For those who don't know, the monk in the thumbnail is Starec Gabriel Bunge. His monastery is close to my home and helped me greatly become Orthodox. He used to be for most of his life a benedictine roman catholic monk but 15 years ago he became a russian orthodox monk schema. I think I saw him perform a miracle under my own eyes during a Liturgy. May Christ bless us with such holy men more and more
He wrote some classic works on the desert fathers in the Catholic world through Igantius Press. I am working a little video about him and I'd love to hear more. I became aware of his story I think 8 or 9 years ago. He was a student of Pope Benedict XVI
@@barrelagedfaith I know firsthand that Fr. Bunge used to receive SSPX clergy and seminarians for discussion/spiritual direction when he was a hermit on the Catholic side years ago.
@@pravoslavy5 Oh yes he said the same to me too. He converted one of them, Alessandro Gnocchi. He wrote a good book about his journey from Lefevbrianism to Orthodoxy, thanks to Fr Gabriel. Unfortunately I fear it's only in italian
I am Catholic and want to stay Catholic forever but yeah, things like "the text is clear" or "the plain reading of the text" is such a protestant way of reading things that I don't even care about defending whatever he says haha
Cameron reminds me of a fundamentalist Baptist King James only preacher. The Pope does not need the intellectually disingenuous. Rome's own documents acknowledge that the first millennium that Papism did not prevail.
I find Cameron arrogant and aggressive and feel he could learn a lot from an apologist like Trent Horn, who is calm, respectful and knowledgeable. We really don't need people like Cameron batting for us Catholics.
I'm a frmr Catholic Apologist, who became Orthodox 20+yrs ago. The Catholic Apologists have been running away from me literally for decades. Anyone else find it odd how Papal followers are so confident while being ignorant? That's their insecurity. Catholicism doesn't teach humility. It doesn't teach pride is the Original Sin that keeps us from God.
I am so grateful for Orthodoxy. When I was in the shallows in a protestant church, I longed for a church mirroring eternity, instead of one mirroring modernity. But Catholicism was a no-go because of the Pope, and not just this Pope, either, but rather the concept of ‘the one guy’ doesn’t pass the sniff test (for me). Catholics assume their church is going to survive Bergolio. Time will tell. Anyway, I was so happy to learn you don’t have to be Russian or Greek to be Orthodox
All of RC apologetics is papal lawyering, they’ve based their system on a house of cards. If you study the Vatican 1/2 view of the papacy you’ll find it’s just a bad argument to say it’s continuous with the papacy of the first millennia. This is the heart of what brought me to the EOC.
The main differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. the main things which keep our religions separate are: Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, The Filioque, Absolute Divine Simplicity, Created Grace Doctrine, natural theology, scholasticism, Original sin, sacred heart doctrine, Immaculate conception, Purgatory, Merits/Indulgences, evolution of Dogma,imaginative prayer, "beatific vision" etc Then the Forced Celibacy of Priests, The use of Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, The Adoption and change of the Christian calendar, The use of Renaissance statues, Pews, Child Communion, improper non immersion baptism, Cardinals, and differences in liturgical practices (Alter tables, Iconostasis, priest positioning etc) all of those things, we say the Western Church adopted and innovated and became heretical when they adopted these things. And we say that in the early church NONE of these things existed, there is no evidence of these things. No examples of Papal Infallibility, No examples of merits/indulgences, and no examples of unleavened wafer bread, and such. In fact in the west, In Rome. It looked a lot similar to how we Orthodox exist today. Our priests can get married, we use Icons and not statues, we use the old calendar etc Orthodoxy Vs Roman Catholicism: Energy Essence Distinction vs Absolute Divine Simplicity Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin Non Filioque Trinity vs Filioque Trinity Patriarchy vs Papacy Revealed Theology vs Natural Theology Hesychasm Vs Scholasticism Theosis vs Sanctification Married Priest vs Celibate Priests Infant Communion Vs Non Infant Communion Iconography vs Statues Full Immersion Baptism vs Sprinkle Baptism One Baptism vs Confirmation Baptism Leavened Communion Bread vs Unleavened Communion bread Julian Calendar vs Pope Gregory's Calendar We are not the same Religion, we do not have the same faith, and anyone who looks into either religions genuinely will see how different we are.
