alot in the dialogues between the ancient churches which are helpful, but in the end, I am not Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East, because I believe that the 3rd-6th councils state Christology correctly and I want to openly embrace them and be in full communion with bishops who also embrace those councils. When it it comes to Oriental Orthodoxy, I believe in the two wills of Christ that St. Maximus the Confessor taught. Joseph Ratzinger summarizes St. Maximus the Confessor's Biblical approach to the two wills in Christ very well when he writes, "Maximus refused to accept any reduction of Christ's humanity. A theory had come into being which held that there was only one will in Christ, the divine will. To defend the oneness of Christ's Person, people denied that he had his own true and proper human will. And, at first sight, it might seem to be a good thing that Christ had only one will. But St Maximus immediately realized that this would destroy the mystery of salvation, for humanity without a will, a man without a will, is not a real man but an amputated man. Had this been so, the man Jesus Christ would not have been a true man, he would not have experienced the drama of being human which consists, precisely, of conforming our will with the great truth of being. Thus St Maximus declared with great determination: Sacred Scripture does not portray to us an amputated man with no will but rather true and complete man: God, in Jesus Christ, really assumed the totality of being human - obviously with the exception of sin - hence also a human will. And said like this, his point is clear: Christ either is or is not a man. If he is a man, he also has a will. But here the problem arises: do we not end up with a sort of dualism? Do we not reach the point of affirming two complete personalities: reason, will, sentiment? How is it possible to overcome dualism, to keep the completeness of the human being and yet succeed in preserving the unity of the Person of Christ who was not schizophrenic? St Maximus demonstrates that man does not find his unity, the integration of himself or his totality within himself but by surpassing himself, by coming out of himself. Thus, also in Christ, by coming out of himself, man finds himself in God, in the Son of God. It is not necessary to amputate man to explain the Incarnation; all that is required is to understand the dynamism of the human being who is fulfilled only by coming out of himself; it is in God alone that we find ourselves, our totality and our completeness. Hence, we see that the person who withdraws into himself is not a complete person but the person who is open, who comes out of himself, becomes complete and finds himself, finds his true humanity, precisely in the Son of God. For St Maximus, this vision did not remain a philosophical speculation; he saw it realized in Jesus' actual life, especially in the drama of Gethsemane. In this drama of Jesus' agony, of the anguish of death, of the opposition between the human will not to die and the divine will which offers itself to death, in this drama of Gethsemane the whole human drama is played out, the drama of our redemption. St Maximus tells us that, and we know that this is true, Adam (and we ourselves are Adam) thought that the "no" was the peak of freedom. He thought that only a person who can say "no" is truly free; that if he is truly to achieve his freedom, man must say "no" to God; only in this way he believed he could at last be himself, that he had reached the heights of freedom. This tendency also carried within it the human nature of Christ, but went beyond it, for Jesus saw that it was not the "no" that was the height of freedom. The height of freedom is the "yes", in conformity with God's will. It is only in the "yes" that man truly becomes himself; only in the great openness of the "yes", in the unification of his will with the divine, that man becomes immensely open, becomes "divine". What Adam wanted was to be like God, that is, to be completely free. But the person who withdraws into himself is not divine, is not completely free; he is freed by emerging from himself, it is in the "yes" that he becomes free; and this is the drama of Gethsemane: not my will but yours. It is by transferring the human will to the divine will that the real person is born, it is in this way that we are redeemed. This, in a few brief words, is the fundamental point of what St Maximus wanted to say and here we see that the whole human being is truly at issue; the entire question of our life lies here.""
I’m obviously saddened to see you depart from the Church, but I’m also saddened to see the ridiculous psycho-analyses, and frankly terrible counter-arguments from my fellow Catholics in the comment section. I received much of the same when I announced my decision to leave Eastern Orthodoxy. I don’t know why anyone thinks it would make someone reconsider their ecclesial affiliation for even a nanosecond. I pray the best for you on your journey ✝️❤️🔥
With all due love and respect, He Joined the only remainder of the original church that still adheres to the original apostolic faith of the first millennium.
