saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church has had little impact on the world is a CRAZY take 😮

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

only "little" compared to Catholicism and Protestantism. It's the least Geographically distributed as well.

@jamiehayn

Жыл бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 I think defining basic theological ideas such as the trinity, or compiling scripture into our current bible is pretty significant

@Ian-iy7sl

Жыл бұрын

@@jamiehayn actually that was the Roman Catholic Church... Also in terms of the compilation of scripture, Orthodoxy does not even have a set canon list. They still dispute over all the books. When St Athanasius wrote his Easter letter on what he thought the canon was, he was basing it off the books that the churches were already using. They arose naturally. The "we created the Bible argument so sola scriptura is wrong" that is employed by 75 IQ Catholics and is now being used by Orthodox is a real shame. The first and only time a canon list was defined dogmatically in either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church was in the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century. The patristic fathers all had different views of what the canon was. John of Damascus thought the deuterocanon was not authoritative on doctrine and should only be read to better our understanding. He also thought 1 Clement was New Testament canon as well. Craig Truiglia does a great job as an Eastern Orthodox Christian understanding that the "we compiled scripture into our current bible" is horrific and detrimental to the EO cause

@duckboi420

Жыл бұрын

@@Ian-iy7sl the Bible was compiled before the schism of 1054, so it was the orthodox who compile it.

@Ian-iy7sl

Жыл бұрын

@@duckboi420 the compilation within churches was completely natural from the Churches. Nobody had a set canon list. They all differed from each other slightlyWhen Athanasius made his Easter List, he was just commenting on what the churches were already doing same with every other Father who commentated on the canon which is why they all had some slight variations. So idk what you mean that the Bible was compiled before the schism so it was the Orthodox. Catholics say the same thing. Orthodox say they are the true Church that Christ founded and so do Catholics. Literally not an argument and is so over done. There was never a decree from the Orthodox Church or an ecumenical council that declared what the canon is. The first time a set canon was ever declared emphatically was by the Roman Catholic Church at the council of Trent. There was also a small council in Carthage in the early 5th century that issued it but not on a wide level scale Listen to Craig Truiglia (Orthodox Christian Theology) explain why that's a really bad argument for Orthodox Christians and Catholics to make. The Orthodox Church still doesn't have a closed canon. There are always still debates. St Athanasius, St Jerome, St Basil, and St John of Damascus all had differing Old Testament canons from each other and considered the deterocanon (for the most part) not considered canon but useful supplementary. Heck, John of Damascus considered 1 Clement has canonical and none of the deuterocanon. Athanasius only considered 2 or 3 books from the deuterocanon has canonical So it's kinda funny that some of the most beloved Fathers of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches had a canon far closer to the Protestant canon

- The Filioque is not a problem only because it is in addition to the Creed - it is also not inline with the Orthodox view of the Trinity. Also, there is a clear difference between the change from the Nicene to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the addition of the Filioque: the original change was done in the context of an Ecumenical Council with consensus throughout the Church; the addition of the Filioque was done unilaterally by the Pope (and therefore is essentially part of the question of the papacy) and started being used in the West while the East continued to use the old version and therefore caused division. - Regarding your economic criticism, I think it is quite misguided. Firstly, you cannot judge a Church based on the economic performance of the countries where it is present - this should not be your "main reason" for not being Eastern Orthodox. Secondly, the economic underdevelopment of the east is in no way linked to religion but to many other factors, such as the fact that much of Eastern Europe was communist for the past century - contrast most Eastern European countries with Greece and Cyprus, for example, which were the only two traditionally Orthodox countries that never became communist - they are significantly more economically prosperous. Also, the East used to be much wealthier than the West, but numerous factors played a role in reversing that, such as Islamic conquest and the Crusades, which ended up being the Catholics invading the Byzantines and pillaging Constantinople instead of taking back the Holy Land. In short, Eastern Europe, due to its geographical placement, has suffered much more than the West, and it is only logical that they haven't been able to develop as much economically, and this is irrelevant to religious beliefs. It's hard to develop culturally and economically when you're preoccupied with surviving.

@hippopilot6750

Жыл бұрын

It's weird he'd make a point like that seeing how he, and many other Calvinists, praisr St. Augustine. In Augustine's 'The City of God' (the first book of it as well, mind you) Augustine attacks the notion of worldly prosperity as a proof of correct faith.

@josephbrandenburg4373

Жыл бұрын

... and the economic development of the West is directly proportional to the prevelance of the rainbow- worshipping cult. Besides you'd expect this to be a point in favor of the East? Jesus made it really clear that you can't serve God and money. Almost all of the "big societal developments" in the last 200 years have been as bad as they have been good. Seems like a bias in search of a reason, rather than a bias formed by reasoning.

@igorlopes7589

4 ай бұрын

The Filioque wasn't added by the Pope, but by a Spanish council. The Popes, like all westerners, agreed with the idea behind the Filioque, but they still didn't add it to the Creed in Rome until like the 11th century. And the western church fathers did believe the Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son.

