The council of Jerusalem and the catechism of Peter Mogila are interesting, the EO have a few things from this period they in part repudiate. They also have mention of original sin that identifies it as a form of "mortal sin" much like the Baltimore catechism. Also around this time the patriarchs approved of the practice of absolution certificates
@@yajunyuan7665 Catholics don't claim that purification frees a soul from Hell. It's granted to those who were not condemned. It's only a step that disattaches you from sin by the encounter with God. CCC 1031 "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come."
We can have the particular judgment and the general judgment at the same time. When we die we exist outside of time and space so I don’t see why that couldn’t happen. While we’re alive sure the end hasn’t come yet but when we die and we are judged whose to say this can’t all happen within seconds of death and we get both judgements at the same time. So this shouldn’t scare off the Orthodox
Coming to this discussion from an Orthodox perspective, it's clear that William thinks that salvation is in the soul alone and not the body, of that (at best) the resurrection of the dead is an afterthought in his theology.
Good debate. William had very strong points especially quoting Maximus the Confessor. Interesting debate in the chat too. So my takeaway from the chat is that Catholics are purged in Purgatory before entering Heaven and Protestants go through a magic speedy sinwash.
@@Thedisciplemike it is a doctrine of the Church (as that article clearly explains). Not a dogma, but it's a doctrine. The one you mention is also a teaching, that tradition comes from the East, and it is only of the lowest level of doctrine known as the "tolerated opinion" level. St. Jerome railed against it. And St. Luke makes it clear when in Luke 1:18 he says "OLD MAN" for....wait for it....wait, or who? Nope, not Joseph, but for Zachariah. And for Joseph does he call him an "old man" like the rejected/condemend Protoevangelium of James does? Nope! Luke calls Joseph a "man" which if you look at the Greek word there it's for a man in his prime. So, if the Bible, the Popes and Doctors (and yes, St. Thomas Aquinas the Angelic Doctor, too!), aren't enough for you, well, it's even "written in stone" so to speak if you look at the most ancient icons/images of St. Joseph they show him as NOT an old man but as a younger man in his prime. And one very old Josephology book I stumbled upon from the 1800s says while it's not a dogma it is "absolutely certain" that Joseph lived and died as a virgin. And it carries the nihil obstat and imprimatur. But if you wish to disagree with Pope St. John Paul II, St. Pius X, Pope Leo XIII, back to St. Jerome and St. Albert the Great, and St. Luke, well, that's your free will ability, but it wouldn't be prudent nor logical to do so brother. Challenge: show me 1 Pope who taught the old widower Joseph tradition. Just one. I'll wait. Take your time...
@@josephology3290 you're arrogance and self righteousness has completely turned me off from the topic. If you're trying to engage in polemics, don't belittle your opponent. You come across like a know-it-all and do nothing but put your argument in a distasteful light. So you've set a bad example of us Catholics and I refuse to engage with this form of discussion. Take care
Purgatory is not a Catholic invention. Like confession/relics etc, it is a practice/belief from ancient Judaism which was brought over by the jewish Apostles.
@@Veritas1234 You could say the same about Jesus, He wasn't christian, He was Jewish. I don't know about protestants but Catholics have been grafted onto the vine with Christ's sacrifice.
@@Hoodinator17 Older than that, it's from Solomon Temple Judaism. During the first pro-mosaic protestant movement in 640BC-609BC. King Josiah removed the following from Solomons Temple: * the altar, *the anointing oil, *the real menorah, *the incense *the Bread of the Presence (showbread) from Solomons Temple. *all references to the role of the Queen in the temple (in Hebrew tradition the Queen is the mother of the King) . Catholic/orthodox returned the above.
Bias aside, I have to agree with William’s interpretation of his various prooftexts. I don’t think Fr Ramsay’s exegesis is intellectually tenable. This becomes especially pronounced with what seems to be a cop out in his analysis of the pan orthodox synod. “Roman” language and synthesis is a really incredulous remark to make about the substance of the doctrine. What this reveals is a pseudo obsession many Orthodox have in trying not to appear “Latin” in the exposition of their doctrine. But this is nonsense of course. Appearances aside, can we agree on certain elements of the afterlife? Yes or no? You’ll find Fr Ramsay and many orthodox apologists unable to cede this kind of ground. It’s like there’s a piece of code in their mind that disqualifies them from yielding to anything even remotely Roman sounding.