@@momus2424 thank you for this my brother, I screenshotted for my reference. Very helpful, especially to my friends who have not studied this like I have begun to.
@@jacobfavret1729the points he made are not a consensus agreement among the Greeks within the early fathers as a refutation to the Latins or the West. If ^ would have studied more he would see many Greek fathers and saints who would agree on purgatory and use the language of fire and agree on the Filioque and use it and affirm the Latin position and the immaculate conception and indulgences and so on with every point he’s mad. It’s easy to find Greeks who disagreed on those positions but there’s always been Greeks who’s affirmed the Latin/West position on those points which they like to brush under the rug as them being in “error”
"The fathers have a plain reading!" Ok read lumen gentium 16, "no it doesn't actually say what it means when it says Muslims and Jews worship the same god"
General rule of thumb: if someone uses hyper-agressive thumbnails you can avoid them safely. If you give them a chance and they start saying "the other side are idiots who can't read," you can DEFINITELY ignore them.
The conversation Cameron just had with Craig on Orthodox Christian Theology was pretty revealing. Craig really had the kid gloves on and still made him look like an intellectual bantamweight. I would love to see Cameron talk to someone a touch more aggressive.
Wow, those words of Pope St. Gregory the Great are an incredible foreshadowing and judgement of what the papacy would become. If only the leaders and flocks in the West would have heeded that a 1000+ years ago when things started going down that dark path.
I’m Catholic, clearly, but this Cameron fella is weak. I wouldn’t be Orthdox, but I love more orthodox brothers and sisters. We both have apostolic succession and I wish for one day this schism to be over. Protestants on the other hand… vast majority are just so far lost.
The way Cameron's talking reminds me of a comment made by Fr. Stephen DeYoung while being interviewed by Orthodox Shahada about "The Religion of the Apostles" - namely, that some Orthodox have a bad habit of treating the Church Fathers the way fundamentalist Protestants read the Bible (as a closed canon of infallible prooftexts which self-evidently support your theology) and treating the Bible the way fundamentalist Protestants read the Church Fathers (something that's nice to know about and sometimes useful, but something very mysterious which laity don't need to concern themselves with). I now realise Roman Catholics are just as bad about this.
I find that the great sin of pride lurks around every corner for strong believers. We must always remember the Publican and the Pharisee. Our Lord tells us what spirit we must keep. -an EOC priest's son
"No Biblical case for Orthodoxy" So, ignoring the fact that the Orthodox church wrote and canonized the Bible...there's nothing in the Bible that declares the priamcy or infallibility of the Papacy either. Or indulgences. Or purgatory. Or discouraging your believers from reading scripture. Or that God is a fully knowable being that can be encapsulated by human intellect. Or that priests must be celibate. It also smacks of "Sola Scriptura" to me. And when he said "Im starting to think that arguments for Protestantism are more coherent than arguments for Orthodoxy", that was just inflammatory rhetoric meant to piss people off. He knows he has the losing position and is doing anything he can to justify his rogue church.
@@vaderkurt7848 Well technically both churches refer to themselves as Catholic so 1) thank you for the correction and 2) I'm not sure if you're passive aggressively trying to say that it's actually the Roman Catholic Church that assembled and canonized the Bible, but if you are that's just wrong.
@wilder11 Don't let their bluster bother you. The moment an argument moves to inflamatory rhetoric you can be assured your opponent believes he has lost.
Just prayed over by the priest for eastern orthodox catechism. It’s been two years of reading and looking into the church and I am ready! There is no doubt about the EOC. Is there any difficulties with it not being 100% exactly the same church of the 1centure? No, it’s been 2000 years of history so I can’t find out everything about the church but if we were to transport todays EOC back in time to the first century Christians, I do think the the would know and say “this is Christs church! It may be a little different but at its base we recognize this church!” I think probably the same for the Catholic Church until they get into their doctrinal errors.
Unfortunately I think that the "new right" stretches this. I wish our roman brothers kept their traditions instead of allowing their leadership to ban it.