@ForceRecon112

25 күн бұрын

It was also added to combat the spread of Arianism which said the Son was a created being rather than being begotten of and of one substance with the Father. It was partially added for that reason to put the Son on equal footing in terms of role, not in terms of divinity, with the Father

Couple things I want to point out where I feel that you seemed to misrepresent Eastern Orthodox beliefs (Keep in mind I am not Orthodox) : 1) Eastern Orthodox Christians don't say that scripture is subject to tradition, but that Scripture is a part of tradition. The most important piece of tradition in fact. All other tradition in the Church has to go along with Scripture or it doesn't work. 2) The Western Church initially added the filioque to combat Arianism at the Council of Toledo since the Goths were gaining lots of Arian followers. and the claims that it was Biblical developed later once the Eastern christians combated them on it. 3) The Eastern Orthodox Christians don't reject the filioque simply because it is not traditional even though it is scriptural. They will deny that it is scriptural at all. Their biggest proof text is that John 15:26 when Christ says that the Sprit proceeds from the Father. He doesn't say that it also proceeds from the Son, so therefore it's not scriptural. Also they give some explanation how if the Spirit also proceeds from the Son then it changes the entire dynamic of the trinity. 4) EOs would say that the modification of the Creed in the Council of Constantinople works because it was modified through an infallible Ecumenical Council. If the Western Church wants to add the filioque, they should call a truly Ecumenical Council to ratify it. Now if a Council ended up ratifying that, would the Eastern Churches follow that Council in reality? Tough to say. Council of Florence comes to mind but I side with the EOs a little bit on that one since the Churches were in schism so it's kinda hard for it to be an Ecumenical Council truly. 5) I actually do agree with you on the impact on the entire world question. However, I don't think economic success and individualism is a good argument for it. During the first 300 years of Christianity, Christians did not fare well. I am sure plenty pagans refused to convert because Christians were these people who were poor and got killed all the time. After the Empire embraced Christianity, the Western Roman Empire began to crumble heavily. Augustine had to write City of God in order to rebuke the pagan argument that the Empire is collapsing both politically and economically because of Christianity. Not an equivalent argument to yours but I believe it is similar enough. Where I would take the argument is that, prior to the Internet nobody really had any access to Eastern Orthodoxy. People may have had some rough idea of what it was but how can the One True Church practically be invisible from the majority of the developed and civilized world? The Western Church had far more influence in the East -Maronites and Eastern Catholics- then the East had on the West. Imagine being an Anglican peasant in the late 19th century and your only knowledge of the One True Church is that Queen Victoria's granddaughter married the Tsar Nicholas and became Orthodox (idek if she actually converted just that she is a saint)

@Filip_Rovenski

Жыл бұрын

You have a brilliant understanding for a non-orthodox, that's all exactly what we think and believe and it pleases me to read such competent comments. We also think John the Forerunner's prophecy on Jesus (John 1:32-33) contradicts filioque as well

@Ian-iy7sl

Жыл бұрын

@@Filip_Rovenski thank you!! I try to not misrepresent a tradition when I speak of them. I did take classes at a local Orthodox church and I have taken the faith seriously before but never ended up fully becoming a catecumen and converting. Maybe one day

@punteroism

10 ай бұрын

Thank you. I always take redeemed zoomer with a large grain of salt. But I like how he provides simple general coverage of a topic like Wikipedia. His argument sounded to close to prosperity gospel (I know he said individualism) but the context of being "right" is why protestants founded countries are better off. I'm baptist so I know nothing of EO, but I am quite familiar with the impact of communism on bankrupting a country today which is currently happening in the US as it did in Russia and Venezuela.

As an Orthodox Christian, I must say that it isn't that tradition is more important than the Bible because we don't question it, it's because those traditions 9 times out of 10 are actually older than when the bible was compiled in the 6th century. Which is why we find it so odd that Protestants will insist on Sola Scriptura, when it was the church who compiled and decided which books would even be cannon within the Bible, (for example is your Bible 66 books and not 73?) Also as for the Filioque controversy, it wasn't that "it wasn't in the creed" it's that the western Church wanted to change the Creed outside of an ecumenical council, which makes it a much more important difference. Also you have a very weird standard for measuring what faith you want to follow? Not just in this video, but in others as well you measure the truth of your faith based upon how powerful or successful the countries in which that faith influenced were or are. Not only is this just strange, it is very much arbitrary and I have to ask, by what measure are these countries even successful? By their gdp? By how much stuff they have, aka consumerism? All western, Protestant countries have succumbed and destroyed their own cultures on the altar of Progressivism and liberalism. If you're determining truth based upon the influence or success of that faith, and not the truth and lived experiences of the people of that faith, then you're using a faulty measurement. Countries rise and fall, the western protestant countries have been on top ever since the Renaissance, and America has been #1 since WW2, but that too can change and inevitably it will. All Countries can pass away, but the truthfulness of faith never will. Honestly, I'd just say give Orthodoxy a try, visit a local orthodox church, talk to the priest, and maybe even become a catechumen.

@timothyjavor

Жыл бұрын

Wow, that's some great commentery

@Sunlight91

Жыл бұрын

Good Comment! As an atheist I find Orthodox the best Christian sect currently. It's traditions are extremely important in the current ethnic, cultural and general population collapse.

@alanantos2531

Жыл бұрын

In bible God blesses righteous and good people who fulfill the obligations given by Him and punish sinners who oppose Him If so it is true that more successful and the more wealthy country it is - it means that the God blesses more it than more poor country where there are more sinners. I come from Poland and I was raised as a Catholic and when questioning every person I could, they would always answer that yeah "I'm Catholic" - and even some devoultly take part in tradition ceremonies like Easter but it's all fake - they do it only because they are used to it, not that they believe it. (So you have to take statistics of percentage of Catholic people in a given country with the grain of salt) Raised that way Christianity was for me only some idiotical Mary cult that I had to kiss sculptures of Jesus and Mary, and always Mary is more important. Saying that Pope Jonh the II was the GREATEST of poles didn't help When I discovered bible and it's wisdom I immediately discover how bad Catholic teachings were and when I started living hearing God's message my life changed and now I'm so much more prosperous. If you do what God REALLY wants you to do, you will always be more prosperous.