@@tradertrader8838 why is it fake? I’ve been orthodox 7 years and it’s truer than ever. The evidence is increasingly overwhelmingly in favour of orthodoxy. Any argument seemingly against the orthodox faith has been refuted and debunked a thousand times over. One only need to read the lives of the saints to see the same Holy Spirit that came down at Pentecost, the same Holy Spirit, the comforter, that Christ gave the apostles and church to guide them into ALL TRUTH, is the same Holy Spirit inspiring the saints of the Orthodox Church. It’s clear as day for me
A reverent Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, and if you haven’t been to one, I’m sorry that you’re missing out on understanding that the internet does not properly communicate what it is
@@prometheusjones6580not really, the average aesthetics just make people accept historically and theologically inept arguments because they’re emotionally appealing.
It's kinda funny that as a cradle Eastern Orthodox, I became Catholic. My journey started with encountering God then only seeing Him within Catholic churches. Now I just read a little of the 6th ecumenical council seeing how a Pope can be anathemised as a heretic yet the whole council affirmed Rome has never taught error. Add to that the whole "Orthodoxy" affirms to believe in one universal church while being almost as divided as reformed Protestants.
As the original video points out, that's very much not true. Orthodoxy on the ground is very united. We have the same faith and worship God in the same way. We have jurisdictional disputes, but the level of division isn't even the same order of magnitude as the division in Rome.
Most that leave Catholicism for EO are really just seeking the “O” in the liturgy. Which I understand and empathize… submission is a hard learned concept in the west 🙏🏽❤️
Strawman. The eastern Orthodox have different jurisdictions s but we all believe the same thing. And it seems no Catholic know what an autocephalous church is. That's literally how the first 1000yrs of the church was like. And your patriarch allowed it.
In Orthodoxy Liturgy and Theology are inseparable. If one becomes Orthodox just for the beauty liturgy alone they will quickly fade away. I converted to Orthodoxy from Catholicism 3 years ago it took me 30 years to get there. I went to Latin Mass and Eastern Catholic Church as well I could have easily stayed if it was just about the liturgy.. so no it’s not just the smells and bells.
You know, I converted to Orthodoxy from (pseudo) Anglicanism after seminary studies lead me to read Church history. Coming from a western bias, it was completely unavoidably clear that the Latin Church post-schism wasn’t the same as the pre-schism Latin Church. Beyond the changes, I could see how far adrift modern catholic services were, even having guitar and drum bands playing. There seems to be a huge algorithm push of pro-catholic content on all of my social media but the reality is that Orthodoxy is exploding in NA right now. But my point is I simply can not understand how guys like Lofton can logically conclude what they have. It’s like hearing someone affirm the opposite of truth to me. The one thing I would think is that Orthodoxy is a tall order - it requires one to participate in the life of the Church. Catholicism, like Anglicanism, really doesn’t require much… orthodoxy requires everything I have
I’m Oriental Orthodox & I thank God for it. I became ( baptized) Trad Catholic in 2019 after 2 years of attending Mass prior. I left not long after during Covid . I studied and came to Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Best decision for my soul
I love that fact that you can't really pick an apostolic church. I could see myself an Orthodox Primitive Baptist. Still some issues with both but a combination may work. A little tradition and a little literalism. Acapella Hymns and Chants. I am really enjoying your comprehensive videos.
Im very much considering becoming Orthodox. I am so exhausted of being hated by my own church. The world hates me, why do i have to deal with the church hating me too?
@@acekoala457 i do not believe this at all. I've been reading two books on it from different sides (Siecenski + Ybarra) + watched Dwong's video and read Truglia's stuff. It seems clearly many fathers do
@@IffmeisterSome fathers taught the Filioque, to that point some explicitly reject it. Some fathers taught universalism, Augustine taught a version of purgatory that even Rome rejects, etc. etc. Neither Rome or Orthodoxy bases their faith on what some fathers say, they both base their beliefs on dogmatic statements made through universal councils. Church fathers and saint are witnesses to the faith, but both churches agree that saints make errors. There was a universal council that rejected it (Photian council) which included Rome, then Rome reversed the decision a century and a half later. Thats the first actual universal ruling on the Filioque. Some Roman apologists say it was just about it's inclusion in the creed, but the arguments given by Photius and agreed to by Rome is that it is a theological error not just an issue of the creed. Overall, "X amount of fathers teach Y" is not the way either church understands what is dogma so it's not a point one can make in condemnation of either system.
