why it is the Orthodox who are in schism 

I’m a cradle Catholic who became Protestant, and now revisiting Catholicism after learning about the early church. This topic has been of great interest to me, so I appreciate you posting this.

This answered so many questions I had about Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I had a hunch that the chair of St. Peter and all under it was the church of Christ but this helped put my difficulties to rest. Please pray for me, a former atheist considering conversion

When Our Lord returns we shall all find out who is In Schism. The Devil has loved the separation of East and West. The worst event in the history of the Church.

Love ur videos from an Eastern rite catholic . Prayers from india .

Thank you for covering this a bit. It’s something I had struggled with quite a bit, as a former Protestant. I looked into orthodoxy for awhile and it greatly appealed to me, especially because I saw the Catholic Church as having so much baggage I didn’t want to deal with it. I started listening to an online orthodox Bible study, read a book by Peter Gilquest and bought an orthodox Bible. The more I looked into it, the more I was having trouble coming to terms with the fact that the visibility and universality of their church is simply not there. I am 32 years old and have never in my life met 1 orthodox person. This may be a poor point to make but the lack of orthodox churches in America, and worldwide, the emphasis on nationality, and the fact that the Greeks and Russians are not in communion with one another, did not seem like it could be the true church. I really couldn’t square their stance on sin. They see sin as ancestral, rather than original and they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, which the earliest church fathers all confirmed to be true. It also seems as though the Orthodox get hung up on wording quite a bit, like the Filoque. Their stance on abortion, contraception, marriage, seem pretty inconsistent, depending on which bishop you talk to. They don’t believe the sacraments that Catholics have are valid. They really have no way of solving their issues, as you said because the authority of their church isn’t there. The orthodox churches are usually few and far between, offering 1 liturgy in the early morning hours, with no adoration, and little contact with the outside world it would seem. I don’t mean to condemn anyone but it also seems that the orthodox in general are not very charitable to Catholics and those they deem as heretics. For the life of me, I couldn’t understand why St. Francis of Assisi, and other holy catholic saints are not considered saints by the orthodox. Again, I love you if you are orthodox. With the Catholic Church, there is visibility in seeing how they reach out to the poor and the widows, etc. The CC contribution’s to society is everywhere. The churches in Israel are almost all Catholic. And lastly, I was attacked by a demonic presence in my sleep that said it would destroy me and then take my life if I became Catholic. I definitely get it though. I remember wishing I could be more convinced of Orthodoxy, because they really don’t get the hate that the Catholic Church does. They don’t have to worry about a pope who is deceived. To me this is more proof that the CC must be true. If the world actively condemns the Catholic Church and hates it, there is something to that, that is undeniable. The incorruptible bodies of the saints, the miracles at Lourdes, Fatima, etc. after praying the rosary and asking Blessed Mother to please help me, I have been convinced that Catholicism is true. I can’t wait to become Catholic and am learning and trying to read as much as possible. Still trying to learn about orthodoxy too, for the sake of trying to understand what they believe better.

I appreciate a slow, sober view of Catholicism. As someone who was raised by a nervous neurotic, it's personally comforting that the Catholic Church decides things at the rate grass grows and paint dries. I think we will eventually fully embrace (I want to use the word absorb, but that sounds creepy) the eastern Church and become one Church. It might take a while, but we have a while, don't we?

Wow this was a great video. Learned a few things I hadn’t heard about. Grateful for this channel. To God be the praise, glory, and joy. Amen

Our Eastern Orthodox brothers are very much like us Catholics, and I have yet to find an orthodox priest that would refuse a Catholic the teachings of God. We do have our differences, however we are very much the same. I look at it from a perspective of two brothers, yes we share a Father and Mother, but we just have differences of perspective and organization, but never faith nor love for one another.

Well done. I was looking forward to a vid like this

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant", Cardinal Newman.

Wow- thank you for doing this work-

Thank you for information very well put together

Speaking of which, there are schisms from the ortho church that came back to the Catholic Church. Most notably the Byzantine Rite & the Coptic Rite & so on. Pretty much any schism that exists, the Catholic Church has a rite that it came from

This was very informative. Thanks

Your channel is a perfect example of how one should speak with clarity and charity🙂praise God for your seamless ability to lay out the truths of the beautiful Catholic faith to the laity 🙏

12:39 You realize the 2nd Ecumenical Council was presided over by a bishop that was not in communion with Rome?