@Traditional_American

Жыл бұрын

@Alanantos No where in the Bible does it say that God will always prosper you if you follow him, life is still full of suffering and hardships even for devout Christians. Many Christians throughout history suffered and were martyred for the faith, as God never promised a good life here, only in Heaven. In fact, in much of Christian theology, we are told that through suffering, we can become closer to God. Also I'm not sure why or who convinced you that statues and icons are wrong or idolatry, they are not. We don't worship the statues of Mary or any other Saint, instead we honor them, much like we may honor the founding fathers in America, without worshiping them. One only needs to look up the church's history with Iconoclasm to see how icons and statues are perfectly licit. Also, I think it goes without saying, but just because there are Catholics who don't take their faith seriously, that doesn't mean Catholicism is at all false. Before you "discovered" how bad Catholicism was, did you actually go back to a Catholic Church? Did you attend Mass? Did you talk to a priest about the various issues you had with Church doctrine? If not, then perhaps it's time to reconsider doing so.

@reggiekrager5411

Жыл бұрын

​@@alanantos2531 That's the biggest pile of BS I've heard. So Godless rainbow hugging America, Britain and Germany fulfill their obligations the best apparently?

As a Protestant (although I am inquiring of Catholicism and Orthodoxy) , i have to defend the Orthodox on this. They claim there are two views of both the Son and Spirit. The Son is eternally begotten yet incarnate for a finite period of time. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeded, yet the Holy Spirit was not “sent” on Earth for eternity. When Jesus refers to sending the spirit, He is sending the spirit on Earth to us. He is not the source of the Holy Spirit eternally. Also, as many Pentecostals would claim, the filioque can result in subordination of the Spirit. I’d encourage you to look up the difference between the view of the Trinity between Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers. The Orthodox would claim the filioque is the source of many theological issues in the Protestant church and the source of the Protestant church searching for the Spirit incorrectly (Pentecostals, Charismatics, etc)

@JosefFurg1611

11 ай бұрын

Forget about Filioque, Eastern Orthodox are wrong on so many other, much more pressing and essential issues, such as transubstantiation, being wrong on the gospel (they believe salvation is not by grace through faith, but that there is human merit involved), they do not allow their bishops to marry, idolatry is rampant, to the point that they kiss their icons (idols) beyond what even catholics would do... did I mention they deny salvation by faith? Filioque could be a valid addition, or outright invalid, but it would nonetheless make absolutely no change to the fact that the eastern orthodox church is wrong about many essential things. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2 "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:26

@vngelicath1580

11 ай бұрын

The Augustinian view is much more coherent and allows for a full perichoresis of the three persons of the Trinity, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3. whereas the Eastern (anti-Augustinian) view places absolute uniqueness to the Father as the fountainhead of divinity, but the other two persons function as two, parallel emanations which do not interact -- making the distinction between procession and begetting virtually meaningless. The Western view is more favorable to classical theism in establishing both the principle of 'divine simplicity' and the principle that the economic Trinity cannot be divorced from the immanent Trinity: (begetting in time reflects eternal begetting, so with dia-procession -- we reason from the economic to the immament, unknowable reality). Furthermore, with 'divine simplicity' of shared, irreducible essence, how does a dia-procession imply subordination any more than begetting (from a single source)? That logic is dangerously undermining for our theology of The Son, as well.

@vngelicath1580

11 ай бұрын

And even if you want to argue that it makes it out to be a diminishing return, like a platonic copy of a copy: Father --> Son --> H.S. (making the Spirit the least close to the original source), that's a failure to understand Western contentions about divine essence. As well as the fact that if the Son receives His essence from the Father and the Father WITH/THROUGH the Son generates the Spirit, anything the Son is contributing to in the equation began with the Father originally anyway, thus making the Holy Spirit's "efficient cause" (if we can be so inelegant with language) ultimately the Father alone, in some sense.

@user-xh9td7ts1l

10 ай бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 HS and Son interact in Eastern view, of course. Just not eternaly, or as Synod of Blachernae says, both eternaly and temporarly

@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded

9 ай бұрын

@@JosefFurg1611They literally do that to venerate (show respect) to icons. how is idolatrous. What a disrespectful comment. Orthodoxy is The True Church. repent

Perhaps that Enderman came to repent

Orthodox Christian here. We don't usually put tradition before the Bible. Rather, we put traditional interpretation of the Bible and the interpretation of the fathers over personal interpretation. The Bible is PART of our tradition, but not ALL of it. Hence not SOLA (ONLY) scriptura. I also disagree with your economic criticism. Why does economy matter when it comes to your salvation? What matters is being on the correct path to the eternal Kingdom of Heaven, not the temporary riches of this world. Part of it is because of the constant persecution in Orthodox countries.

In orthodoxy, Church tradition isn’t above the Bible. Actually, it’s not even a separate pool of knowledge. Some people paint Orthodox theology as taking points from Holy Tradition in addition to the Bible, but this is not the case. Think of Holy Tradition like a boundary gate that surrounds the well of Divine Inspiration (The Bible). The teachings of the Saints the makeup Holy Tradition define the boundaries of what is acceptable in the Church, going outside those boundaries are a slippery slope to heresy. All the saints writings’ are in fact inspired by scripture itself. We study the writings of the Saints like a Protestant would read a book by their favorite pastor. Tradition does not supersede the Bible of course. In the Filioque matter, it wasn’t rejected simply because it was against tradition (although that is important). In fact, in John 15:26, Jesus says "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." So there is a Biblical basis for the rejection of it. Although I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t admit much of the antagonism with the Catholics stemmed from a long-running political rivalry between Rome and Constantinople over power, which aggrandized both sides defiance against coming to a resolution

The Orthodox Church still holds to the same traditions that they’ve held to for almost 2000 yrs. It’s as close as you’ll get to early Christian practices from any church.

Bad arguments and overbiased stuff! There is a reason why we still exist to this day!☝🏻☦️

@CashFreedman

11 ай бұрын

I agree but this was reasoning why he wasn't inclined to it. Definitely not a major reason not to be Orthodox but at least he considered the tradition.

