➤ A Conversation Between Two Orthodox Men on Orthodox Theology ➢ • A Conversation Between... ➤ Jay Dyer ➢ Website: jaysanalysis.com ➢ Twitter: / jay_d007 ➢ RU-vid: / @jaydyer ➢ Instagram: / jaysanalysis
Fr. Yves Congar's book "After nine hundred years" was an eye opener for me and one of the reasons why I left the Catholic church. You can find the book online, page 39. That's all you need to know if you still debating which church is the original one, Holy, catholic and apostolic Church, between the Orthodox or the Catholic church. "This change took place only in the West where, sometime between the end of the Eleventh and the end of the Twelfth Century, EVERYTHING was somehow transformed. This profound alteration of view did not take place in the East where, in some respects, Christian matters are still today what they were then and what they were in the West before the end of the Eleventh Century."
@crembisbembis5164 It is worth mentioning that there are two other documents where Catholics pretty much debunk themselves and admit the Orthodox were right all along: Chieti document and Alexandria document (SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM, SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM AND TODAY). They are a good addition to Fr. Yves Congar's book.
It is worth mentioning that there are two documents where Catholics pretty much debunk themselves and admit the Orthodox were right all along: Chieti document and Alexandria document (SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM, SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM AND TODAY).
the orthodox are the successors of the jettisoned roman bureaucracy that were momentarily given pseudo-Catholic titles to allow Catholics to become acclimated to rome not being hostile. your earliest ancestors date from around the 300's, but your group didn't take off until bishops of constantinople wanted unquestioned power, convinced the emperor to ally with the m*hamm*d*ns to try to d*str*y The Church.
No, The Church has been around for quite some time before jettisoned roman bureaucrats fled east, did s*t*nic things from 300-1100, and then were paid back for uniting with the caliphate against The Church.
the orthodox are the successors of the jettisoned roman bureaucracy that were momentarily given pseudo-Catholic titles to allow Catholics to become acclimated to rome not being hostile. your earliest ancestors date from around the 300's, but your group didn't take off until bishops of constantinople wanted unquestioned power, convinced the emperor to ally with the m*hamm*d*ns to try to d*str*y The Church. they failed to d*str*y The Church, and the m*h*mm*d*ns w*ped out constantinople (using h*jra) for their f*ilure.
@@HunnysPlaylists What is your justification for universal objective ethics? I’ll dumb that down for you if you don’t understand: what is the grounding for determining right from wrong? :)
whats orthodox advise on stronghold sins? I come from a prot background. Even though I was "born again", I was told that if I dont rid myself of my strongheld sins, I will go to hell. "Stronghold" sins are basically the sins we have problems with repenting, a secularist might view these as mere addictions.
I agree with what @greghoskins9237 said. Everyone has a sin that seems to have a particular grasp on them. We tend to call those "passions". As long as you earnestly repent and rely on God to bring you through, you are on the right track. I think you would do well to drop the notion of stronghold sins. It's not totally unreasonable but it does seem misguided.
how about instead of the development of doctrine (which is a rich topic) we look at the development of the Sacred Liturgy? does liturgical history support Roman / Papal primacy?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but liturgy is a reflection of doctrine and in some ways a teacher of doctrine. Meaning that because doctrine is more foundational, if you skip that to argue about liturgy essentially make it a pointless discussion. Like arguing whether a birthday cake should be chocolate or vanilla when the real question is "is it someone's birthday today?"
@@throughhumaneyes7648 there are dimensions or components to liturgy of course, especially today. But liturgical practice developed immediately with apostolic tradition, mainly with Jewish custom and the imitation of the Last Supper. In this sense, liturgy is an organic act of worship rather than a defined doctrine. I am simply saying articulation of doctrine does take time whereas liturgy itself can be argued as happening immediately* good analogy of the birthday cake!
Hey, also, I’ve looked up this quote you shared and had a read. So from your own excerpt it says, “for seeing that Christ is the rock, Peter is the Christian people.” It seems the argument could also be made then that the Church which is founded on Christ is made visible by Peter who represents the Church? (I’m just commenting on this in reference to this excerpt being “totally debunking” the Catholic position, that’s all.) Right before the part you quoted, Augustine wrote, “For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. One for many gave the answer, Unity in many.” So based on my limited understanding, Orthodox would say Peter was “first among equals”, right? Yet here it seems there is a practical utility for being first, which is clearly more than a title. And it says “One for many have the answer, Unity in many”, seemingly referring to the idea that in one person speaking on behalf of all, unity is made, which is making it a hard case for Augustine to be “totally debunking” Catholicism. And then last, later on in the sermon or whatever it was you quoted from, Augustine says, “In that one Apostle then, that is, Peter, in the order of Apostles first and chiefest, in whom the Church was figured,”. Would you agree or disagree with Augustine that Peter is first and chiefest? And that in Peter the Church was figured? Just curious since you are appealing to him here. Thank you! (And anyone else who can help)
That's all you need to debunk the pope, doesn't require that much thinking. Of course you'd think with papal clown masses, allowing homosexual marriages, having dinner with transgender freaks, and worshiping pagan idols that people might start to look at the very basics of Christian history.
If Peter isn't the rock, why did Jesus give him a new name (Kephas)? Why did God change the name of Abram (Exalted Father) to Abraham (Father of many)? Is it just pure coincidence that Peter and Rock are the same word in Aramaic?
Saint Peter was first confessing who Jesus Christ is. The rock is that confession by the Holy Spirit. Saint Peter was first among equals. However, it is a bit of a giant leap to go from how the Church operated for the first thousand years to a global papal supremacy, infallibility, and indefectability. Saint Peter himself wasn't infallible. He denied Jesus Christ three times. He was rebuked by Saint Paul. Jesus Christ gave the power of the Holy Spirit to all the Apostles, he didn't gift only Saint Peter and tell Saint Peter to then give the Holy Spirit to the rest.
@@joanna400 So, you're trying to say yes, it's just a pure coincidence. Please address my points and don't deflect with unrelated topics. I'll answer them afterwards if you wish. The Pope isn't infallible either, he's only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Just as the Apostles, including Peter, were infallible when they wrote their letters.
@@petros-estin-petra- Even st. Peter says the Rock is Christ. Please read 1 Peter 2. "As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him- 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Peter’s faith, his confession is the Rock which is Christ, who He confessed. Read Saint Cyprian of Carthage. Stop behaving like an unstable protestant singling out verses and ignoring the rest. Please have more decency.
@@joe5959sure it appears so to an outsider that Orthodoxy and catholicism is similiar, and there are similarities. But the differences are so big that it’s not worth highlighting the similarities. These are two different religions. Today rome is not comparable to it’s former self
Your ecumenism is cringe and has been noted. Come home to the Ark of Salvation the Orthodox Church. Protestantism exists because Rome invented a new religion.
The Roman Catholic Church is literally the devils playground the most exposure the better people involved in that church are in serious spiritual danger, far more than someone who is a “Protestant”