EDIT: Also can you clarify your comments viz. Easter Catholicism and "integrity?" That comment seems to heavily imply that Eastern Catholics lack integrity for not being Latin rite Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. I am new here so forgive my ignorance, but for me the reception of the heterodox by 'Rebaptism' is a very significant matter of Faith on which the Orthodox are not united. The consequences of the Holy Mysteries of Christian Initiation cannot be so insignificant as to be in the realm of the private oikonomia of a pastor or hierarch. At least in the case of heterodoxy among Catholic clergy in the discipline of the sacraments the Catholic Church has clear canons and doctrine, if not consistent follow-through in correcting errors.
As somebody that is absolutely thrilled to enter the Church and is being kept out by annulment decision that is slow in coming, I do not understand why anybody would leave Catholicism.
@@barelyprotestant5365 The Papacy is part and parcel of Catholicism (Biblically, Historically, and any other ally you want to use)? What are you even saying? Prove your claim, I guarantee whatever you say will be demonstrably false. I am a student of the Papacy, especially the current Pontiff. Seriously your claims hold no weight and wish you would try to back them up. I will dialogue with you if you want but do not try to give me this sort of ahistorical nonsense. I was not even talking to you, I was commenting on this particular youtubers channel to see if he would respond. Blessings, submit to Christ in submission to Peter!
@@barelyprotestant5365 The Roman/Petrine marks are essential to Catholicity. The visible leader of the Church militant is the successor of Peter who is the bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West (Latin Church). To be part of the Catholic Communion means being in communion with Rome. And this Roman Communion is what is unanimously recognized as “the Catholic Church”. To claim you a Protestant are akshually a “the real (c)atholic” and belong to “muh REAL Catholic Church” is laughable and obviously unserious. Cope lol. Go back to play acting in your “little remnant”.
Keep in mind if you’re looking for the “REAL Traditional” perfect church, you’ll have to resort to a similar “fight for traditionalism” in Eastern Orthodoxy. This is where you see many Orthobros escaping to ROCOR (made popular by Dyer and his posse). The SSPX is around the same size if not bigger than ROCOR, each representing only 0.02% of Christians.
The FSSPX is Traditional Catholicism. At Baptism the Church asks what is it that is being asked for the child, and the answer is the faith. The FSSPX teaches the Faith, and a life of faith, hope and charity, of prayer and sacrament. From a source that has not dried up, poisoned by modernism. Thus we will be in a heart to heart with God, and in the end, this is what Christ wanted as He himself showed in his priestly prayer in John 17. Our Lady will help you discern, pray to Her and be blessed.
Again like the comparisons between RCvsEO in the areas of liturgy/orthopraxy, of course “the crisis” in Christianity would be more visible or pronounced in the Catholic Church. We are the mainstream body of Christianity (significantly larger particularly here in the U.S. when compared to the diasporic eastern churches.) If the crisis hasn’t touched your small sect of “true Christianity” maybe it’s because you belong to a “small sect” and not because you belong to “true Christianity”. Anybody can become a defector and escape to a more “perfect little world” of foreign “Orthodoxy”. But it likely seems to be in better shape merely because it is unproven and “underground”… for now!
@@nicofash6366 Worldwide? Get a clue. The overwhelming majority of that ~260 million is confined to Russia and Eastern Europe. What’s leftover is collected in pockets in the Middle East / North Africa and then we have the very meager Eastern Orthodox diaspora. So not exactly “worldwide” at all. What you encounter here in the U.S. is a niche self-selecting trad “chess club” where you have ex-Prots with an allergy to Catholicism stepping into Eastern Orthodox lifeboats that were built and maintained by immigrants. These ethnic members are majority lax/nominal/cultural with low attendance rates. “Converts” are moving in on their spaces and are under the delusion that “Orthodoxy is vibrant and booming”. It’s religious hipsterism. You’re under the impression Eastern Orthodoxy is literally the “other half” of Christendom. Western Christianity specifically Western Catholic Christianity dominates at ~1.4 billion and is >5x the size of Eastern Orthodoxy. In the U.S. Catholicism is home to around ~60-70 million compared to the diasporic EO Churches which maybe are somewhere between ~1-2 million. Or let’s just look at ROCOR which is just under the size of the SSPX.
