We Have Christ But Still Need the Pope? - Fr. Peter Heers Responds to Bishop Barron 

why are there bishops in orthodox church? don't they rule over the clergy, faithful? what a silly argument.

@@artifexdei3671 Not even close to being the same as the Pope.

@@TheRealRealOK that's because bishops don't have a papal authority that's why they are not the same as the pope. but they have authority over their clergy, areas, so yes, they are in leadership positions that make decisions. if your point is that pope has authority then it's a silly argument as orthodox bishops have authority too.

@@artifexdei3671 No, my point was that the power of the Pope is very different from the power of an Orthodox bishop. There’s no point engaging you since you misrepresent what I say. Peace out, bro.

@@TheRealRealOK of course it's very different as there's a difference between a pope and a regular bishop. at the end these two positions are positions of authority which means they have power over something.

So true!

@@emilys5024 Yep! I’m one of them

@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Agreed. A lot of the trads think there will be a “based pope,” not gonna happen

@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Do you think Fatima is demonic? Just curious on your take. I would love to convert to Orthodox but I live deep in the App Mountains and there is no Orthodox Churches in this region. I do agree on the total destruction under this pope and he has been going after the traditional monasteries.

@@emilys5024 I asked an Orthodox priest about the visitation at Fatima. He said "it is a Catholic thing. The Orthodox church doesn't have a position on it". So in my opinion, as a layman, it is legitimate. Many of those prophecies have been fulfilled.

@STIGMATA Linda Glendenning I don't think Christ put him there

@STIGMATA Στίγματα Linda Glendenning Why would Christ need to put someone in his place when he is ever present and absolutely involved in every aspect of the Church since Pentecost. You don’t substitute for a player who never leaves the game.

@STIGMATA Linda Glendenning Why would Christ substitute himself for a pope when we know that hundreds of popes were reprobate? God is going to represent himself through men who are evil, heterodox and bent on subverting his Church according to nonsensical and blasphemous doctrines? Christ needs Francis to shepherd his flock?That makes absolutely no sense. Again, no need to substitute. Christ sits in His own chair.

@@MaximusWolfe because Jesus himself gave the keys to the church to st Peter. If you read the Bible it'll tell you everything

@Johnny R He gave them to the apostles in the very next book. I have read the Bible, several times in fact, you presumptuous, condescending jackass. That Christ did this in no way debunks what I said. The Church is His earthly body. He is present always in it. This means that no man acts as His substitute or representative. How you fail to comprehend this is awe inspiring. You want so badly to replace God with a demonstrably fallible and corruptible man in Rome. No wonder your innovational papacy is such a complete disaster.

Remain strong in the faith of the Apostles. I am likewise a convert. The beauty of Orthodoxy is as a never ending stream of rejuvenating waters, flowing from the pierced side of our Lord. I will keep you in my prayers, and hope that you have found a local parish in which to commune, and a spiritual Father to help you along your journey.

I was baptized 1 month ago. You’re on the right track! ❤️

You are truly blessed and lucky!

Welcome home !

Welcome! And Great choice. It's clearly the True church and if your experience is anything like mine, you can FEEL the presence of God the first time you walk through the door.

It contradicts the very accurate “Timelessness” arguments Chesterton made throughout his career about the Church not being “…behind the times, but is beyond the times”, only he was sadly mistaken in applying it to Roman Catholicism instead of Orthodox Catholicism. I wish he could have met Doctor Overbeck before his passing. It might have set him on a different course.

@@eldermillennial8330 Good point

Clearly Bshp Barron means "distant figures" in a temporal sense, IE figures from 1500-1900 years ago. Obviously not in the sense in which you mean: as 'irrelevant.' This is just a bad-faith understanding of the Bishop's words. The Church Father's have always been a deep part of Catholic learning. Augustine among them, Thomas Aquinas was deeply learned of them. Peter Lombard's "Sentences" was a compilation of Church Father teachings that was the standard in Medieval Education through the 1600s. Then the Seminary Manuals of the 1700 to Vatican II. And to this day they Church Fathers still hold high prominence, even though they are distant, from just under 2000 years ago.

Indeed! When I was Catholic I never knew or learned about the early Church Fathers as I have in the Orthodox Church. They are emphasized so much more and their feasts are celebrated in Orthodoxy. We also come to know them through the hymns we chant at Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy. They seem to have been forgotten in Catholicism.

@@marieegypt7091 This is where I'm totally willing to blame the post-Vatican II chaos. While the Vatican II Council fathers were trying to increase emphasis on the Church Fathers by quoting them frequently and writing in a poetic style reminiscent of the Church Fathers, a certain cohort in the Church was only interested in political and social transformation instead of the Spiritual Conversion the Council called for.

Well said

Couldn't the other oriental communions (i.e. Copts & Armenians) lay the same claim to the Byzantine Orthodox (i.e., Greeks & Slavs)? Byzantium calls them heretical. Is Byzantium denying the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world, thereby reducing Him to a mere logical proposition? (There are 2 or 3 gathered in God's name ... all must be hunky-dory)

St Ignatius of Antioch who was taught directly by the Apostles supports the primacy of the papacy. Orthodox and Protestants have two options: 1.) St Ignatius and other successors of the Apostles completely misinterpreted what the Apostles taught them. If you hold to this view, you will have to question everything that was passed down from the Apostles. 2.) There was a second pope in 65 AD. Who was the first pope if the papacy was invented centuries later? If you accept that there was a papacy and still deny it, you are denying the office established by God Himself. You are a heretic if you hold to this view.