I assume he's referring to Revelation 21:27 (ESV): But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. And it seems his claim is that in order to not be unclean, one must have an inner holiness.
Because what makes us unclean is a result of the workings of the interior life of man, not the body. So there's no such thing as outer holiness because the body is only an instrument, it's the soul that animates and controls it.
@@lukebrasting5108 According to Catholic understanding, the human person is a composite of body and soul. The body is not "just an instrument". That is a gnostic teaching.
@@brackguthrie9470 not necessarily. Catholic belief still holds the spirit is "Lord of the body" so to speak. The soul indeed is comprised of both, which is exactly why the sins we do in the body affect the soul. But the spirit of the soul controls the body. Therefore, the soul itself needs purification, both body and soul
@@Thedisciplemike The body is indeed controlled by the soul. But, the body is not just an "instrument". Check out the Thomistic Institute for excellent talks on this issue.
Boy, that temperament was not a great way of demonstrating a goal of showing that Orthodox and Catholic Christians are closer than most think. In the words of the prophet, Joshua: “A strange game… The only winning move is not to play.”
the early church fathers don't matter (this is not Holy Spirit inspired gospel, but man-made opinions by early church leaders, but none from the 1st century). the doctrine of purgatory is not supported by scripture. the roman catholic church tries to use several vague references in the n.t., and 2nd macabees to justify purgatory. 2nd macabees is correctly designated apocrypha by luther, because there were no prophets (authors of the o.t.) in around 175 b.c. (the time of 2nd macabees, which was a history of the rebellion of the jews against the Syrian hellene king, antionichus). furthermore, the actors in 2nd macabees, the jews, also reject it as apocrypha, which invalidates the work. purgatory was not even taught in the roman catholic church until the 12th century, and was not doctrine until the 2nd council of lyons (1274). the doctrine of purgatory basically rejects Christ's death on the cross as being sufficient for the forgiveness of all sin. it is a blasphemous doctrine!
And after the judgement? 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
@TR No. Purgatory is after judgment where, as Paul states, you go to clean your sins through fire. Purgatory IS part of Heaven. Purgatory IS THE MERCY OF CHRIST. As Christ clearly says in Matthew 5:25-26: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison (
Purgatory is apart of judgement. You’re not saying anything groundbreaking hear. You should really want purgatory. More people get into heaven that way rather than the binary system Protestants have. If you’ve sinned your soul must be cleansed before you enter heaven. That’s purgatory.
The amount of PWA subscribers doesn't seem to reflect the consistent quality of content. Other secular YT channels that ultimately offer little substance like drink champs, Jake Paul, Andrew Tate... Have millions of subs. Blows my mind.
Great job William Albecth I thought he did a very great job, I know a whole ex Greek Orthodox family that converted to the Catholic church a few years ago. I love watching these videos God bless 😇🛐💯 Catholic 🗝️🗝️
I genuinely hate debates with people of different temperaments. When you have one person who’s fast-talking and pushy vs a doormat, it doesn’t make for something very intellectually satisfying so much as it sounds like a one-sided presentation with brief oppositional commentary. That’s not to say either of these men “won” the debate or that either behaves poorly, they just didn’t seem to run with the same mentality…
@@greekfreak5789 though the theology was a little weak. Better justifications out there? Sounded like he knew something, but maybe not well enough to quote or cite it...
I am Eastern Orthodox; I believe that William Albrecht won. It appears as if Father Patrick Ramsey was not prepared for this debate but did a homily or a sermon rather than giving arguments.
While I think there is a place for formal debates, I think for topics like this, a more conversational debate, or a dialogue, would be more helpful. I think the structured debate format is too restrictive. It also seems to usually descend into "gotcha" moments or other forms of trying to score points rather than getting at the heart of this issue. Contrast this debate with Jimmy Akin and Gavin Ortlund's debate on Sola Scripture. While I don't think that either William Albrecht or Fr. Ramsey were disrespectful, the debate between Ortlund and Akin was quite a breath of fresh air compared to this. They actively sought to understand each other, and delved into areas of difference with interest and charity. With that said, I did appreciate the Q&A. Love the channel!
"Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4, NKJV). The God who is good and who's mercy endures forever, leads us to repentance by his shocking goodness and mercy. When the Orthodox prays the Jesus prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner" they know they are praying to a God who loves them and is full of mercy.
As someone who wasn't raised as a Christian but has found his way to Christianity, I couldn't care less about that whole "this council said this" argument and "that's heresy". Ultimately the point of Christianity is the belief in Jesus as God and the resurrection. Everything that comes after the bible is mere interpretation by the church as an institution made by humans. They may agree on a topic and still be wrong. It is up to everyone to think in good faith what they can agree with. Listen to all arguments, to all the evidence, but make your decision based on this and not based on what's popular. The authority lies with god, not the institution of church.
I loved Ramsey's closing statement it really does contrast the two mentalities of Orthodoxy and Catholicism well IMO. One (Orthodoxy) is the carrot (in love and communion only is there a hope of salvation & without love it is our own suffering) and the other the stick (you must undergo a certain of God's punishment as restorative justice). I'm not saying either view is right or wrong but would ask each person to evaluate how that applies to their understanding of the cross
Albrecht apparently doesn't know what the word "temporal" means. He started by claiming that purgatory was temporal in his opening statement. When pressed on this by Fr. Ramsey in cross, he claimed that it wasn't temporal, then adamantly that it is, all while claiming that it was Fr. Ramsey who misunderstands the issue. If Albrecht is going to repeatedly claim that purgatory is temporal, then it has a duration -- that is the meaning of the word. Okay, then what is the duration and what does that mean? Albrecht replies "it is unknowable." Okay, then how do you know it is temporal? Albrecht seems to have this strange ability to suddenly and simultaneously know and not know things as it happens to be convenient at the moment. Further, though Fr. R may not have made his point very clearly (for whatever reason), his point seemed simply to be that we do not have clear teaching from Scripture nor consistent teaching among "Fathers" that people can or will experience suffering in the afterlife as part of a path to eternity in heaven. Albrecht was able to cherry pick some Fathers who have written things that can be interpreted in that way, and some passages from which such a doctrine can be inferred. However, despite his consistent claims to have demonstrated his position, all he really demonstrated was that he found some people and passages that he interpreted in that way. "St. W stated X," and "I interpret passage whatever to say X" is not a demonstration that X is true. If it were, then virtually any wrongheaded idea could be "proven" from Scripture and the Fathers. Fr. R was correct that, although some people might interpret the passages thus, that is not the position or interpretation of the various Orthodox Churches.
Temporal doesn't have to mean duration, as on earth. It can also denote 'not everlasting or eternal.' We don't have to understand how the souls in Hades were at once 'not in time anymore' and 'not in eternity yet' when Christ preached to them during the 3 days. It's a whole nother space of existence, and there is absolutely no doctrine on how it relates to time - except that they aren't in heaven yet, but they're no longer on earth.
@@AveChristusRex wrote, "[temporal can mean] not everlasting or eternal." Umm.... right. That means it has a finite duration... which is exactly what I was saying is what temporal means. Not sure why you are bringing Hades into this. That wasn't part of the discussion or my comment.
@@philoalethia I mentioned Hades because that's the general name for the abode of no-longer-on-earth-souls, which would be where anyone in hell or a purgatory would by definition be, per the usage of the term. But where else would a purgation before heaven take place except in a 'temporal' space of existence? How can it be eternal? It can't. How can it be instantaneous without being temporal (an instant is a subset of a period of time)?
We don’t know how long someone will be purgatory for and we’re speaking as if they are alive when they aren’t. When someone is dead they exist outside of time and space. What we do know is that Purgatory is the pathway for someone going to heaven. It’s the Mercy of Christ.
@@brianfarley926 Minor correction: there is no such thing as 'dead' except for the damned. All souls persist throughout eternity once created. There is no termination fo existence for the damned, much less for the elect.