@@nicofash6366 Worldwide? Get a clue. The overwhelming majority of that ~260 million is confined to Russia and Eastern Europe. What’s leftover is collected in pockets in the Middle East / North Africa and then we have the very meager Eastern Orthodox diaspora. So not exactly “worldwide” at all. What you encounter here in the U.S. is a niche self-selecting trad “chess club” where you have ex-Prots with an allergy to Catholicism stepping into Eastern Orthodox lifeboats that were built and maintained by immigrants. These ethnic members are majority lax/nominal/cultural with low attendance rates. “Converts” are moving in on their spaces and are under the delusion that “Orthodoxy is vibrant and booming”. It’s religious hipsterism. You’re under the impression Eastern Orthodoxy is literally the “other half” of Christendom. Western Christianity specifically Western Catholic Christianity dominates at ~1.4 billion and is >5x the size of Eastern Orthodoxy. In the U.S. Catholicism is home to around ~60-70 million compared to the diasporic EO Churches which maybe are somewhere between ~1-2 million. Or let’s just look at ROCOR which is just under the size of the SSPX.
That's one small argument he's made, so it's interesting you target one of personal perspective but choose to ignore all of his verifiably correct assertions that the Orthodox are the ones who haven't deviated from the traditions of the ancient faith. Innovations based on modernity, a papacy based on forgeries and interpretations the church fathers and apostles wouldn't agree with to begin with. But again, it is much easier to argue for semantics, quote mines, and "church size" than it is to argue with the truth claims and the faithful apostolic traditions preserved in the East.
I was raised a JW, took lessons with a Greek Orthodox priest, studied the Bible with non-denominational, prayed for help and God took me kicking screaming to the last Church I ever wanted to be in. Catholic today by God alone.
I like Michael's show because it balances out the content that I am seeing on the Catholic Church, but his followers are just as aggressive and unkind as many from the traditionalist side of things. I was just wanting to discuss Francis and is lack of clarity, and I was called a liar and accused of abandoning the faith, when I was just wanting to discuss why we need to he commentators to and clarity to the obtuse statements from Rome. I will continue to watch Lofton's content because I like to have balance in my social media consumption, but I was very surprised at how vitriolic the comment section was.
@@jmanuel722 They do but the EO's don't want to admit it and have a "my way or the highway" mindset. They do not understand God's grace and capabilities in the same way Catholics do.
Hi I’d like your thoughts on the zootown Protestant church performing an orthodox approved and designed liturgy which offers the “Eucharist”to its Protestant followers. Have you followed it at all?
Innovation and development in the Body of Christ is Apostolic and Biblical and Tradition. How innovation occurs is the difference. Orthodoxy as in Scripture rely on the authority of the Holy Spirit. Rome transferred that authority to the office of the Papacy, euphemism for the Pope. The Protestant Reformers transferred the authority to themselves and American Evangelism has granted that authority to any one with a Bible and an Opinion who lacks the fear of God to use it.
Although you mentioned this was not supposed to be exhaustive and that you will go in detail in future videos, I find your reasons lacking in this sense. Out of the 4 marks of the church you have placed unity of faith(apostolicity) and unity of holiness(liturgy) above and perhaps in opposition to unity of jurisdiction(catholicity). You mention at minute 2:00 that the jurisdiction is an issue but it is not a big deal because it will be fixed eventually. I don’t like this attitude of placing the 4 marks in opposition to another, if the church had defected on one of these marks then that is not the church Christ established. While I acknowledge the ramifications of the west not emphasizing the faith of liturgy and even down playing it, there is the greater issue of figuring out whether I’m in the one true official church. With your reasoning the Protestants would be justified in destroying the governance of the church in order to preserve the faith. But this places the marks against each other which scripture does not allow. Also why can’t you make the same statement for the Catholic side? For example “Don’t leave the church because we don’t have clear teaching from Rome or the bishops right now, just give it time and it will resolve it self like it has always done. “ The track record of the church has proven this point if your scope of the church is larger than only the past 50 years Also Orthodox are forced to down play the schism between Russia and Constantinople. Everyone can see Russia is attempting to be the 3rd Rome with Primacy against the Ecumenical Patriarch. Rather than downplaying the issue of jurisdiction it would help your credibility to face it head on in further videos- otherwise you will not escape the perception of leaving Rome for smells and bells. It would also be helpful if you would explain where you stand on the Russia -Constantinople Schism and which orthodox jurisdiction you plan on submitting to.