​@@yvatna76 I'm afraid I don't see the connection you're trying to make. The implicit denial of the humanity of Christ by the Monophysites demonstrates that they do not have the Holy Spirit, for as the Apostle John said: 'Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.' This in no way suggests the Holy Spirit is not present in the world, but rather that His Spirit is not in them. The problem with the Latin position is not that they merely claim others, outside their communion, do not have the Holy Spirit; any communion that believes itself to be the True Church is going to make this claim. But, rather, they deny His presence even within their own communion, save for, perhaps, with regard to the pope alone (though even here they tend to make legalistic rather than spiritual arguments). They do not believe that the Holy Spirit will guide them and keep them, they do not believe that the faithful implicitly know the truth by virtue of their communion with God, but rather they believe this responsibility must be vested in a single man, in the Bishop of Rome. Now I would agree that the Latins do not have the Holy Spirit, I think the innate Arianism in their Aristotelean doctrine of absolute divine simplicity demonstrates that the Spirit of God is not in them and the fact that they gave birth to the mass apostacy that is Protestantism is proof of this in their fruits. What is interesting is that they felt the need to create a human institution to replace the proper and traditional role of the Holy Spirit in the Church; which is evidence that, at least on some level, the Latins themselves realize that they are no longer guided by the Holy Spirit and that they can no longer trust in the Holy Spirit protect and uphold their 'church', for the Spirit of Truth is not in them.

@@costakeith9048 I agree that monophysitism is heretical, but some other authority is usually called upon to condemn these errant philosophies (in this case, the Council of Chalcedon). So while Fr. Heers' contention doesn't necessarily exist in a vacuum, it seemed rather over-simplistic (which is the point I'm attempting to make). As an ex-seminarian who studied Aristotle and took a metaphysics course, I've never heard of an 'Aristotelean doctrine of absolute divine simplicity'. We believe God is simple in nature (ie., not composite), which is also affirmed by St. Basil (Letter 8 to the Caesareans), and Gregory of Nyssa (answer to Eunomius' 2nd book), along with a host of other Eastern Church fathers. Protestantism rejected the metaphysical assertions of the scholastics (in particular, Thomas of Aquino), which is one of the main contentions between them & us Roman Catholics. Ergo, they adopted (e.g., Karl Barth of recent memory) a subordinationist concept of Christ to the Father, because they were unwilling to differentiate His Divine & human natures in this particular regard (with some scripture passages incorporating His divine attributes ... eg., John 10:30 ... others His human attributes, John 14:28). The notion of a Papacy doesn't nullify the operation of the Holy Spirit. Ex Cathedra statements are few & far between (one was the Immaculate Conception dogma of 1854 ... another was the Assumption dogma of 1950.) You're caricature of a Roman Pontiff that functions like a divine oracle portrays a week understanding of the Western concept of the office. Bishops throughout the world in communion with the Roman See were governing their respective dioceses in the interim ... (not waiting on pins & needles for the next divine oracle to proceed from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff). Now we don't have a notion of autocephalocies in the West (1 Corinthians 10:17 we all partake of the one loaf), so strictly-speaking, yes ... we have One communion (which would logically follow if one believes in One Apostolic Church founded by Christ). The Papacy isn't a manmade institution (... The Byzantine prelates affirmed the Primacy of the Roman Papacy at the Council of Florence in the mid-15th century, although local religious and clergy under Eastern jurisdiction, as a rule, didn't accept this.) Even St. Gregory of Nazianzen affirmed this primacy in Carmen de Vita Sua (referring to Constantinople as the 'New Rome', while affirming that the 'Old Rome' is 'The President over all', venerating the divine harmony in its entirety).

@Buddy Eastern Orthodox Christian

@Buddy sure, we worship in the Greek archdiocese

@@shovelleator4738 Bulgarian Orthodox Church in America.

why have bishops? why have priests then? what is a point? protestants have figured this out already, if pope is not needed, then there's no need for priests or bishops. orthodox christianity has formed along national lines - did Jesus start Russian orthodox church, romanian, serbian, etc.? orthodox churches are also fused with the state. pope on another hand is sovereign that's why catholic teaching is independent of any interference e.g. no divorce - why is divorce allowed in orhodox church when Jesus specifically says it is not? any answers here?

this is the reason sir (Doskojevsky explained it) "It (roman church) is an unchristian religion, in the first place!' 'That's in the first place, and secondly, Roman Catholicism is even worse than atheism! Atheism merely preaches a negation, but Roman-Catholicism goes further: it preaches a distorted Christ, a Christ calumniated and defamed by it, the opposite of Christ! It preaches Antichrist! Roman Catholicism believes that the Church cannot exist on earth without universal temporal power, and cries: Non possumus! In my opinion, Roman Catholicism isn't even a religion, but most decidedly a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, beginning with faith. The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne and took up the sword; and since then everything has gone on in the same way, except that they've added lies, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition wickedness. They have trifled with the most sacred, truthful, innocent, ardent feelings of the people, have bartered it all for money, for base temporal power. And isn't this the teaching of Antichrist? Isn't it clear that atheism had to come from them? And it did come from them, from Roman Catholicism itself! Atheism originated first of all with them: how could they believe in themselves? It gained ground because of abhorrence of them; it is the child of their lies and their spiritual impotence! Atheism! Source: Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Idiot

@@aleksandarstavric2226 obviously dostoyevsky was mistaken and so are you. what is russian orthodox patriarch doing blessing troops, tanks to invade ukraine? is that christian? he's fused with putin and you say pope is about temporal power? pope is the only independent entity in the world that cannot be bent to the whims of governments or people wanting to compromise doctrine. that's why it's hated by churches that have already been compromised like a russian church.

@@artifexdei3671 Dostoyevsky was perfectly right ..stop spreading heresy and lies ..there is no "russian church" but patriarchal see of Moscow and that see belong to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - orthodox church

@@aleksandarstavric2226 does it - russian orthodox church is not even in communion within orthodoxy - they are viewed as they have removed themselves from it after they didn't agree with the patriarch of constantinopole acceptance of independent ukrainian orthodox church couple years ago. so what you are you talking about? they've removed themselves from orthdodoxy and don't recognize patriarch of constantinopole. how is that for unity?