“I’m not orthodox due to extraneous factors that have nothing to do with religion”

If the Nicene Creed is inerrant, doesn’t that refute Sola Scriptura since creeds and tradition can obviously hold infalible (or even ‘inerrant’ by your words) rules of faith?

@Ian-iy7sl

Жыл бұрын

I believe he would say that It's innerant because it perfectly agrees with Scripture not because of the Council. EOs would say that yes it perfectly agrees with Scripture and we know that it agrees because an infallible Council said so

@definitionhighguy

Жыл бұрын

We don't believe it is inerrant or infallible

@wynn2325

Жыл бұрын

If there are no errors, it is inerrant. Inerrancy is a very American belief that isn't even too popular in say, England. The Bible has errors, for example, Matthew quotes Zechariah but says he quotes Jeremiah. There are contradicting numbers in Samuel and Chronicles. This isn't really a problem, since the truths they tell are all infallible. Inerrancy was created in response to the enlightenment and critical readings of the Bible. It's about authority, and even though the Nicene creed is infallible (it is unbreaking true) and inerrant (there are no errors), it does not have the same authority Scripture does, even though it is also inspired by the Holy Spirit. I don't have the verses off hand for that, but in Acts when the Church got together to decide things, it says the Holy Spirit was with them, and honestly I see no reason, nor would many traditions, that the Holy Spirit would stop being with councils after the death of the Apostles. But the Spirit will always lead in the direction of the revelation of Scripture, so that's why Scripture is the ultimate authority

Actually Saint Basil the Great, father of the Church is the first one to establish a hospital, in Constantinople. Before him only the rich had access to advanced medicine because they would pay doctors to come to their homes. Saint Basil established the hospital as we know it today. (He said in the video the west has the best hospitals).

@odetafecani1614

9 ай бұрын

@SanctusPaulus-ic5gl I don’t know the number but I imagine plenty in Greece, because I am from Albania and I have some knowledge from proximity with Greece, and at least one major hospital in the capital of Albania where we are a minority religion.

Brother. The Bible is not subject to the church. How could you say that?? We value both the holy scripture and the holy tradtion. Even though we admit that the church came before the Bible, the Saint Scripture it’s a prime for our community. Also, don’t take it as hate. I subscribed to you and I still like your videos. Hope you do good on your Reconqista. May God bless you.

@CHURCHISAWESUM

Жыл бұрын

Our church existed before the Bible. However, what the Bible represents and teaches, which is divine inspiration, salvation, communion with God, that is what our Church is built on. They're not separate or opposed from each other. The Protestant tradition has tunnel vision and doesn't understand what Tradition is because you tell them tradition and they think of a bunch of Roman post-schism errors like created grace and indulgences. They've defined themselves in opposition to Roman Catholicism and anything that looks like it, to them, so they've lost the ability to evaluate these things unemotionally.

@serafimbarbu7711

Жыл бұрын

@@CHURCHISAWESUM True words

Using material success as a ruler to measure success… and then thinking that this makes the Catholic Church “better” than the Orthodoxy… is actually the difference between West and East. Just like you said prosperity causes atheism, it also caused division in the church. And it feasted on this “flexibility” you lauded within the Church. We shouldn’t talk about the Crusades or the torture program of the Catholic Church. Nor the widespread child abuse and coverup. No no, the appropriate focal point, according to this creator, is how much money is generated. Materialistic brainwashing.

@FreeSpeechAbsolutist1776

Жыл бұрын

I hate to say this but I think it has to do with his upbringing. The guy was raised in New York and is ethnically Jewish. Nevertheless, he is a Christian and therefore my brother, as wrong as he is in certain opinions.

Orthodoxy fundamentally formed the earliest councils to develop the theology in which all subsequent denominations borrowed, including the bible itself that was formed thanks to early Greek scholars and theologians. The tradition is part of keeping this alive today, swaying from this creates not just a divide but an error in understanding and translation of the bible. Even today some words aren't accurately translated and even known from koine Greek to KJV etc. Historically the church formed in the east far earlier than any in the west.

@IThinkItsDark

Жыл бұрын

"Historically the church formed in the east far earlier than any in the west." Really? I seem to remember a little letter in the New Testament to the church in Rome.

Regarding the economic development of eastern European countries, I think you are severely neglecting one very important thing: the detrimental role of the Soviet Union and communism in these regions. Many of these countries have only been liberated from communism within the last 30 years, and are trying to develop and rebuild.

@odetafecani1614

Жыл бұрын

He’s neglecting the advancement of Islam and that many of these countries including Serbia were under Ottoman rule (while Croatia avoided the Ottomans for the majority)

@bloocheeseformaboi881

Жыл бұрын

Automated ChatGPT response (don't attack me, I didn't write this xenophobic crap!): While accepting this argument may seem appealing, it's important to note that excuses don't get you anywhere and the only people at fault for the degegration of a society are the people of that society.

@odetafecani1614

Жыл бұрын

@@bloocheeseformaboi881 you’re confusing degeneration of society with economic prosperity. There’s tons of instances where economic prosperity actually leads to degeneration of society, (i.e. legalization of drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, transgender surgeries etc) as in many western countries, while these are things that the east deals much less with.

@CobytheBald187

Жыл бұрын

I fell Mel like the main reason that Orthodox countries aren’t as prosperous is because they had to deal with things such as Muslim invasions and Communism.

@RabdoInternetGuy

11 ай бұрын

​@@odetafecani1614Croatia was under Catholic AustroHungary and the Habsburgs when Serbia was under Ottoman rule.