I was catholic before this video…annnnnnnddddd I’m still catholic after….. No but all jokes aside and having said that… I think both sides just need to come back together for so many reasons. Both sides also have amazing apologists. I was also an ordained pastor for many years and then became an ortho catechumen. Eventually long story short became Catholic after a few years and further studies but then thought I made an error, so went and finished my Ortho Catechumen period and got chrismated and became EO for couple of years. I was already deep in studying Eastern Theology and becoming a reader and many other positions in my parish But then after much further research and studies and discussions, I left EO when I saw the proof pointed more towards Rome. In all honesty, even from reading many of the Eastern saints and patriarchs they also said Rome was the head and they needed him. I just don’t see how you can get around that. Pls prove me wrong. I’m just being sincere here and If you prove me wrong I’ll go back to orthodoxy. I’ve been working on a masters in Catholic theology but I loved and miss EO, but I just didn’t feel right staying in it anymore when seeing all the proof for the Pope among other doctrines. 🤷♂️ But there’s also things I still struggle with and don’t like about RC. But I’d love to discuss more with you. It’s very difficult to discern which one is more accurate.
For 1,000 years the 2 churches were one. But during the last 1,000 years the RCC just went so downhill, just lost its holiness & became so corrupt. Selling the church properties to pay off lawsuits on pedophilia. Gross behavior of celibate priest's sexual liberties & crimes, lies & deceitful, hurts & trauma to kids, families, females.
To me the proof is in the pudding. I have seen, as I'm sure you have, many excellent breakdowns of history the evidence leads me to the EOC but I can understand the disagreement. However when I look at what is required of RCC faithful in submission to the universal ordinary magisterium and how especially newer popes misuse it I find it hard to square the circle of RCC dogma with the practice that actually exists. I pray that God leads you to the Righteous Path.
A good point made that ‘Ecumenical Patriarchate’ is not the ‘Pope of Orthodoxy’ as the Greek Archdiocese and all branches of the EP would have us believe by the same dint that the Roman Pope is not supreme pontiff beyond his own see.
Eventually I came to this conclusion: there is, historically speaking, a certain level of ambiguity when it comes to the bishop of Rome's role in the broader Christian Church. The Orthodox have always been willing to declare him as the "first among equals", a peculiar honorific title. As far as how that is exercised varies depending on the point(s) in history. I think the issue is that the modern Roman Catholic Church reads the same texts as the Orthodox Catholic Church but shoehorns their understanding into the texts. That is to say, Catholic apologists start with their understanding of the Pope's role in the Church, find a text that seems to align with said position, and present it as evidence that the historical Church has always maintained Rome's stance. In contrast, the Orthodox seem to approach these texts with more nuance, which lends itself well to the Orthodox view. Regardless, it seems to me that there was not one, single universal view of the bishop of Rome. That helps support the Orthodox view because it shows that their subtle distinction is more historically accurate. But a nuanced view of the historical Papacy certainly hurts the Roman Catholic position. Hopefully this makes sense. Let me know if I can help clarify anything. Forgive me if I've caused any offence!
We are looking at two different things. The papacy is not the episcopate of Rome or any location. To say that Byzantium has its own jurisdiction is by thinking only about Rome as a regional jurisdiction. This means that, in and of itself, Rome cannot override Constantinople, but in regards to the Office of the Chair of Peter, all the Church is under that Authority, and so, if the Pope is assuming the lesser, secondary role as Bishop of Rome, then his Petrine Office is over all jurisdictions. But while the Pope has a different home base, Re becomes simply another jurisdiction. The home base if the Pope, only under his shadow, holds the highest Apostolic Authority.
No one seeks to hide the the papal dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary's own birth against that of her Son Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ - the One and Only Conceived of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, neither the Roman Catholics themselves!
Worse. Jay for all of his annoying flaws is not a superficial thinker and also has the incidental advantage of having believed and lived from the positions he has rejected.
I know it's a trend right now, but I hope all the young Orthodox converts eventually find their way to Rome. I know I did, I was at an OCA parish for 2 years before going to Rome, thankfully they never accepted me into the Church, now I'm Catholic. I think much of the dislike of Catholicism just comes from long standing prejudice and dislike of Catholicism. Or simply not giving it a chance.
The dislike comes from papal falibility becoming more evident and public now than it ever was.. despite popes arguably committing more egregious sins in the past than the current weak willed sellout. Doctrine should not be subject to the whims of a single undisputed man with a funny hat.