The Post-Carolingian bishops have tried SO hard to bury this text. Even Calvin called him “the last good pope”, (although I think there were just a few more good ones).

very nice thank u for sharing this , may God bless u !

Also, Vicar of Christ means "in the place of Christ" and so does AntiChrist. Very telling.

@@LadyMaria To be fair, it can also mean “prime minister of Christ”, not that Christ actually needs one.

@@eldermillennial8330 With them, we know what they mean.

This last point - they delineate between Christ and the Church - is the most interesting, most problematic, and, indeed, most indicative of the heretical mindset, for the enemy of our salvation has always been seeking to de-incarnate the Lord, to deny His divine-humanity, to undo His salvific work. The second that Christ and HIs Body are differentiated, such that the Church is NOT the continuation of the incarnation, the salvation of the world is in jeopardy, the enemy has inserted his tail into the inner sanctuary.

@@OrthodoxEthos The saddest part is that this friction exists in Rome between those who love the ancient ways and traditions, and those who embrace bubble wands and guitars during liturgy. I am discerning my way between East and West, and I am gutted by this bias each has against the other. As far as the West goes, I am happy there are groups who fight, vigorously and relentlessly(Church Militant for example), against the corruption and turn of the mainstream in the Catholic Church, and I am heartened by the reverence and brotherly love many of the true tradionalists in the West have for Orthodoxy. I've heard many of them lament the state of the west in comparison to EO. Bishop Barron.(--sigh--). A modernist, sadly. One of those who has sided with the Pope in the sentiment that traditionalists are somehow "in the way." Even more sadly, he is not in the minority. I am glad, Father, you clarified the myths Bishop Barron is perpetuating, and that you did with facts and you did it respectfully. I pray for a return to the state of the whole church to the way it was for a thousand years--before things got ugly. There has to be a way East and West can reconcile.

@@OrthodoxEthos so if a schism or separation occurred at a particular point in time…. And before that time we were ONE unified Church, just as Jesus prayed ‘that they all be one’ then prior to that point, you (Orthodox) as well were as one with RCC (the universal church) then, you also were under the Popes for all those centuries? Starting with Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement…. I mean you were right there! With all due love and respect - who is it that has departed?. This is a traceable lineage down through the ages. Are Orthodox embarrassed of the scandals and trials in the Church? To me it just shows even more how our Divine Lord uses mere men, washes us clean through our Baptism and cooperation to seek to remain in a state of grace through the Sacraments, Esp reconciliation and the Most Holy Eucharist, and along with His Own Divinity and authority, builds a Church for which the gates of Hell will never prevail! And this He is continuing on with us for He promises to be with us always (every Tabernacle in every Catholic Church, every Altar where Holy Mass is celebrated) ….the Book of Acts says ‘and so we came to Rome’ i think of that as quite a statement! The Roman empire so wicked, and a wonder of the world, did fall and never to rise again - for Christ, the Lord Jesus did conquer and the seat of His authority on earth manifests now in Rome. How is that not glorious?! the old empire never arose again?! Listen i have the simple mind of a second grader, but His wonders never cease to amaze me!

As a Catholic, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your last point... Catholicism views Christ as the head and the Church as the body, to have one without the other is lacking the community and unity under the same headship. Jesus desires for us to be one as He and the Father are one, and I think that is what R&T is getting at. As a convert to Catholicism 10 years ago I have never seen Catholics treat the Church proper as something separate from Christ but rather the community of His kingdom on earth.

Bandaid theology. I'm currently RC. There is Orthodoxy and Cacodoxy. We all need the True Beleif to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is like is like a little brother telling his older brother hes a chicken. The Catholic Church is literally trying to amend all of Christendom while you guys continue to reject the gospel and blindly think we are "coming home to roost". To reject the primacy of the pope is to reject the gospel. Done. Nothing more to be said. It makes you no better than protestants.

GLORY BE TO GOD.

@@OrthodoxEthos AMEN AND AMEN ☦️

More precisely, I have found that for most modern Romans, letting go of Vatican 1’s dogmas is like chewing off your leg to escape a gilded, comfortable prison into the mysterious wilderness of Truth. It’s not like a painful bear trap, it’s a golden cage with a golden chain and it’s pleasant to be there because there seems to be a neat little explanation for everything, few things seem truly mysterious and are therefore easier to accept. You don’t notice that your prison food is slowly poisoning you, as it is a subtle, mostly painless poison, except for this awful diarrhea it causes. You catch glimpses of the horrible truth about the poison in the toilet, (such as the pedo scandal) but most prisoners learn to just be careful not to look before flushing. So you have to both resolve to give up the false comfort, painfully chew through your own leg, then make your way, crippled, but not alone, into the Mysterious wilds of Truth, and finally Home. That’s been my experience so far.

That's exactly how I describe being raised as a RC and primal papacy...brainwashing indeed! It's a fear that is instilled at a young age that if you're not under the Pope you're going to hell. Even Catholics who don't know their faith at all will use the pope as their defense.

Brainwashing is the wrong word. I'm sorry you disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make it brainwashing. One thing Orthodox have to wrestle with is why the Maronites of Lebanon recognized Rome especially considering they were cut off from communication with Rome for about 500 years (600 - 1100).