Excellent presentation. Thank you.

In establishing a universal (catholic) family of faith during his active ministry, Jesus begins to redefine Israel in the figure of Mother Zion with his mother Mary kept in mind (Mt 12:47; Mk 3:32; cf. Jn 19:26-27): "Behold your mother." The nation shall no longer be defined by national boundaries or birthright, but by faith, as the New Zion or Church shall extend beyond its borders and receive the Gentiles into God’s family kingdom. The autocephalous ecclesial structures of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox churches are essentially national churches that fail to square with Christ's vision of His Church. Autocephaly is the status of a hierarchical Christian church whose head bishop (Patriarch) does not report to any higher-ranking bishop., viz. the Vicar of Christ (Bishop of Rome). Thus, it is the Orthodox and Oriental churches that are in schism.

You should check when Germanic barbarians (who used forged documents as arguments) started becoming popes of Rome and wonder what happened there.

Looking forward to watching this. I agree with the premise you are giving. It also seems that EO has a "spirit of Protestantism" if I may use a coloquialism, in that they reject the Pope and take the negative position against Rome, the same as Protestants. It usually is a pretty good indicator that the most hated Church on earth could very well be the true one. Scripture tells us that the world will hate the true Church. I'm a Bible college graduate and former Pastor, and am a Lutheran, on my way to converting to RC. It is simply undeniable, and remaining in any of these other groups is tantamount to "kicking against the pricks."

Dude, I’m Catholic in South Carolina. Your channel is awesome bro. Keep going! Deus vult!

This video is so unintentionally conceptually bad I don't know how to communicate it without being dishonest but also being charitable. The videos chief and most obvious error is that it simple presumes upon papal supremacy from the get go. It does not discuss the fact that for over 100 years before 1204 the Roman Catholics were creating parallel jurisdictions in the West and east. This is definitionally schismatic...sort of a big detail to overlook. Finally anyone who appeals to Florence and Lyons is simply not aware of facts. Nicea 2 defines that an Ecumenical council has the reception of all the synods. Simply all the synods did not accept Lyons or Florence. St mark of Ephesus for example was one of the synods legates. This video literally contains nothing the least bit relevant to the question...not because I impute bad motives to the creator but because of ignorance. My apologies for being frank.

Been waiting for one of this videos.... nice. Thank you. Very informative and educational. 🙏🏻🙌🏻🫶🏻👍🏻☝🏻⛪️👌🏼✝️🕊🕊

I love your videos. Thank you for taking the time.

Awesome video dude, good job!

Now I want to know more about the Orthodox Church because I didn’t understand any of that. If their Eucharist is valid, then how are they in schism? Beautiful churches, by the way. Thanks for the video.

I’m glad I was born Into a Roman Catholic family, I love my faith and know it’s the true church that Jesus left in the hands of Peter.

It might be better to say that the catholic church are those individual churches in communion with Rome. There are the Eastern Catholic churches, for example.

So the Eastern Orthodox had no problem with the Papacy until they decided they did? It makes no sense.