The current widespread moral issues and even worse the stalwart determination not to address the,m,and even worse than that, actively to conceal them which has the adverse effect of making them more glaring, is a serious issue which Catholics appear to be able to live with. In addition, the collapse of papal tutelage under the current incumbentet al is serious. The comments tendency to dismiss it by Catholics as private pronouncements that do not implicate the assertion of infallibility is unrealistic and at odds with what was taught concerning the ordinary magisterial in the 19th century. The papacy did not foresee how thoroughly it was undermining itself.
As a catholic revert who never really considered the two before my faith crisis in 2019 I was so confused as to which way to go. Being a catholic since, I'm still confused😂 Conviction in one or the other , in my opinion, is almost never intellectual. Anyone who says otherwise eventually feels the heat. It's a supernatural drawing. I'd say the main reason I joined the Catholic Church is after I prayed the rosary to know where to go. And after attending mass I felt something I hadn't known since childhood. I'd also say the orthodox in my town were a little too "encouraging" to get me in their doors😂
I'll give him an "A" for enthusiasm, but Riecker just makes Roman Catholic apologetics look dumb and irresponsible. He is galactically wrong in much of what he claims... and he doesn't seem to care. Each video is as or more outrageous than the previous one. The claim that "there is no historical foundation for Orthodoxy" is just profoundly ignorant -- so much so that one hardly knows how to respond. Is he deliberately lying? Is he just a child and we shouldn't expect anything more intelligent or informed? How could anyone sincerely say something so obviously false while pretending to promote a church? How could one claim to have read even a fraction of Church history and make such a statement? Of course, there are some spectacularly ignorant (and enthusiastic) apologists in any church, but Cameron is quite an impressive specimen.
Do you know who will be absolutely impervious to this kind of apology for Papism? Converts to Orthodoxy from Protestantism-especially those from traditions influenced by Scottish “plain sense” school of interpretation.😂
Imagine if the Orthodox could see that Peter had primacy? Imagine if just one of the four eastern seats of the Bishops were standing against hell? They did not. Rome is standing. Meanwhile you are in Muslim hellscape. Oh but you have Moscow?
That’s the problem they don’t seem to acknowledge that. And they talk about orthodoxy being united they’re even more fractured than we are. I’m sticking with my traditional Latin mass. And if they going to say well, Christ didn’t speak Latin. He didn’t speak Greek either. So your point is that’s what we have to say to them. They attack Roman Catholics all the time. And then they lost Constantinople. They were shaking hands with the devil just as much as the Venetians were and then you had French Calvinist, who did exactly the same thing the reason I know that is because there is information on it. Keep the faith brother.
Peter has been gone for a very long time, and the shit the popes pull and claim it to be God’s will, today as in the past is reprehensible, disgusting and heretical. Because he is but a man. God’s kingdom is a monarchy because He is perfect. Down here every dictatorship turns to tyranny for a reason. The same original sin you bow to.
Surely you understand that hell is the state of ones salvation not the state of ones life. If your logic applied all Christians were in hell until Constantine allowed Christians in the SPQR.
Orthodoxy has been getting persecuted since 33AD. First the Romans, then the Muslims, then the communists. It's almost like Satan is rallying the forces of evil that he controls in the world to try and destroy the Orthodox Church. Conversely Rome got to grow on the back of Western European colonization, expanding her influence and power through the suffering of indigenous peoples who were forced to adopt Roman Catholicism (and Western European languages and culture). Sounds like Rome is serving Satan's will and is being blessed by him for it.
Yes, and you have your hands full of other stuff as well . Simply to put it you guys are fractured. You broke off from us not us from you. And there’s a hell of a lot more information if you’re willing to look at it.
@@gerardducharme2146 yep. From 1054 on. Let's look at Vatican 1 and 2. Who's going to beat up who? Doesn't matter in the end really. It's better we stay apart imo.
@@gerardducharme2146can u even keep a straight face while lieing that shamelessly? The pope was part of the pentarchy, simply the patriarch of rome gone rogue. He had the same rights as the rest of the patriarchs and was a part of the world church as estabilished by the church fathers, until he demanded be above them instead, like a spoiled child left off with one too many warnings instead of a slap on the wrist with the other shit they pulled prior. His authority was never recognized obviously, as there is none, as such he split himself off from the true world church, eternal to this day.