Katholic theology understands that many are the signs of the Incarnation, and Redemption, and that they reverberate throughout all Creation, even among the pagans and infidels, for it is known that there are some who love virtue and lay down their lives among them, "outside the City walls". Like the People of the Old Aliance, which existed not only for their own Salvation, like so The Holy Church exists as a Sign, a Sacrament, for the Salvation of many, not bound by any fleshly identity. The multiplicity of Charisms in the Catholic Church serves such a purpose and are quite astounding in their diversity from one another, while sharing the same Design of Charity received from the Holy Spirit to reach every pit of the earth. We do contain elements of Eastern Orthopraxis and make use of them in what they have of Eternity, but we do not despise the Eternity also present in Creation and the Katholic History of Redemption, which manifests so greatly the Divine Mercy of God in all things. In fact I do love these particular elements of yours, which brought me here, but we catholics are not bound by it, for true Orthodoxy consists in Sharing the Love of God around the same Table in Unity. Necessarily the Eastern Orthodox Church in general are the second greatest birthgiver of Saints, which makes you particularly lovable among those whom we consider lacking, and in your case only one thing: 'selling all your righteousness, giving it to the poor, and following Jesus to the Ignominy of the Cross, between two thieves'.

except these saints were produced when the church was one, under pope. hahn is right, orthodox theology hasn't progressed past first centuries of christianity. God doesn't stop in time, God works with every generation and theology grows as a result.

​@@artifexdei3671 Sounds like Mormonism. Ever evolving and changing.

@@deussacracommunioest2108 Modernist Rome mistakes Orthodox Caution for the kind of “Selfish Righteousness” you seem to be referring to here. We are too cautious in certain ways sometimes, we need to learn to be bold again, which is what Catechisis like Father Heers program is all about. Not one corner of Orthodoxy has not suffered (directly or indirectly) either under the Islamic or Communist Yoke at some point, for generations. This has made it very tempting to take caution to the erroneous level of paranoia. We must be Bold without caving in to the Spirit of The Age. GK Chesterton was absolutely right when he said “The Saint is the one who contradicts the Age he lives in most”. But it has been the Orthodox Saints who have done this consistently. An example of what NOT to do as a “Saint”: When Francis of Assisi met Innocent 3rd, the first thing he should have told him, “You MUST try to return to Constantinople all that was stolen, and demand the thieves be arrested and sent in chains to the emperor!”, yet, this never crossed his mind. To his credit, he had previously and later on, condemned his former fellow mercenaries for their excesses and had warned about something like the sacking could occur, and I believe he received a vicarious, if short term, blessing in his rebuilding of what had once been an Orthodox monastery. It is also true that mercenary recruitment dropped like an anvil for two generations thanks to so many men joining his movement (alas, had it only happened ten years sooner, the Fourth crusade would have been too undermanned to occur). But a true Saint would have been hyper aware of the Atrocity that Innocent did nothing of substance about because he feared Venetian steel more than his commitment to church unity. I don’t believe Innocent was willfully complacent with the crime, as many Orthodox have always suspected, but was merely a coward in the face of Venice, unwilling to stand up to their greedy bullying beyond a pathetic slap on the wrist, which was the proverbial “hill of beans” his official condemnation amounted to. If Francis might have been punished severely for insisting on this is irrelevant, as it needed to be done. If his doing so HAD helped the pope find his courage, yet Innocent’s worst fears came to pass in the attempt, namely Venice Sacking Rome in retaliation, what would that have accomplished? ONE CHURCH. Instead of “East 🆚West”, “Rome🆚Constantinople”, the new paradigm would have been “Christendom 🆚Apostate Venice”, the WHOLE WORLD would have United against them to eventually sink them into their soggy sands. Why did this not happen? A Saint would have tried.

@@artifexdei3671 God is not a fashion show year by year. God is timeless and thus Theology is outside of time and "the World". God does not change - The Orthodox Church does not change. The WORLD changes as it is illusion and fallible - the West has fallen into to heresy and Jesuit horror. The smoke of Satan blows out of Rome's doors. They admit it. Not opinion. That said - I find many very good folks (Priests and laypersons) of Roman Catholic Faith to be very devout and who are very sober. They are upfront when I share this with them. Russian Church too has its challenges - such as KGB brought in by the same Western Satanists who fouled up Rome. The source is the same. I respect my sober Catholic friends, as we both can admit to how Lucifer has attacked The West and The East -THE BEAST NEVER SLEEPS. The Lion roars and wanders (think MGM's Roaring Lion - HOLLYWOOD you guessed it - they own it)

Well said! I agree! ☦

I felt that he responded to this question as if he were suddenly being put on the spot really. He seemed almost disingenuous, as if holding onto the same old arguments while tucking the truth into his back pocket.

Yeah, I don't think that's a fair judgement. In the Gospel's at the Nativity, following Christ appeals to both the learned and the simple. You have the astronomer scientists of the east, the Maiji, and the simple shepherds. (Simple meaning, the shepherds were not a part of temple governance, they most likely were not literate like the scribes, nor were they following a particular Rabbi. They did their duty with love and piety). Quite frankly, St. John-Henry Newman's writings can help us navigate the modern world especially as universities are begin converting into training facilities for activism. Christ gives us the gift of Saints to respond to their times and give us guidance on how to respond to our times. Why should Bhp Barron's mention of St John Henry Newman give you pause and Fr Peter Heers mention of St Piesius, St Yakovus and St Poferious, not?

What lead you to leave the RCC and become Orthodox?

The beauty of Christ's church is that anyone within it can be saved and attain holiness, from the simplest person to the smartest theologian.

*Fr. Peter, not Fr. Heers. We Christians address priests by their Christian baptismal name, not their last name as do the Pope Worshipers and the Protesters, (Papists and Protestants).

He certainly “helped” me. If the Nigerian Cardinal had become pope as I had hoped, I’d probably still be clinging to his illusory token “traditionalism”, all while still trying foolishly to gel Vatican 1&2, just into a different set of contradictions.

lol so true

no Salvation outside the church, Vatican 2 council is a council of Apostate, Pope is the leader of the church, many great pope through history, eastern churches Orthodoxy" are disolving and only the Catholic church evangelized the 4 corners of the earth. you deny the Filioque and the Byzantine empire fell on the feast day of the Holy Spirit. Wake up!