Also, it's totally incorrect to think that due to our conservatism we put Bible below tradition: we read it during our worships and for absolute majority of history (before Catholic reoform of 1960s) our liturgy was way more accessible to people than Catholic, as it is in Middle Greek in Greece, in national recensions Church Slavonic in Slavic countries. Now South Slavic countries mostly switched to their modern national languages and the progressive Russian parishes we tend to read Bible in Russian instead of Church Slavonic (though we're often assumed of modernism at this point). And our tradition actually doesn't overcome Bible, but includes it as its centrepiece and makes it more personally felt: e.g. the Great Canon of st. Andrew of Crete is a poetic history of sin which teaches us how to associate ourselves with sins of Biblical characters. Our feast helps us associate ourselves with Christ's self-discipline in the desert. That's the reason why we never had any form of Protestantism (only Old Ritualists): we always managed to combine tradition and self-involvment of believers: one that Catholic missed before the Reformation (it was a much higher church than Orthodox at that point). However, we do sometimes lack aspects of personal faith thus my favourite orthodox thinker of today is also influenced by pietism (especially Terstegen). Of course, we sometimes better be a bit more mobile in our tradition, but we shouldn't be viewed at so stereotyped. Still great respect to you, you're the deepest young American protestant I've seen and your program of Reconquista seems the greatest idea how to save Protestantism nowadays. Good luck to you!

@TheMulletOperator_77

Жыл бұрын

This is honestly a fair assessment. I hope and I will pray for the Eastern Orthodox Church to stay fruitful. I am still a protestant and I want to help take back the mainline church.

All of the material innovation you claim "came from" the western catholic world, actually came from the eastern world first. Universities and hospitals are both de-facto present in all but name in 5th-9th century Constantinople. All of the beautiful medieval western architecture (gothic, romanesque) is based on byzantine architecture. The first recognized Rennaissance was the Justinian Rennaisance, followed by the Macedonian Rennaisance. Art, philosophy, architecture, medicine, education, all the pillars of the west are products of eastern/hellenized christianity.

Tradition is literally what gave us the biblical canon lol, that is until Luther took an axe to that

@mr.buttram2837

Жыл бұрын

If Luther had gotten his way he would've removed half the bible, especially books like Acts and Galatians that dispute faith alone.

@clouds-rb9xt

Жыл бұрын

@@mr.buttram2837 Where do they dispute this?

@awake3083

Жыл бұрын

@@clouds-rb9xt You do know Martin Luther wanted the Book of James removed as it literally debunks his Sola Fide doctrine, right?

@clouds-rb9xt

Жыл бұрын

@@awake3083 Where does it debunk his doctrine? Show me.

@awake3083

Жыл бұрын

@@clouds-rb9xt In the context of the Epistles of James, the author is addressing a group of Christians who were claiming that their faith alone (SOLA FIDE) was sufficient for salvation and that they did not need to perform good works. James is arguing that true faith is always accompanied by good works and that if someone claims to have faith but does not have works to show for it, then their faith is incomplete and ultimately useless. Martin Luther questioned the canonicity of the Book of James and expressed his view that it should not be included in the Bible. Here is a quote from his preface to the New Testament in his translation of the Bible: "St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books which show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it." He was very skeptical and against anything that didn't support justification by faith alone. If you don't think James 2:24 and James 2:14-26, completely contradict "faith alone" maybe you should re-read James and the entire Bible with no Protestant bias.

Please read like. . . a single book on this topic before pontificating on things you clearly have no understanding of. It's cringe-tier content like this that only pushes more people to Orthodoxy.

While the critique of orthodoxy materially and developmentally makes sense, I do have some issue with the the causes. It would make sense that a bigger reason for those countries’ lack of matorral gains could also be pointed to their constant persecution by the Muslims and from communists in Eastern Europe/Asia. Just a thought, but what you said does make sense

I would literally have to sit here for an hour deconstructing every one of these low tier takes. Especially the impact part man some of the stuff you said was unbelievably false and fallacious.

@ChiccinTendies

Жыл бұрын

Like literally how does GDP per capita have ANYTHING to do with the veracity of a religion?

@ChiccinTendies

Жыл бұрын

You literally refuted yourself. Number go up = good, but number go up causes atheism.

@ChiccinTendies

Жыл бұрын

Like does Matthew 16:24-26 mean nothing to you? I really am mind boggled by this

@michaelcygan2995

Жыл бұрын

It's basically prosperity gospel trash that the Papists spout "uhhh if orthodox right how come we have more people" as if superficial arbitrary worldly aspects indicate the truth of a view

I’m not Orthodox, but I think I have to point out that probably the main reason for the differences in economic and social impact between Eastern and Western Christianity is due in large part to a few centuries of Islamic oppression that the Orthodox Church endured from which the Western church was spared.

I'm sorry, I haven't yet finished watching your video, but can't wait to make some comment. I'm Russian, so I'm a moderately liberal and ecumenical orthodox, I would say. But what you accuse of being too traditional compared to Catholic church isn't necessarily more archaic, it is just uncommon to you because your Western tradition is based on another choices, picked long ago by Catholicism. E.g. Filioque - why do you think we don't agree with it just because of tradition? We really think Filioque contradicts John the Forerunner's prophecy on Jesus (John 1:32-33) and Jesus' own prophecy (John 15:26) and is just an unbiblical compromise to make faith in Holy Trinity easier for former Arians.

Orthodox countries aren’t poor because conservative teachings at all. As a romanian I must say that living in a country that was under 12 different empires (for centuries we were under 3 empires at once) you start to understand why your country never developed properly. And there’s communism, that did the exact same thing to us, extracting every single resource we got, closing the market, basically creating a monopoly that shut down all the development of the country. Matter of fact we didn’t have the economic boom that all the western nations because we also didn’t have any acces (or intent) to colonization (which we can all agree that it wasn’t a good thing, especially for the natives). And all this applies to all Balkanic countries (which are mostly orthodox), even to Russia to some extent. So ultimately I would never say that orthodoxy made us poorer.