We ought to be real careful about the unknown in the divine realm. Christians need to get off our high horse and stop acting like we certainly know that which is unclear, or have clear notion thereof. Instead of attacking each other, we ought to be considering each other, re uniting with each other, we ought to take a strategic and critical mindset about bold claims and that which we have never seen, to be even more so. It’s our responsibility to marry the fruits of critical thinking, with the divine, but with serious caution, with self actualization, and realistic confrontation of the concept, that this is a world that truly contains us, and the full knowledge of the divine are not yet in our grasp. Yes Jesus left us with answers, but with many questions as well, to accept that, is truth.
You protestants always bring the same nonsenses the rich man was evil he went right to hell and in there you can't get out, it is not the same as purgatory but hey you and leftis have the same mentality because you are being use as useful id**ts as them
@@Veritas1234 Because it could either be purgatory or hell, but it doesn't seem that people in hell care for people on earth, nor is it plausible that an inhabitant of hell insists on addressing Abraham as "father Abraham." In hell, there is no love.
@@Veritas1234 See also, "has forgiveness neither in this world, nor in the world to come [afterlife]." implying in the afterlife certain kinds of sin are pardoned but some are unpardonable. Namely, venial sins.
I don't understand Fr Ramsey's appeal to Romans 6:23. Yes the wages of sin are death, but this doesn't imply there's no punishment for the damned. William's opening I felt was still geared for Protestants, he referenced several things that are superfluous for EO.
I think his argument is: 1. The wages of sin are death. 2. The wages will be "credited" to us on the day of judgement. 3. The wage "death" is eternal damnation. 4. Therefore, if even a small amount of sin is still attached to us while undergoing judgement since there is either life (heaven) or death(hell)). Atleast that is how I understood he was using the passage.
Scripture proves that the last generation don’t go to purgatory. They are changed instantly,in the twinkling of an eye,which means instantaneously. So if God can do that to the living then why not the dead? Plus purgatory takes away what Jesus did on the cross,it either says that what he did on the cross wasn’t enough and didn’t take away all sin. Or it says that the righteousness that was imputed on to us wasn’t enough. God Bless all 🙏
I am not Catholic, but I think their argument for purgatory stems from the belief that certain mindsets of the soul carry over into death, since the cognition does not die with the body. It seems like a detox period for the soul to adjust to heaven. An example would be if someone were to be infected with a virus and travel to another country. Before entering that country there would be a quarantine for that person before they were allowed into the population. Many Christians have struggles with specific sins, whether it is addiction to substances, anger issues, being critical, selfish, lustful, immoral thoughts, gossiping, obsessive, addicted to entertainment etc.. These people would need time to "come down from their earth experience".
Father Ramsey, what amazing command of scripture, a very Apostolic pronousement of ancient scripture that would easily be recognised by the Apostles and early Church Fathers I wonder if William is able to understand doctrine based on scripture. The understanding of God by the Orthodox is truly a God of love, this God is hard to find among Catholics."Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4, NKJV). .
@@joecardone4887 totally agree. To many priests live with “the hope” that there are no souls in heaven. Absolute bogus theology. I realize there cutting a line saying “they hope” so they aren’t saying definitely but they act like it’s so hard to go to hell. I don’t subscribe to that. We’re supposed to work out our salvation with fear and trembling
@@brianfarley926 The books "2" Maccabees etc. exist in our Bibles, it's just that "two" is not how we refer to them - it's "second" Maccabees" as it's "second Peter." :) Minor quibbling.
I personally wouldn't debate purgatory but whether there was any Pope granting indulgences to pay off the purgatorial debt pre-schism. That would be a very difficult debate for a Catholic to defend I believe & really put the idea of papal infallibility & supremacy under real historic scrutiny. But I doubt a Catholic would do that debate
@@Cato_the_Christian At 1054 with the wrongful excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by a cardinal on behalf of his dead pope (hence it was not within Humberts power to do so) on the faulty premise that the East removed the filioque 🤣. That was the first point that caused a separation of the two churches by Rome, even if it didn't go the whole way.