@Mr Magoo's Junkmail the East is full of heresey, your church even venerates communists, please wake up.

@Mr Magoo's Junkmail that's not accurate at all

1) Pope Sergius III (904-911) * Claimed to be the "Holy Father" * Obtained the papal office by murder 2) Pope John XII (955-964) * One of the most immoral popes, committing blasphemy, simony, perjury, murder, adultery and incest 3) Pope "Innocent" III (1024-1032) * Instituted the "Inquisition"' killing over 1,000,000 people 4) Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) * Had offices for sale * At least 8 cardinals were his young nephews 5) Pope Benedict IX (1033-1045) *Robbed pilgrims, adultery and murder 6) Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) * One of the most wicked popes; promoted (and committed) atheism, heresy, simony, immorality, idolatry and magic 7) Pope "Innocent" VIII (1484-1492) * Squandered the treasury of the papacy due to his luxurious life, and simony 8) Pope "Pius" II (1458-1464) *Fathered multiple illegitimate children, spoke openly of the methods used to seduce women 9) Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) * Won the election of papacy by bribery, committed incest with his sister and his daughter and had offspring from both Sure seems like they were reflection of Peter and Jesus.......only if we had a TRUE mediator between us and God (*COUHG* 1 Timothy 2:5 *COUGH*)

At least our bishops don't anathemize each other over politics

Mila, I feel the exact same way about those defending the orthodox church! Regarding the Papacy, the jury would definitely side with the Papacy! Was Moses one of many equals? Was King David one of many equals? It was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@matthewbroderick6287 wrong. Peter isn't the rock. I would suggest not looking at just that single verse. Please read the rest of that chapter ALONG with that verse. The "rock" is the answer to the question Jesus asks the disciples in the verse before the one you're taking out of context.

@@dyerseve07 I agree, you are wrong and take Holy Scripture out of context! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock! Many Church Fathers attest to this, as do many Protestant scholars! Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

I have just as much "authority" as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.

It’s Father Peter not Father Heers

And hence they have grown throughout the world and into unknown places, peoples and cultures, as Jesus has commanded. The Holy Spirit has blessed the Catholic Church very much.

@@raymondvasquez6967 the history of the past 1000 years of roman catholicism is filled to the brim with crimes against humanity, corruption, theft, rape, murder, forced conversion, ecumenism, changes in doctrine and worship, adoption of pagan practices and many other horrific atrocities. The Lord certainly never commanded any of that. For the past 1000 years, the catholic sect has done more to further nominalism and atheism than it has to further Christianity. We know rome is not the true Church by their fruit. The Holy Spirit has not been found in the catholic church since they introduced their false filioque doctrine and blasphemously attempted to reduce Him to a mere function. Do not be deceived.

@@seraphimdunn First of all, Catholicism is not a sect. It is the Church historically. Second, every institution has bad apples. However, Jesus also promised the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Look at the world and the countries that have the faith. Countries were built by those of faith - its in the landmarks, the hospitals and economic institutions. Orthodoxy is stagnant and the Protestant sects are continually breaking apart. Wonder why? It's because they are missing something - Jesus' s promise.

@@raymondvasquez6967 Roman catholicism is absolutely a sect. It is no different than any other heterodox sect, as it is not part of the Body of Christ. It has been a sect ever since it broke away from the historic Church, the ONLY Church, the Orthodox Church. The gates of hell have never and will never prevail against the Orthodox Church. Satan has claimed victory over Rome for 1000 years at this point. Again, look at the fruit of the past 1000 years of the roman sect. Just look at the fruit of your sect today. Today, you have yoga classes in your parishes. You have clown mass. You have gay pride flags hanging over your altars. You have pachamama in the Vatican. You have pagans performing rituals for your pope in the Vatican. Your tithes go to rampant sexual abuse payouts. Wonder why? It's because the Roman sect inverted the Trinity with their false filioque doctrine. They teach error regarding the Holy Spirit, and thus they do not have the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy is not "stagnant". Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

@@raymondvasquez6967 Invisible and visible church

As a catechumen converting from papism, I've always wondered how it can be that really smart men like the local bishops and priests here have not converted to Orthodoxy. I guess they are comfortable and wilful blindness does wonders. Not to mention that there's more money when you're in union with Rome in my country because of how taxes are distributed to all the religious organizations (papists are the ones with the highest percentage of people among the population). Nothing else other than Orthodoxy can withstand the test of simple research but you, of course, need to be willing to find the truth. If you already "have your truth", then you can research all you want and nothing will help you.

There is no doctrine that states the pope is infallibly holy.

@@TDL-xg5nn Canon law 1404 should suffice 😉. In Orthodoxy, any bishop can be judged by the Holy Synod.

@@TDL-xg5nn Yeah there is, its called Matthew chapter 16 verses 18 - 19. And the man is fallible, the man is just a man (look at Peter, he was incredibly flawed). but the primacy and position of pope is infallible. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

​@@ratatoskr9366Primacy and Supremacy are two completely different things. Orthodox believe in Papal Primacy. They reject Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility as the heresies they are. Pope Benedict XVI even admitted that the Orthodox view of Papal Primacy was the norm during the first millennium.

Then follow Christ's word. Matthew 16:18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Are you sure??? How do you know that you will go to heaven, and not to the lake of fire?????? Is it even possible for you to tell me??? I'll wait and find out, I guess.

@@ratatoskr9366 Are you saying that Peter is the only one going to heaven??

@@Ambassador-For-Christ what? No. Mt 16:18 has nothing to do with salvation. It's Christ establishing His Church.

@@ratatoskr9366 OH. I see now, Jesus is the rock that his church is built on. COOL !!! Does that mean Peter is on his way to the lake of fire?