Thank you for this video. From Ireland ☘️

great video ❤

I am (at present) an Eastern Orthodox. My wife is a hard-core Baptist but she still says, has always said, that the Eastern Orthodox were the first Protestants and that the Roman Church is the first church. For many years I refused stubbornly to even contemplate this but...as time goes on and the honeymoon is over (I converted in 2017) I see that the Eastern Orthodox has a deep serious issue and that is a lack of control. They basically have no control because their so-called governing principle does in fact not work at all. They can talk about it eloquently but the principle does not work in practice. Just look at the failure of the Pan-Orthodox council of 2016, with several churches not turning up. They had planned that council for 55 years. 55 years! Future councils will be even more difficult to organize given the schism between Constantinople (whose Patriarch is almost living in house arrest) and the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia (who leads more than half of the world's Eastern Orthodox christians). This council was hardly a lesson of humility for the world to behold. Secondly, the Eastern Orthodox IS ethnic. It IS de facto nation-based regardless over how much ink is used to argue otherwise. Many Orthodox priests in the US seem unaware of or unwilling to admit to this. My country Sweden was never Orthodox, not in the present sense of that word. We have a few saints from before the Great Schism which zealous converts uses as proof of....well I am not too sure of what proof that really is...and they point to some Vikings who were supposedly Orthodox back in the day....1000 years ago. Not that it matters very much now mind you, looking down onto old graves from the 800s doesn't do much to enhance the spiritual life of me and my family. What we do need is services in the local language, Swedish, but there are only a few around. Most services are in Arabic, Greek, Finnish, Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Romanian. I do not know any of those languages and I have no intention to start learning them in order to understand what is said, prayed and sung. Some do not even use Swedish for their service schedule. It is not too much much to ask for I feel, for me and my 11 year old daughter to be able to understand what is said in the services since the liturgy is so very rich. How is my daughter supposed to grow in the faith if she can hardly understand what is said? The people who go to Orthodox Church in my land all know Swedish, they have to, they go to schools here, they work and live here for goodness sake. Even if we somehow had a Swedish Orthodox Church it would still have to be canonically connected to an another Orthodox Church. And then there is the calendar issue. My parish uses the Old Julian calendar whereas our neighbor (the Greek Metropolitan) uses the New. It's not new of course since it's hundreds of years old. Thus we have two churches on the same street sharing the same faith which can't celebrate the Nativity of Christ on the same date. Some refer to the Old Julian Calendar as 'the calendar of the Fathers' which of course is complete pseudo-pious nonsense. Basically, if the service schedule at the door reads liturgy on Dec 25 then that liturgy celebrates events ascribed to Dec 12. If you go there on Jan 7, after the New Year, well then one will celebrate the Nativity because for them it is Dec 25. They certainly have no problem using the Gregorian calendar for the service schedule to inform people when a service is held. There was only one calendar before used in the church and the Fathers lived under a time when it was used. And that's it. A calendar is all about astronomy and mathematics, about the length of the solar year, it's not about faith. It's not about any Church Father. The Julian calendar is astronomically incorrect whereas the Gregorian is much more precise. The Eastern Orthodox Church has in reality no means to agree on or solve such a straightforward issue. They could agree to use the Revised Julian instead but then again, it would have to be adressed in a Great Council. The problem is known, even Bede in the 800s wrote about it. They planned to include the calendar issue in the 2016 council but it was not adressed I think. We had such a Great Council but it wasn't great, they bungled it. Mount Athos celebrates the Nativity of Christ on a different date than does Greece (Mount Athos is in Greece). Finland celebrates Pascha on a different date than the rest of Orthodoxy. Why not go 'full-Julian' and launch the fireworks in January (to the utter dismay of neighbors already fast asleep)? (They dare not do that because the Police will show up) And why don't our parish have the same bishop as the Greeks if he is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate? No our bishop is residing in New York in the Bulgarian Patriarchate there. Our bishop is not even living on the same continent as us. Why?! Because Constantinople dissolved the Russian Paris Exarchate. It's just a completely insane jurisdictional chaos in the diaspora. My people will however not listen to my complaints, they do get awfully defensive like a hedgehog if I adress the problems. My family has to drive 350 km to and from to go to a church service which we can hardly understand much of (Swedish services are only once a month). And I am not even complaining about any theological issue. Look at the broken communion between Constantinople and Moscow and the Russian Patriarch blessing fratricide and his priests blessing weapons. About Constantinople anyway, look at it now. It's not a seat of power, the Patriarch is experiencing extreme difficulties in a now Muslim land. The days of the Byzantine Empire are long gone. And who can excommunicate Patriarch Kirill? The man can thus build a church dedicated to the Russian Armed Forces, authorise frescoes of the Soviet Emblem and communist Red Army Soldiers while talking about Holy Rus. It was the Kremlin under that Soviet Emblem who tried to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church, not the West! There has been reports of the Russian church stopping their own priests from serving if they are opposed to the war. A war which is waged against Ukraine, a brother nation which has many Orthodox people. No, I say, we are the schismatics, not Rome. I am planning to convert, learning to pray the Rosary now. Pray for me brethren. Good video, kind regards!

My video would be much shorter. It goes something like this: Was Peter the bishop of Rome, or the bishop of vague eastern-ness?

Thank you ❤️

What about Holy Inquisition? Is it fron Christ or Satan?