Rome (the city) wasn't even the capital of the Roman Empire when Constantine moved the Roman capital to Constantinople in Greece. The old unpopulated city of Rome fell under barbarian hands for centuries (briefly liberated) and then stayed under barbarian rule. The Roman Emperor in Constantinople had to approve all Patriarchs of Rome (the city). When the corrupted Church in Italy inevitably (under barbarian rule) became heretics since before even 1054 AD (Great Schism) and especially after the 4th Crusade betrayed the Roman Empire... the Patriarch of Constantinople became the GENUINE First Among Equals. Thus the Pope is a heretic. To this day the Patriarch of Constantinople is the ONLY official office opened by the Roman Empire that still remains open, having never been closed, not even by the Ottoman, for nearly 1,800 years. The internet had destroyed the old Catholic propaganda in the face of historical truth.
So conciliar Ecclessiology is true because a bishop in Persia in the fourth century thought it would be good for him to have primacy? That actually proves that orthodox Ecclessiology is not part of the ethos of the early church and refutes eastern orthodox claims about Ecclessiology if bishops thought they had a certain primary over other churches 🙄 I personally don't care if one is a sacrament rigorist protestant (eastern orthodox) these days. I just think the lack of communion is over very petty things these days of which I use to make a big deal about. I Thank God for bringing me out of that Pharisee type phronema. Although given the broken eastern orthodox Ecclessiology if communion did happen it would be a nightmare making sure no Russian, Greek, Serbian or whatever were 'bishop' Over a western city, since the west is romes jurisdiction and always has been
RC that loves the east. I even considered a conversion. There is no point. I can have everything the east has in rome and then some. I would gain a few things that Rome could adopt or should bring back. Orthodoxy is not the same without Rome and vice versa. We have the same sacraments….
No...we don't. There are no sacraments in catholicism. That is why I, as a Catholic, will receive Baptism when I become Orthodox. My rc sprinkling did nothing beyond getting my head wet.
Is it not just SIMPLER to say, that NIETHER SIDE had defined their "authority" and SIMPLY DID NOT KNOW, because NO ONE HAD REAL POWER BEFORE? I would say so. Before 325, no one gave a shit about the Chief Patriarchs or Pope's "authority" because he literally HAD NO POWER before then. Only AFTER .... do you get to debate over the words of Christ. Matthew 16 never mattered until 325!!!
Vatican Catholic has 17 videos against the orthobros: they’re gold! Critical Thomist made a video yesterday about Dimond beat James White. I’ve told VoiceOfReason he should debate Dimond. Let’s Go Catholics. We will Prevail as we are The Church founded by Him. Thank you Jesus!
I am more of an orthodad with 7 halflings who gardens and trying to peacefully raise a family. However, if someone is going to trash Orthodoxy, I might give a response. As far as the Dimond bros go, don't you think there is something off about the messenger and his relation to sedevacantism (which at this point for them it seems the chair is going to be empty until the return of Christ)?
As Father Peter Heers has said: It isn’t what you do but what you become” (by doing the works) Regarding Mary, you know as well as I that our ”prayers” are about asking for her to pray to Lord for us, not to work independently.
Thanks for the response video 😄 Craig @orthodoxchristiantheology and I just had a discussion about this yesterday! Happy to discuss on your channel with you as well if you’re interested! God bless you! P.S. I loved the thumbnail lol
Cameron do you know what's really funny! It's funny how aged barrel faith likes to pretend that he is knowledgeable and relevant and he tries to take some swipes at you, yet when Erick Ybarra, William Albrecht and even Michael lofton messaged him for a chat he didnt reply here In the comemt section a while back. When the boys that can hold his feet to the fire call In he doesn't even have the courage to answer their comments and pretends the comments dont exist. Aged barrel is really low tier, you can call him the mike winger of eastern doxy, maybe even the mike gendron equivalent. Sidenote William Albrecht from "Patristic Pillars" did a great video yesterday on Nicea 2 and he used the greek text (the so so called waterdown version of nicea 2 and even in the watered down version the papal claims are right there in an Ecumenical Council. Watch it if you get a chance.
Cmon guys be nice. Let’s be cordial and have some positive dialogue. We are all in Christ and all seeking the same truth. If anything we should be having fun and be happy about it. Sharing is how we learn from one another. I’d ex orthodox now catholic but I’m still learning and always open.
No one seeks to hide the the papal dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary's own birth against that of her Son Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ - the One and Only Conceived of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, neither the Roman Catholics themselves!