The one thing needful: to sit at the foot of Christ and pray ceaselessly. This can be done with fruit and profit when we are in the Church, communing, struggling, fasting, praying - under the direction of a spiritual guide. . . Leave the friendship of the world, leave the sentimental connections, and seek out the Truth with all your heart.

@@OrthodoxEthos amen 🙏 I strive towards this(fasting and prayer- the Jesus prayer and “not my will but Yours”- and am going to Divine Liturgy this Sunday At a Russian orthodox parish I found relatively nearby. Please pray for me that God grant me discernment and strength

How can Orthodox Church be the true catholic church when they left the Catholic Church XD thats like protestants saying their the true church of God.

​@@ratatoskr9366 all non-catholic historians agree that rome left the orthodox faith and they excommunicated the patriarch of constantinople.

@@SimonSlPl Well that's a blatant lie haha your reading some biased sources buddy. I mean I learned about this in public school, the Great Schism of 1054, as in equal parts tearing away from each other. And thats not even correct, the Pope excommunicated the Emperor of Constinapole, and in turn the Bishops of Constinapole excommunicated the Pope.

@@ratatoskr9366 Again you say that I'm lying when you yourself dont know what happened at the schism. Pope sent delegation from Rome and they excommunicated the patriarch of constantinople, while the patriarch didn't excommunicate the pope himself but the papal legates that were sent as delegation, so Rome is technically in schism.

That couldve totally been the case if you guys didnt leave God's church... oh well.

They had a talk a year ago.

His channel has changed. It has taken on an anti-Orthodox bent lately.

@@LadyMaria political I expect

@@joer9156 Which should not be.

@@LadyMaria As far as I can tell, part of it seems to come from the way we phrase "outside the church there is no salvation", which he takes to mean that unless one joins the eo, they are going to hell 100% and without any doubt, regardless of their disposition or God's discernement. Now that is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

Thank you for being here, for reaching out and for seeking to go deeper. We are here for you and all those on the path of salvation and desiring their true spiritual home, the only place that we can call our home, the Church, His Body. God bless you! Let us know how we can help.

I converted from evangelicalesque Protestant to Eastern Catholic, logistically became EO but now realize I would be forced into sedevacantism as the RC organization is so apologetic to the socialist world order.

There was 2 popes? Please share how I can find this information I’m struggling with this issue between orthodox and Catholic

In the Old Testament, Christ was not present incarnate as He was for the apostles. He is the high priest after the order of melchizidek mentioned by King David in the psalms. Moses was only a type to prefigure or anticipate Christ in that sense. It's a misconception that there are multiple orthodox churches - it is a question of jurisdictions, in other words which bishop administrates over a certain area or city. An orthodox layperson can walk into any orthodox church and participate in the Divine Liturgy, and receive communion. The keys that Christ gave to Peter were the keys to bind and loose sins, which are bestowed to every bishop, and delegated to every priest who is authorised to hear confessions! Peter's confession of Faith meant that Our Lord honoured him by bestowing this office first on him. The catholics have chosen to interpret that verse in such a way as to support the papacy, but on its own it is not enough to support their claims. Interestingly, it was actually the Emperor who called for the ecumenical councils, not a single bishop.

@@FirstActuality "The keys that Christ gave to Peter were the keys to bind and loose sins, which are bestowed to every bishop" Where in scripture or history did the Early Christian Church ever say that lol that honestly sounds like protestant BS to make up for the fact you guys are literally rejecting the gospel.

@@ratatoskr9366 You have to read Matthew 18 in conjunction with Matthew 16, the phrasing of binding and loosing is repeated but addressed to all the apostles. Orthodox have apostolic succession so I'm not sure how that is Protestant? If Bishops had no authority to bind and loose (delegated to their priests) then confession would be invalid without the Pope's ratification, don't you think?

@@FirstActuality Yes forgive my ignorance. Early Church history, Eastern vs Latin Rite traditions, and the history of the schism are immense topics I am beginning to research. As a layman I am finding that the truth is not so simple, and have come to the conclusion it takes years of study to even come close to fully understanding this topic. Yes, the Orthodox Church has Apostolic sucession. No doubt about that. Can you please cite which verse in Chapter 18? I don't see any connection that ch 18 has to be read with ch 16. Matthew 16:18-19 clearly defines Peter's primacy for the Church. And it was Peter himself who founded the Bishopric in Rome. So the succession is clear as day to me. But I'd like to hear the Orthodox interpretation.

@@ratatoskr9366 no problem, these are difficult issues for sure. I think the main issue is that we have no problem with affirming the primacy of Rome as a historical see, but we don't accept its supremacy. These tend to get conflated in Vatican I and later RC teachings. We also reject the idea that the Roman see is indefectible, because in the view of our saints it has defected on dogmatic issues like the filioque. The particular verse is Matthew 18:18 which repeats the terms of binding and loosing.

Listen to our lecture on the eighth Oecumenical Council. It’s in the series on ecclesiology.

yeah, where did you find that?

At this point I'd put Davos in there as well. The WEF are openly the secular seat of Satan.

See the answer we gave you in the other video - in the Eighth Oecumenical Council video.

Yes, Acts 15 is the model for Church governance, synodal.

If I remember correctly it was James the Apostle who was presiding over the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There were several Ecumenical Councils where the Western Church wasn't even present. Interesting indeed.

Wow, that is literally blaspheming the word of God. And the liturgy in Catholic masses are also all from scripture as well, so to say its a "clown mass" is to also blaspheme. lol so its official, Orthodox Christians are just as heretical as protestants. Have fun continuing to reject the gospel!

Too far for the truth? 1 hr...? 2hrs? I mean if my salvation was in question perhaps the distance is worth it! But of course there are limitations and we must always do our best with what we have 😇

You should see how far some people in other countries WALK to get to the nearest Orthodox Church, passing other non-Orthodox churches along the way. My wife witnessed this in Africa back in the 90's.