I am sad to see you go particularly because of how much the Church is losing in you going. You are smart and articulate, and it is clear that you are a man who operates in good-faith. Nothing I write in this youtube comment will make you reconsider. All I can say is I will continue to pray that you come back to the Church. Like I said in my comment on your last video, hopefully it will all be moot one day (by 2054?). God bless. P.S. Why is Lofton like this? R&T used to be so good.
Orthodox are YEC, because all the Church Fathers are as well. The Bible and all the Church Fathers except St.Augustin (whose Greek was not very strong and who didn’t know how to time creation of angels) endorse young Earth.
Contraception in the EO church is only allowed for health reasons and only with express permission from the bishop. The Catholic Church does not have the moral high ground here.
@@matthewschmidt5069 Correct, that is wrong & should be corrected, only that Pope Francis not only allows it, but also said to his long time close *atheist buddy* that hell is not a place, the creation account is fables, evolution is true, supports civil unions, blessing for couples & other liberal Jesuit abominations, so this Pope is done.
It is interesting, many people like me are in the journay of choosing catholic or orthodoxy. But your arguments against catholicism are so poor, really poor.
I didn't make any arguments in the video. I was simply giving a big picture of preserving Apostolic Tradition and giving some markers of this. I'll likely do more Catholic/Orthodox comparisons and dialogues in the future, but for now, I am in a different mode on my channel. Blessings for your journey!
@@davidvargas2083 No problem man. If you want to talk more in depth or have bigger theological questions, feel free to email me at barrelagedfaith@gmail.com
Yes because the Orthodox are schismatic just like the Protestants. They even use the erroneous NKJV in their study bible just like the protestants. They lack fortitude when Satan attacks the Catholic church. Instead of fighting back, staying strong, thriving for unity. They run and talk a lot of smack.
I don't know, if Lofton ends it for catholicism, then Jay Dyer, Craig (you must kiss icons or be anathematized) Truglia and the rest of the orthobros gang must end it for E.O surely?
If you're an iconoclast the logical end is that you're essentially a crypto-Muslim. I don't understand why this is so scandalous. Are you a Calvinist or something?
Kiss Icons, share spoons, allow contraception, justify divorce outside of adultery. The whole E.O is lying about not developing doctrines and they have the audacity to attack the Catholics about it.
@@TPizzle96 when you have to venerate icons to be saved you have a works based religion that is no longer about a relationship with Christ our lord God and saviour. I'm not for icons and not against them, I just think it's silly to demand people to venerate and say if they don't they are likely going cast out of Christ's church when even Christ and the apostles wouldn't and didn't demand such silliness. Something has gone wrong with the Eastern orthodox church if they demand this and it'll eventually come back to bite them if they do. Christ will not allow his yoke to made heavier by pharisees.
@@ThruTheUnknown If you refuse to venerate icons then you have a false view of Christ and believe in a different God. It is not a "works" issue, it is a Christological issue.
@@TPizzle96 Yet it wasn't important to the apostles or Christ or the early church within the first 3 or 4 hundred years even when the images started appearing first underground and then in the 4th century in churches.
Revelation 12:17 King James Version 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit provided that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium are under the protection of the true Church,that is the Roman Catholic Church.You should follow the Holy Spirit.
Both churches have lots of relics and cherish/venerate the bodies of the saints. Also, keep in mind that many relics were taken from Constantinople when it was sacked by the crusaders and so they were stolen. Thankfully, many of them are being returned to the Orthodox in the modern era. So I don't think the argument really holds weight in regards to the shroud although there is a lot of great evidence that it could be the real deal! I love studying it. Have a blessed day.