How did the Orthodox Church split? Are you serious? The Patriarch of Rome split from the Orthodox Church.

Which form of the Mass do you attend?

The bias in this is amazing. Catholic just means universal, so please stop calling the Roman Catholics Catholic as if theyare the only universal Christian’s. . The orthodox are all Catholic. The supremacy of the Pope of Rome was never the issue, but the filioque question was the main cause. You need to read more and learn some humility.

This is a very good video.

How is Rome the true church when it came after Antioch and Jerusalem church? How is Rome the true church when they are the ones who added to the creed and drew a circle around themselves? All the evidence shows Rome broke away. Thats why Rome is not in communion with the other churches.

This is an interesting argument that essentially accepts the Orthodox position that only ecumenical councils can establish articles of faith. What were these councils in the 13th and 15th Centuries? Weren't they essentially political in nature? The East had been asking for military help from the West to defend against Turkish Muslim incursions from the time of the 1st Crusade, in the waning years of the 11th Century, and yet the Eastern Empire became ever weaker (in part due to the treacherous 4th Crusade). Yes, these councils were called to decide theological questions, settle doctrinal differences, but they were obviously held under duress, these were "agreements" that the weak conceded to the strong. None of the "Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils" had that quality. Also, it is untrue that ecumenical (all church) councils were never overturned. At the Council of Hieria in 754, the Church endorsed an iconoclast position and declared image worship to be blasphemy. This was overturn at the Council of Nicaea in 787. In 449, Theodosius II summoned a council at Ephesus, where Eutyches was exonerated and returned to his monastery. This council was later overturned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and labeled "Latrocinium" ("Robber Council"). Were the differences between the East and West significant even as late as the 15th Century, when crusades were still being organized to defend Christendom? I don't think so.

Hello, can I ask you where you got your information from? Thanks.

The problem I have with the east which I love soo much the actual church members refuse to hear any pints that are counter to what they listen to. When they get cornered they get upset and blame the other for getting upset lol it’s like if you’re stuff stands it stands or it doesn’t don’t get upset when you get cornered lol

The rough part is i do think some of the things they get right, albeit ultimately inconsequential, i consider somewhat appealing (immersive baptism, maintaining the Saturday Sabbath, et. Al). But yes, it's bizarre that nearly a millennium under the papacy they suddenly reject it.

Onward to 5k subscribers!

Amen Hallelujah.

Jude 11 proves that there is authority over the church. Protestants and the Orthodox say the same thing to Peter that Korah said to Moses in Numbers 16:3.

I have a question. Has the Orthodox Church modernized and washed down, protestantized in their liturgy like the Roman Catholic Church has? Just curious.

As someone born and raised Catholic, i would recommend reading “Two Paths: Orthodoxy and Catholicism” by Michael Whelton (also born and raised Catholic).

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."[69] So which version of papalism are you suppose to follow the Vatican 2 version or before Vatican which even is different from the papalist church just after the schism, this constant changing church calling eastern Orthodox schematics and I agree we are schematic but not in the way you say, because we can't have union with a heretical church in anyway. But we are with Christ, and his church. Do cart wheels all you want a bunch of gymnastics truth is the truth and you are attacking Christ's church and you will one day have to hold an account for your actions

Your video is excellent and much needed, but please use the correct dating: A.D. is capitalized before the numerical date. A.D. is Latin for ANNO DOMINI, "in the year of Our Lord." (Latin only had what we call capital letters.)

It is true that this and other aspects that you brought up are a contentious issue close to the end of your video you brought up historical aspects referring to what the orthodox never bring up. They put the blame on the Catholic Church but they don’t seem to understand that a number of emperors linked arms with Muslims in order to get what they wanted I’m not saying in the west it wasn’t done but it was partly done in the eastern half. You get that in Albania Bulgaria and then they wonder why the countries were taken over by Muslims. also on top of this Luther Calvin also went against the Catholic Church and they were getting coffers from Muslims for their wars against the Catholic Church. The great guy to listen to is Lloyd de Jongh he has a number of great programs dealing with these issue. He is not a Catholic but he sounds definitely like a Catholic show his sources. Enjoy your program. God bless.

This is another great example of the GREAT WORK of I Miss Christendom”. This is arguably the most disappointing aspect of the breakup of Christianity.