No, we don’t view the Church above the Authority of the Bible, we view Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture being Equal in Authority. No, Filioque is not biblical John 15:26 But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. remembrance all things that I said to you. If you believe the Nicene creed is inerrent then you believe it is infallible, and therefore you contradict sola scriptura. No, the second Ecumenical council said that after they clarified and canonized the full Creed that no one can change the creed anymore, and later Ecumenical councils likewise confirm that, so no the Church cannot change the Creed and should not. The EO Church has had the least positive impact? The church you are talking about is the one who Compiled your Bible and defined basic Theological principles and beliefs about God. Protestantism has nothing to do with economic growth. Europe is religious, just more in the east, where the Orthodox Church is. What? In History, the Byzantine Empire and the Russian Empire, both Orthodox, were very rich and successful, even if they fell as all empires do. Even today, Eastern Europe is at an equal level with most of western and Central Europe. Precisely, because Orthodoxy rejects secular leftism, while Roman Catholicism and Protestantism embraces it. On a theological level, the fact that Orthodox countries are more faithful proves Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is Traditional and Rigid because we preserve the Truth taught and given by Jesus Christ, received and preached by the Apostles and kept and preserved by the Fathers. We are the second largest Christian body way bigger than any Protestant church.

@jamiehayn

Жыл бұрын

very true

@aspiringanimal7863

Жыл бұрын

How does being more faithful prove orthodoxy?

@MaximusOrthodox

Жыл бұрын

@@aspiringanimal7863 Because of the reliance on Church Tradition

@drdounut6658

Жыл бұрын

Thank you brother for defending our true church!

@elijah9991

Жыл бұрын

Everyone says the same thing. Orthodox is no different than the Pharisees.

Id also like to point out historically, Eastern European nations had to fend of consistent occupation, enslavement, invasion, and economic disparity from the Ottoman Empire for centuries. Other than the first 3 Crusades, the west did nothing outside of the Hungarians because they pushed through Orthodox nations and they had to. A lot would have been different if the Catholics actually stuck with their Orthodox brethren during the rise of Islam.

Orthodox Christian’s have traditionally been the most oppressed. The reason why Eastern Europe isn’t as economically advanced is a little something called communism. Asia Minor has been lost to Islam. Another interesting one is what the United States did to “re-educate” orthodox native Alaskans. Also look at how orthodoxy is still oppressed in places today like in Kosovo.

14:35 That part however is absolute bullshit. At least for the Poland and Russia comparison. Those two countries have had vastly different histories and the two languages are very much mutually unintelligible. Now, as for Serbia and Croatia, that is quite accurate.

@Anonym.sghwbdv

4 ай бұрын

croatia has beaches, is nearer to germany , so tourism and manufacturing could help. also being in the largest free trade organization helps and not getting raped by 20+ countries helps.

In terms of your argument about the impact of the Western church there are a few problems with this First off its just triumphalism and doesn't take into account the political situation of the Middle Ages. The Latins sack of Conatantinople ruined the Byzantine empire which made the west look like a back water historically. Secondly the shift to the modern age ignores the fact that the Eastern church and nations of Eastern europe were persecuted and under the boot of communism and the Orthodox church can hardly be blamed for that. And even with all that, that does not take away from whether or not Orthodoxy's claims are true or not. By that logic I could say Protestantism is not true because just look at the American south and how poor it is now and historically.

Don't waste the grass blocks that Endermen drop. They're really useful for establishing islands in the sea or sky for various builds.

Without tradition and the orthodox faith, there never would have been a canonised scripture. Martin Luther's idea for the exclusion of certain books as Apocrypha were that it didn't ratify his solaes, but how can he do that when sola scriptura was the basis of his solaes formation? That's paradoxical. It's a flawed system of which most protestant Christianity runs on. The system of the church in the first millenium that all the patriarchs you like to read of also vindicated, that used the system of ecumenical councils to canonise doctrine and scripture you take for granted from the catholic church, was a decentralised but unified faith. It was only one church, the orthodox faith. The way it is practiced in Eastern Orthodoxy today is the way it was back when they created the Nicene Creed. Also, while EO doesn't agree with thomistic divine simplicity and to that extent natural theology, it doesn't ignore scholasticism. you simply couldn't of gotten here without orthodoxy.

Eastern Catholics don't say the filioque.

@igorlopes7589

4 ай бұрын

But they still accept that the idea behind it is correct

Bad take please redo this video with actual research

exacly said Eastern Orthodox-Apostolic church that divided with Catholics in 1052../1053 and was formalised only in 1054 and popularised in 1055 and finaly in 1204 is not the same as the Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Orthodox church of the East brunch off churches that divided in the years 452./484/.552 /,645 and 712 ,731 and was formalised de facto in in 741 and popularised in 754 and finaly in 769 with the iconoclasm controversy

Seems like some badly researched takes

it is really quite bizarre you ascribe the relative modern “success” of these nations to which variety of Christianity they follow; there’s a much broader, more complicated and more relevant history of political, and most so - material, factors which determined this through history. religion has played a part, but it is one small part of a much larger story. calling Serbia and Croatia “the same” despite their religious difference? Have you read about the breakup of Yugoslavia? Why is Poland “doing better” than Russia? Have you heard of NATO, the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact & the Soviet Union? Come on brother, I don’t even know where to begin.

Name one presbyterian confessional doccument which says that tradition plays an authoritative role. I'll wait

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

The fact that we use confessional documents shows that tradition plays a role. We've never claimed our confessions are as authoritative as scripture, but all the Reformed confessions come from the Reformed tradition.