That indulgences were ever 'sold' is a fake news calumny aganst the Church. Indulgences were available for donating various ways to the Church and the furtherance thereof - that's not 'buying grace' any more than donating to charity with money is 'buying grace' because reward is attached to the goodwill of donation.
@TR Orthodoxy and Catholicism are like two teenagers that grew up in the same house. We only split half way through the age of the Church, explaining both the similarities and differences. I, for my part, would simply argue that the Fathers - or the first half of our shared history - falls firmly in favor of the 'Catholic' side than the Orthodox side. Especially on the Papacy, which has been drastically backtracked since the Schism... on their side only. Notice also they haven't had any Ecumenical Councils since the Schism either... as weird as the Jews having their Temple and city burned to the ground for 2000 years, but half as weird (2000 / 2) . :)
Indulgences are one type of personal sacrifice and were NEVER required for salvation of anyone but rather a work of grace. But while were at it, what do you call the church tax REQUIRED by the church of England and others? There’s your debate
1:17:10. William Albrecht thanks for the shout out! LOL! 👍😉 of course, William didn’t actually address the context of the entirety of my question. “I think” is not “specific wording.”
Probably some bad Catholic are behind the thing Yajun's channel was blocked. Lol. I am sure William has to have something with this right? ... eee, nope 🤭
Deuteronomy 5 8: Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Exodus 25 17-21 “And you shall make [i]an atoning cover of pure gold, [j]two and a half cubits [k]long and one and a half cubits [l]wide. 18 You shall make two cherubim of gold; make them of hammered work [m]at the two ends of the atoning cover. 19 Make one cherub [n]at one end and one cherub [o]at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece [p]with the atoning cover at its two ends. 20 And the cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the atoning cover with their wings and [q]facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the atoning cover. 21 Then you shall put the atoning cover [r]on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you.
Moses W/ Bronze serpent (Numbers 21:8-9) cherubim on the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18-21), cherubim in the temple and designs of palm trees and flowers (1 Kings 6:23-35)
Deuteronomy 5 ties the principle (idolatry) to the circumstantial (making images, bowing down, etc) only in as much as the circumstantial is in relation to the principle. Hence why bowing down to the queen of England, or making a statue of the president, is not condemned. In order for condemnation to happen it must be in relation to the principle, the inner man's moving of himself to see an object as divine.
Then why did the catholic church remove the 2 commandment from the list? If it is following this commandment then no worries I'm not judging you or anyone.
@@stanlybarns7720 joshua and the elders proceed to prostrate before the ark, Joshua 7:6 according to you they committed idolatry or when God shows Ezekiel a temple with images, proving God told Solomon how to build the temple with images on the walls, palm trees, cherubim, etc.
I'm a protestant. I agree that God chastens us, it is clear. I do not agree that the pope or the church has the power to make it so that this chastening has not to happen. I reject that full heartedly. The godly fire may not be substituted by the merits of the saints. Indulgences are not real, I need the fire. You need the fire. We all need the fire. The Bible says it. Deal with it. God loves us. We will live.
@@MrPeach1 if you are saved by God's grace and expectedly fail to live a perfect Christian life, your works will be tested and you will suffer, yet remain saved. Nobody can save you from that test. You should embrace it, because it means you are saved from hell.
@@ThruTheUnknown I can't understand a word, it's like he keeps something in is mouth while talking. I need captions. I'm also German. English is my second language. I also have a hard time understanding Albrecht, because of his speech melody he chose to use.
@@georgwagner937 Ah yes Fr Patrick is of the same nationality as myself and we are prone to almost having a humble type of speech to us unfortunately. I tried learning German for six months at university but gave up because I thought it was too verbose & took Spanish instead 🤣. But one day I'd like to try learning it again.
Purgatory, Hell, Heaven are all concepts that have no basis in scripture. There are many teachings that are not found in any part of the Bible, yet most believe them to be divine revelation. That is why we are warned about false prophets. In all honesty non of it is literal, but the question is not whether Heaven, or Purgatory, or Hell are real. The question we must all ask ourselves is; Are we living a life which brings other joy and peace?