So then when we go to the judgment are we judged based on what denomination we were in or how well we followed Jesus commands? I rest my case

Proud Byzantine here 😊

The Council of Florence ended in 1449, and Constantinople fell in May of 1453 after a 53 day siege. There was plenty of time for the EO to implement the agreements of the Council. Their failure to do so falls squarely on their shoulders. Fear of retaliation by the population in the east likely played a significant role in the clergy not following through with the councils agreements.

It cannot be that a single bishop even the Bishop of Rome has authority to overrule a church council, the canons of which are fruit of discernment and the work of the Holy Spirit. The Pope has no authority to unilaterally overrule an entire council (two in fact) and insert the filioque which I might add multiple popes also rejected until nearly the 10th century. If so, why bother with a council at all? Why not just call all of the other bishops in the world an ad hoc advisory council to the Bishop of Rome who may or may not consider their recommendations at his discretion? How's that working out with Pope Francis and adherence to apostolic tradition?

*"ERROR"* After the Holy Roman emperor Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the Pope, the emperor declared the Pope of Rome to have primacy over all the others. Therefore Charlemagne really exalted the Papacy after which the Roman church grew by leaps & bounds. Therefore the speaker saying that the Church of Rome is the true church bc it has no political affiliation is in: *"ERROR"*

This is an extremely simplistic presentation. For example, he states that the Patriarch of Constantinople was celebrating an Easter Vigil on the day that Cardinal Humbert served the bull of excommunication. Easter Vigil in July? The excommunication occurred on 16 July 1054 -- hardly a date for "Easter" (actually, for Pascha).

And now here in 2023, we have a Pope who does not clarify anything (other than it seems, defend sodomy) nor defend perennial church teaching and discipline. We now have many (not all) German bishops ready to once again break away from the true Roman Church.

What is the theme music for your videos? thanks

Thanks for making more orthodox videos brother! I have recently left protestantism and have been attending an orthodox church but I sense that they are very anti-west in nature but half my family's Catholic and I have respect for the Western tradition not the modernism going on in the Catholic church but the real Catholic Church so thank you for giving me more western side of the stance because not many people do a good job sadly on RU-vid

Very impressive and concise video. Out of so many I have seen, this is at the top.

The most gigachad Catholic channel on RU-vid.

make more videos on orthodoxy please

I am Catholic, but if he holly sprit guides the councils did it guide Vatican II?

Yes st Peter was permitted to bind or loose me smone, May Pope grant me salvation

What is more important: truth or unity?

I was born Protestant, and Baptized Protestant in 1982. In 1987 I went through RCIA and became Catholic which I still am today. I am so glad that I am Catholic. Indeed, at age 51 I still serve Mass. Adult servers are very common these days. So I served my Pastor, Monigmor John J. Yonk (whom I believe to be a Saint) from 1987 to 1991, and our current Pastor, Father Wayne Morris asked me to serve Mass again in 2022. Since November 2023 I've been the regular server for all vigil Masses in the Ironton Parish.

Orthodox here. I watch your content and that of other Catholics with respect. The schism is, and will not be reconciled. Could anyone suggest otherwise under the current direction of the papacy (not just Francis)? We all know what, and who, is coming, likely within our lifetimes. This is no time for in-fighting among Christians. I can say that the Orthodox have not deviated one iota from the true faith.

You mentioned sedevacantism and I must correct you that not recognising present claimant to the papacy as pope and rejecting papacy as such are not the same

Could you make a video about the Filioque?

The protestant Deformation was a total disaster, and not just for the Church, but for the world in general.

Don Bosco has an explanation why the Orthodox split and it was mainly politics even maybe personal ambition

What about the same sex aprovall from the Pope?

When I left Protestantism and was faced with the choice of orthodox or Catholic it was clear that modern Catholics had diverged from original teachings and worship and only the traditional Latin Catholic practice was original. Which begs the question, why would I submit to Rome if you won’t? I feel very happy in Orthodoxy. If you miss Christendom you should covert since we all still support Monarchy and double eagle and tradition and Divine Liturgy etc. You’ll never get that back in Catholic Church which proofs Orthodox position. Let alone the filouque heresy invention and innovation of papal supremacy.

this is a really good video and explanation.

where Peter is, there is the Church. it is sufficient to believe in the words and promises of Jesus Christ to Peter when He gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and promised him that hell will never overcome the church and that Jesus will be forever with the church until the end of time. so if you fail to believe this, then everything you believe becomes a lie. I would rather become an atheist than believe in a lie or a liar.