You went to the dimmis of islam that the catholic church saved from.extention

Infallibility is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church vested in bishop of Rome to teach the church. Jesus is the ultimate head of the church, but Holy Spirit, who has spoken through the prophets, guides the church and speaks through the holy father. Jesus explicitly said to Peter that he is infallible (Mathew 16). Peter and all the prophets are all mortal men.Also papal infallibility doesn’t denies the importance of the holy synod rather it completes the synod. Even today, with 100s and 1000s of bishop from all over the world, we need a person (chosen by the Holy Spirit) who can be the protector of faith considering that bishops can be heretics. That is the universal nature of the church. I don’t see Orthodox Church as a universal church, they are regional or national churches with distinct theology(especially christology) and having their own so called ‘apostolic synod’.🤷‍♂️ So the question to orthodox is ; which Orthodox Church is the true church?

​@truly blessed 6 months later..

Mush R. - Your points and questions beg further clarification as to meanings and whether you’re interested in receiving the Holy Tradition and submitting to it as opposed to standing and analyzing it and ultimately being a judge of it. 1. What is salvation? Is salvation Theosis? Can one be saved outside of Christ? Is Christ identified with his Body? To say there is no salvation outside the church, is a tautology: the church is salvation because the church is Christ. 2. Is there “your church” and “my church,” or simply the church? Your reference to “your church“ may imply a protestant ecclesiology. So, essentially you would be trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. You have to come and understand the church on the basis of the 2000 year history and experience and tradition. You have to throw off your protestant conceptions to understand truly what the church is and has been understood to be for 2000 years. 3. Christ of course is enough. He’s all in all. He is the church and the head of it. Any idea of a pope over it or in place of him is indeed of this world and a forerunner to antichrist. But when we say Christ is enough, this is not a minimalization or a reduction! God forbid! Far from it, or rather the opposite: it is a maximalist and exclusivist reality. Only in Christ which means only in the church which means only with the Eucharist. We said in the video Christ in the Eucharist is enough. The Eucharist, however, presupposes orthodox faith and the continuation of Pentecost. There are no “partial Christ”, no “incomplete church”, no incremental levels of communion IN AND WITH the person of Christ. He is all in all and therefore it is all or nothing. (Here we’re talking about Truth as the Person of Christ who is present in the church totally through and in the Eucharistic synaxis and ALL of the mysteries - which are all expressions of the ONE Mystery of the incarnation which continues in the Body of Christ.) People outside of this experience certainly are led by God, by the Holy Spirit, in to whatever truth they have experienced and known. The action of the Holy Spirit, the grace of God, outside of the body, is very real, however it is not the same action, not the same energy and operation, as that which happens in the body, which presupposes initiation. So to say that one is being led by and inspired by the grace of God outside of the church is not to then do away with the exclusivity of the church with regard to purification, illumination, and theosis. One can obtain to great levels of knowledge of the truth, in the realm of ideas, and never be initiated into the Mystery of the incarnation. But that knowledge, that understanding and belief in Christ, is not transfiguration of the whole man, not deification of the whole man. Therefore, strictly speaking, not salvation. If one wants to abandon this and talk about salvation as knowledge about or love for Christ alone, he departs from the Orthodox soteriology coming down from the Holy Fathers, such as from Saint Athanasius the great.

@The Orthodox Ethos Thank you for your thorough response. You might be surprised at how little protestanism I have left to throw off, and how very open I am to receiving something once I understand it and the teaching doesn't contradict scripture, though I am not even in the camp of strictly sola scriptura anymore. There is so much beauty and richness to Orthodoxy that doesn't seem to be found elsewhere, especially when it comes to being transformed into the image of Christ. But when a non orthodox muslim comes to truly believe in Christ and is changed, or a drug user is freed from addiction through repentance, faith in Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and he isn't Orthodox, would you say that at least, their initial salvation is real, even if you believe that salvation is a process in the Orthodox church?

But Father,, you say the pope at the head of the church on earth is heretical but you have patriarchs ruling your church. Is it because the pope can make infallible statements? What makes him the Antichrist to you? Why are your patriarchs not the antichrist as well? We Catholics agree that Jesus is the church and his head of the church. We believe he appointed a line of succession from Peter to today to oversee and manage the church. We believe in councils as well, which are called by the Bishop of Rome. There are several things you just did not address and it felt like you misrepresented our position. As a Christian surely you can agree that this is extremely dangerous to do. If you did miss represent Catholics I trust you will take the necessary steps to correct that.

For exactitude: it would be the divine-human bean, or the Theanthropos

@@OrthodoxEthos Then serve his word: Matthew 16: 18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

@@ratatoskr9366 well that for all the apostles just below when it was only for peter the say the text in verse 16. 23 Says in greek o δε στραφείς είπε τω Πετρω... Clear there in greek we see a distinction that is a say specific to peter if it wanted to be only for peter it would have said the same say in 16:17 that is an answer to the 16:15 λέγει αυτοις. As i said in greek all your theory collapse with the word in 16:23 to peter as___ στραφείς .

@@user-pj7sq7ce1f Well 1. It's not a "theory", it's scripture. 2. Don't you guys have a "First among equals"? aka the Patriarch. 3. Would you mind translating the Greek? I am genuinely curious, and I assume you are trying to educate and not just showboat your linguistic knowledge. If that's the case, I'll start quoting scripture in Latin.

@@ratatoskr9366 first between equal is just a honor title he has no ruling authority on others

It is not the only thing. The West has gone so deep into heresy through rationalism and humanism that I doubt they will ever be saved, but I pray for them nonetheless.

@@ICXC_Matias_NIKA And where in the KJV Bible does it tell me how to be saved?