@CHURCHISAWESUM

Жыл бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 Tradition means "that which was handed down". It's not tradition if you're making up new beliefs and putting them in a Creed. It wasn't handed down to you, or rather, your founders: they constructed it. Whereas Orthodox traditions often come straight from the 1st-2nd Temple era, or from the Apostles/Apostolic Fathers

I would really like to hear you speak about traditional movements and sects in the Catholic church. I'm a pretty traditional Orthodox Christian so seeing Catholics look for a lot of the worship and individual discipline and practice of faith that the modern RC church has removed, I see people looking for depth in their God and in their church. Anyway I'm orthodox and while I disagree with a lot of the things you discussed in this video on a factual basis I respect your opinions and choices that you formed in your research and experience.

The eastern church also argued that Filioque is not supported biblically. They didn’t just say “it’s not in the creed”.

@Planeman516

7 ай бұрын

how is it not supported biblically?

@Muhbelly

7 ай бұрын

Your butt

The matter of whether the Filioque has biblical precedence is beside the point. Regardless of whether scripture supported it, it was Papism that caused the real tension that led to the split.

I like some of your videos but man, this one was poorly done. Your arguments are either weak or false entirely. I’d point them out, but many comments already have & you’ve not addressed them. It seems as though you’ve made up your mind & wouldn’t choose Orthodoxy even if you knew for certain that it’s true. You should really consider redoing this after some studying. Praying for you.

Low-brow

How does saying that Protestant countries have more economically successful people have anything to do with religion? Also it means that Orthodoxy focuses more on faith than wordly successes and wants which makes Orthodoxy more genuine

@33legion

15 күн бұрын

Good tree ptoduces good fruit

Do a video only on baptism pls

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

It's coming up!

The problem with R.C. and filioque is that they call into question or outright deny the Oneness/Holiness of the church by throwing out the canons of ecumenical councils (#2, #3, and the so-called 8th council which was in 9th century Constantinople after the Roman papacy had come under French influence and become a temporal power via Donation of Pepin) that explicitly and pre-emptively forbade any alteration to the creed (except for the implied caveat of if the whole church had another E.C. and rethought the foregoing canons, which never happened). It's not so much that the Orthodox denounced the filioque itself as a heresy persay (later on, Orthodox writers began to do so much more firmly, largely as a polemic against the R.C. which is now larger, more well-known, has influence over intelligentsia even in the Orthodox world, etc.) so much as that the idea that the Roman pope could unilaterally alter dogma is totally anathema to the collegial tradition of the Church. It's schismatic moreso than doctrinally-heretical, but schism is in a sense even more destructive than heresey because while heretics are clearly seperate from the true Church, schism draws into confusion the identity of the Church itself. So it's very natural that the Protestant reformation, wherein the identity of the Church is no longer something manifest in reality but only in fantasy and the action of the Holy Ghost in the sacraments is professed even without any kind of apostolic ordination, would take place in the West while no such phenomenon ever happened in the East - because, simply put, the R.C. church was a schism from the Orthodox and not the other way around.

Fantastic Minecrafting!✌️❤️

16:57 - 17:25 The only thing that matters about a religious belief, or about any belief, is whether it is true or not.

Bible Illustrated vs Redeemed Zoomed vs Bishop Robert Barron theological debate

I'm not defending Orthodoxy per se. However, I will say, on the nationalism thing, a lot of that is really the result of historical realities as many Orthodox countries have been under the yolk of the Muslim Ottomans. This is why nationalism is particularly widespread in the former Yugoslavia, and not just among the Orthodox; after all, the Croats were Nazi collaborators during WW2. And many of the Orthodox countries that weren't under the yolk of the Ottomans were instead under the yolk of the even more oppressive Soviets, and nationalism became prevalent in the Eastern Bloc countries as Communism fell, not just in Orthodox countries, but also in Catholic Poland, Czechia, and Hungary and even the Lutheran Baltic countries like Estonia. It has little to do with religion, and more to do with a reaction against imperialism.

That enderman is defo saved

what's the significance of the pride/trans flags at 12:50?

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

Im not the only one on the server, but they’ve been gone for a long time now

Can someone explain why the filioque issue matters so much 😭 John 16:7 Jesus says, “Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.” So the Father sends as well as the Son, what in the world is wrong with saying it’s both?? Or those who choose to believe it’s only the Father, does it make that big a difference??? God as a trinity is sooo in unity that no matter who sent the Holy Spirit, the other has the same will, no?

@makh.2216

Ай бұрын

sending the Holy Spirit is not the same as from who the Holy Spirit proceeds. if you think its that simple, why would it be such a big issue??

Basing your beliefs on such abstract things such as success is very foolish. Using your logic if we look back in history I can make the argument that Orthodoxy was the best because the Byzantine empire dominated Europe and the Mediterranean and lasted 1000 years. If you lived during that time would you be Orthodox simply because it was the most successful? I enjoy your videos but this one was really bad.

I am a Lutheran. If I were to convert to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, I would probably try to find a western rite Orthodox church. I do not want to leave the west, but I do think Orthodoxy has a little bit more behind it in terms of consistency with the early church. Still probably would not convert to either

I am half progressive which is why I am still alive

@nathanericschwabenland88888

10 ай бұрын

My parents told me about my one years old baptism which explains why I am easily triggered at times

@nathanericschwabenland88888

10 ай бұрын

Now I am age 32

I fundamentally disagree with your view that Catholics more or less view scripture as equal to church and that Eastern Orthodox put church way above scripture. It’s really more of the opposite. The Catholics have held the idea that the Church has more authority than the scripture for a very long time. And that the Pope has infallibility. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe that their spiritual leader is infallible. Though they do believe the Church has more authority than scripture, it’s in a different sense than the Catholics do. The Eastern Orthodox believes that Church Tradition and Scripture work cohesively together, through the divine institution of the Church. And that though the church bishops and leaders are not infallible per say, they are guided by the Holy Spirit. It’s not a theology I agree with, however they are not more extreme than the Catholics in terms of their theology regarding church authority.

the balkans would maybe be on a similair economic and advanced level if it wasnt for the muslim invaders. same with russia and the mongols. i wouldt bring societal problems up in a theologic debate

The villagers 👃 have invited the endermen into Europe where they are now attacking our churches.