I love my Catholic brothers and sisters but we really need to remember, “you shall know them by their fruits.” And you’ve really got to dig deep into history to understand the full scope of what those fruits really are for both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I strongly recommend to anyone interested in getting the complete picture with the Orthodox perspective also taken into account to watch Orthodox Ethos’ examination of Catholicism: ru-vid.combTOkG5G9lUY?si=lW7MYPNLvebQK1Bw

For those coming into the Catholic Church from a Protestant background, having to make this decision between the EOC and RC church is the most painful, and I mean, tears in my eyes painful. It is difficult for those born to Catholicism to appreciate how tragic this split really was and still is. Protestantism can be seen as foolish in fairly short order if you study a little church history, but there is much of beauty, wisdom and truth in the EOC.

You are wrong on two points. One, the orthodox do distinctly believe in Immaculate Conception. She is referred to as the holy virgin. Two, Christ gave ALL his disciples authority, after the resurrection. Not just Paul. He was deemed, first among equals. That was the the way the early church was founded. Still true among Prelates and the Patriarch. He is not iinfallible. Christ did not make the bishop of Rome, who is no called the Pope that designation. The bishops in the early church were equals. The change came when the political ruler in Rome told him and his counterparts that the Roman bishop was the head of the Church. As far as the difference between Moscow and Constantinople. That was a poor decision of the bishop in Moscow, who calls himself the patriarch due to his political alignment with the government. It is not a spiritual decision. It is unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with the spiritually and validity of the church. And as far as the ethnicity and eastern orthodox church, it is what keeps that church strong and valid. It is seen and many of the dissolutions, especially in the United States of the Catholic Church, where the faith has been watered down and the masses minuscule of what it was.

Hummm... You bring up the leavened/unleavened issue but there is a problem... Until the mid 7th century, the west used leavened bread as well. Their transition to unleavened bread was gradual. Additionally, the Schism was NOT over the leavened/unleavened issue. It was only Patriarch Michael of Constantinople made a small issue of it but it wasn't an issue overall.

I think both orthodox and Catholics are going to need to have a big piece of humble pie each for them to unite.

Sir, it is clear that you understand early history and it is also clear that you understand the development of Christianity in the western area as well as the east.. and to your credit I will assume that you understand the different rights which occur along the Catholic faith which are valid and licit and blessed by the Holy Father through the authority of St Peter. Saint Cyril and Methodius used the vernacular because of their apostolate.. and there are a hundred and 1 million documentation about rational ideas which question this phrase. Please allow this suggestion. Let us pray Orthodox and Catholic and everyone else who is interested in the beauty of our Lord and salvation

We're about to have another split if these American conservatives don't stop rejecting the authority of the Pope over stupid politics.