@@Ambassador-For-Christ 10 Commandments in the Book of Moses are a good start

@@ICXC_Matias_NIKA I did not see anything about being saved in the TEN COMMANDMENTS. What if I should die before I learn how to be saved, am I gong to Hell??? Are you saved??? How do you know for a fact that you are saved???? What if you are headed for hell and don't know it??

@@Ambassador-For-Christ I do not know if I will be saved or not, neither do I know if you're unsaved, but one can make an assumption on the rules that have been given us. Ones works also give an indication of the level of their spiritual life.

The head of the Church is Jesus Christ and Him alone. Neither Popes nor Bishops are heads of the church. How can fallible, sinful men be heads of the church? It makes no sense.

Paul says follow me "as I follow Christ. We also follow Holy Saints as our trail blazers.

@@Dlee-eo5vv yes, of course. But that wasn't my point. JH Newman is not an Apostle, or one of the Fathers of the true Church.

@@rosehavenfarm2969 well said.

@@rosehavenfarm2969 Newman’s primary Orthodox rival was Doctor Julian Joseph Overbeck, an underrated voice in the Tractarian controversy and a key figure in my own journey to Orthodoxy.

yeah, then why did Jesus select Peter to lead the flock? what was the point of that?

@@artifexdei3671 Peter was never a leader of "the flock." Peter was not treated as the chief of the apostles. When the church in Jerusalem appointed a pastor, they did not pick Peter. Jesus told Peter that He, Jesus, was the rock on which the church must be built. And today the Christian Church is still built upon Jesus not a pope.

@@johnbrowne3950 obviously you have serious gaps in an understanding of what happened. Peter ran universal (catholic) church, not a local church in Jerusalem that was under James and James was in communion with Peter. When Jesus said the words upon this rock I will build my church, who were these words directed at? Himself? or Peter. over the centuries, many catholics have left the church to set up their own churches. why, b/c they didn't agree with something that the popes have been saying. end result: protestants being popes unto themselves, orthodox rejecting a notion of a leader, which is quite interesting as at the local level they have bishops.

@@artifexdei3671 Show me in the Bible where it says Peter ran the universial church. Chapter and verse please. There are two different words used for rock in that verse. Thou art Peter ( Greek petros, small stone) and upon this rock, Jesus, (Greek Petra, large stone or rock) "I will build me church." He's telling Peter to build the church on the one, true God. Further proof: "For they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them and the rock was Christ." - 1Corinthians 10:4 Also, the earliest church wasn't a Catholic church. It never existed then. Only God can forgive sins. There is no such thing as an unbroken line of popes. A bishop must be the husband of one wife. There were no priesthood. No sacraments. No veneration of saints and there was a warning of making and kneeling to graven images. The Catholic church removed that warning from the Second Commandment for obvious reasons. The early church may have evolved into the Catholic church along with three other variatians which remain today. It may have been Christian for a time but when it became the Roman Catholic Church it had become corrupted and political and many of its popes were vile people. The church added lies about Mary to take away Jesus' power. The Vatican was Satan's den and things that have gone on - and continue to go on today prove the church is devoid of the Holy Spirit.

@@johnbrowne3950 Peter was the last voice in the first Council of Jerusalem when questions came up in regards to Jewish ritual laws and new gentile Christians. this points to the fact that He was viewed as having last word on the matters of doctrine. same goes for the pope today. now, not everything is in the Bible and what you don't realize that what you believe in today is a result of papal pronouncements over the centuries e.g. Holy Trinity - where is that in the Bible? provide a reference to words 'Holy Trinity' if you believe in Holy Trinity how is that the case? are you relying on popes rulings on this topic? waiting.

Join the BODY of Christ. If you don’t have your mother the church, you don’t have God as your father

In dogma there is not or ever was.

After 1054 papist put in doctrine that was not in the church the first 1000 years

You believe & follow the one who is in accordance with Holy Tradition, of course. There is no novelty in Orthodoxy. We don't follow the teachings and opinions of individuals, we follow the teaching of the Church.

Roman Catholicism is in no better position when it comes to this. Synods are there for a reason, and have arbitrated many issues that later get received by all Churches.

That's why we have synods.

He isn't a monk and why would Truth make you leave?

@@LadyMaria because it isn’t truth he’s just a mark of Ephesus larper even my orthodox priest told me not to listen to him lol glad im catholic

@@benedict7345 It is Truth, bold truth that people cannot take in this fragile climate. You're not making Roman Catholicism look good with that kind of attitude. I could say some things about RC clergy but I won't. I used to be on the RC side of the fence. I'm glad I'm not anymore.

@@LadyMaria I can say the same thing about orthodox priest raping kids and it’s worse because most of them are married or about the orthodox monks thank rape kids and goats. I’m glad I’m not orthodox anymore thank God but really all I said was my orthodox priest told me not to watch him and you had to bring up something so irrelevant. Glad I’m staying at fence where God is and not the schismatic church

@@benedict7345 Did your priest also tell you to become RC? 🤡

No, the entire Orthodox Church is the true Church.

before greece, the first christian communities were in ancient Israel, Jesrusalem.

Did you mean Orthodox Church theology?

lol this dude tried to act like he's buddy buddy with the Orthodox church, but if theres one thing Catholics and Orthodox can agree on, is their distaste for protestantism.

Become Confessional Lutheran.

@@OrthodoxEthos haha i did mean Orthodox Theology! 😅

@@dave1370 i miss wrote, bro, sorry. And no thank you. ❤

Please consider further examination of the points made in the longer video about Francis of Assisi. That is entitled After 1,000 Years and it is on our Orthodox Ethos You Tube Channel

"those are appeals to text, or distant figures" 👈 That's ANTICHRIST !!

In simple terms, what he said is that Christ is some distant figure that is no longer valid today !! That is purely SATANIC !! DISGUSTING !! The man will NEVER set a foot in HEAVEN, PERIOD !!