Here is why i am not Catholic (coptic ortho) papacy is false but first let's properly define papal infallibility Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25). meaning that the bishop can be a complete utter scoundrel but god will keep him from teaching heresy and he will be able to teach the doctrines of the lord infallibly. The way to refute it is to point out an example of a pope who taught heresy or contradicted another infallible pope here i am talking about the monothelite and dyothelite controversy third Constantinople declared dyothelitism to be the truth and monothelitism to be a heresy (i am a monothelite BTW)one of those who were monothelites and were anathematized by the council was Pope Honorius I. This is from his Wikipedia article. In the Third Council of Constantinople on 16 September 681,[7] the monothelites were anathematized by name "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" in the XIII session. Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorius was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines; the XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics explicitly stating "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!",[8][9] and concluding with the decree of the XVII session that Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius".[10] The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation.[1] Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council commended it for it had "perfectly preached the definition of the true faith"[11] and made reference to the condemnation of his predecessor:[12] We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.[10]. This is the embarrassing answer on the Catholic answers website. Answer: No pope has ever been found to be a heretic. The accusation is sometimes thrown around is that Pope Honorius was a heretic. However, he was never actually accused of being a heretic during his lifetime. Pope Honorius was condemned for not stepping in to stop a heresy and thus was considered guilty of its spread. He was not condemned as actually believing or teaching the heresy. this is embarrassing i don't even want to talk about it so let's move on. peter was obviously special but not as much as Catholics make him out to be Matthew 16:18-19 New International Version 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”. This passage is often cited as proof for the papacy but read this Matthew 18:18 New International Version 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[b] loosed in heaven. Here Jesus gives the apostles the same authority to bound and loose does the first passage mean that Jesus gave this authority only to peter no but to all of the apostles why are the keys to the kingdom considered an exception. Peter never acted with supreme authority as the one with the last word he was even opposed by other apostles. Galatians 2:11-14 English Standard Version Paul Opposes Peter 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”. This is self explanatory let's look at the next example. Acts 15 who declared the decisions of the council of Jerusalem was it peter or the bishop of Jerusalem yes ot was the bishop of Jerusalem james if peter has all authority why didn't he do that instead of James. Rome isn't the only petrine see Antioch is also a petrine see why isn't the papacy theirs obviously because it fell into muslim handa while the christians in Antioch suffered under muslim rule rome flourished as the center of Christianity therefore if we are to the supremacy of the petrine see we should do the same with Antioch. Secondly i am not sure if we can really say peter was the first pope the one who established the church of Rome is paul not peter peter was a late comer to the party he was definitely martyred there (read first clement). And he definitely taught there and definitely helped paul but probably choosing linus was mostly Paul's decision. We don't have any evidence to support that peter intended for the position to have universal jurisdiction over all of Christendom the same applies to Antioch if he really wanted the position to have universal authority instead of local authority he would have chosen someone else with that i am referring to john the deciple whom Jesus loved (lived till the 90s) and was also called by Paul one of the three pillars of the church. Why did he chose some random nobody from Rome instead of john unless he didn't want this position to be universally authoritative because that means linus and a few other popes were more authoritative than the apostle john himself

It’s eastern churches reuniting with Rome, not western churches reuniting with Constantinople and Moscow, proving that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

What are your thoughts on the Western Church insisting on Pastoral celibacy?

This is decidedly partisan, but enlightening as to the Roman view of the history.

You did excellent on this video as Historians do so poorly on it because they always push from the Protestants side, even when they don't say anything about Religion. It's hard to believe that MAN would allow, Language to separate them and straight our Power Hungry Countries and Empire Leaders. In these days, we all need the Orthodox to return and give up the childish argument. One Orthodox Bishop who's Orthodox churches returned back to Catholic Rome. The fight is this, the Parent say, this but the children want to prove to the their parents that they are right even when they are wrong. Listen to your parents and that Parent is the Pope him the children of Orthodox feel they can't in these days, based on Conservative Principles and that they say , now the churches are to different but that is not true for other Churches that are Orthodox show who is speaking about this? Let me also add that Calvinism also played a role of Propaganda against the Catholic Church.

The only problem now is, do we have a pope? The guy who says "Call me Jorge" is hardly Catholic, let alone pope.

I was Greek Orthodox for a little bit, but the big thinks that converted me to Catholicism was Purgatory and the Pope, which are clearly seen in scripture, but Orthodoxy denies.

is it true that only Catholics go to heaven and orthodox wont im very scared of hell

Good!

How many Popes were there before 1054?

Another fact you could’ve used: Humbert’s excommunication was invalid. The pope had died, so Humbert didn’t even have the authority to act on behalf of Rome. Both Humbert and Celularius were aware of this, yet Celularius retaliated with his own bull anyway (when he should’ve ignored it since Humbert’s wasn’t worth anything). So, technically, the excommunication was one sided.

I also studied this topic recently and found the Catholics make up that main part of the body of Christ but the Orthodox are like the internal organs -very critical obviously and equally important to the Catholic faith yet more focussed in nature while Catholics make up that broader and more general part of the body. We cannot say one is better than the other as they are equally important. St Paul tells us all this and more with Christs body was setup with no division but equality. Different roles yet equally important.

Catho Temples, your father is a beast !

Constantinople had its first own bishop appointed in the time of Constantine, and has been vying for supremacy since that time.

Imagine looking at the fruits of the Roman church since schism and believing this... Nothing against the laity, I know many Catholics that love Christ, but the fruits of the church are rotten