09:42 - 10:00 Confusing "the Church" with "the church in Rome". The essential Western heresy. With all due respect, you ought to actually read the canons of the first seven (or eight or nine, there's some grey area involved) ecumenical councils before expounding on what the Church or one particular church does or does not have the authority to do in respect to those councils and their canons.

im so confused on why you have multiple pride flag sin your Minecraft world

Show you have 0 knowledge about church history, the bible, traditions, the schism and anything close about the Filioque speed run any %

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not the “most conservative” form of Christianity, perhaps they are liturgically depending on which theological and historical metrics one uses, but certainly not in terms of doctrine and ecclesiology.

This was ignorant. For hundreds of years, the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was far wealthier and more developed than Western Europe. The reason Orthodox countries are less developed today is because they were in the worst place geographically. Eastern Europe was constantly ravaged by numerous invaders. The West didn’t have to face any of this given they were on the periphery of the continent. The Mongols never made it to Western Europe. The Persians never threatened Italy. Then you had Islam. The Arabs steamrolled half the Byzantine Empire. Then the Ottomans finished the job. The Orthodox world was subjected to the Turkish yoke for centuries. When Orthodox nations finally gained freedom, Communism came and destroyed the society. Nothing even remotely similar happened in the West. Despite being occupied for centuries by hostile powers, the Orthodox Church proved indestructible and survived everything. Not only did it survive, but it rose from the ashes, rebuilt everything, and is now prospering once more. If Presbyterianism had to endure a fraction of what Orthodoxy went through, they would fold like an omelette and cease to exist. Orthodox countries are also rapidly developing and are not that poor. It’s also ridiculous to say Orthodoxy did little for the society. Hospitals were invented by Orthodox Christians in the Byzantine Empire. While the West has been more active academically, there are still plenty of Orthodox schools. There are even more Orthodox charitable organizations. But the main contribution of Orthodoxy to society is the true faith, which creates the stability and values needed to have a higher society in the first place.

following ur logic on world impact you ought to acknowledge all the negative too. Crusades and colonialism are huge effects. Said economic developments were only possible due to slave labor and colonial embazellment as history puts it and the geographical expansion of Catholicism follows European conquest closely. considering those one would argue that the followers of the one true church of christ could never be a part of such history. so your "main reason" needs to be reevaluated thoroughly imo

A bit difficult to be economically prosperous when you're persecuted by communists and the EU doesn't lift you out of economic ruin like it did with Poland, the Baltic states, Croatia.

The church was before the Bible ☦️

@makh.2216

Ай бұрын

how can this be possible ?

I nearly burst our laughing when I heard that eastern europe "didn't fall to secular leftism". I understand what Mr. Zoomer wanted to say, but the choice of words is baffling to me. Though I agree with a main point of the video, one thesis is just plain wrong - E.Orthodox countries aren't as conservative as they seem. As a person living in one and that had been to almost every other E.Orthodox country I can assure you of that. Of course, they may seem a bit less heretical as theit western counterparts with not showing LGBT flags, but they are almost as bad in other direction. 70+ years of communist rule and persecution had its tole on most of the E.Orthodox churches. Unfortunately it resulted in most of the populatuon being christian in name only. Yes, if you ask them - yes, they will identify as christian. But if you ask them if they go to a church... Yeah, you'll see the reality. Church attendances in E. Orthodox countries is either as low as in catholic and protestant countries (like in Greece, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Serbia) or even lower (like in Russia or Bulgaria). The only real exception being Romania with second highest church attendance in Europe after Poland. Also the actual "belief" of people in E.Orthodox countries also sadden me. Most of them have a very weak ideas about christianity, as unfortunately, most of old people that are like 60+% of church attenders, only converted to christianity in late USSR or after its downfall and thus believe in a strange chymera of beliefs that sometimes even aren't christian (no joke, for like 20+ times in my life I had to explain that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God, but not the same God as God the Father). The fact that churches in E.Europe are also very nationalistic doesn't help, as people tend to put their national mythos or values above the scripture, that's where we get the icons of people that commited atrocities or even persecuted christians (💀). General problem of E. Orthodox having a lot of pagan legacy also contributes to a confusing set of beliefs in people's minds. In the end, I want to say that the overall situatuon imo is as bad as in Catholic countries or even somewhat worse. As catholic and Greek catholox communities tend to be the most devouted groups in E. Orthodox countries (in Ukraine f.e. the Ukranian Greek Catholic and Rusyn Greek Catholic churches have attendance WAY higher than their E.Orhodox counterparts, though they are way smaller in size). And the situation is only getting worse as young people aren't as religious, faltering demographics and some goverments even giving it's muslim population slight privileges over christians (mainly russia). Sounds familiar, doesn't it? P.S. This mostly applies to post soviet countries with E.Orthodoxy as their religion. Contries that weren't in USSR proper (like Romania, Bulgaria and former Yugoslav republics), weren't under communist rule at all (Greece), or are located in Transcaucasia (Georgia and Armenia, though the last one is Oriental Orthodox) have is somewhat different, however SOME of the listed problems apply to them too. Thanx for the great video, Mr. Redeemed Zoomer!

13:11 they advanced so far they stopped believing in god SMH

why the progressive flags??

It's extremely odd to try and claim that Sweden is economically successful. We have millionaires, yes, but our population is not very rich at all.

I mostly agree with your takes, but i believe using the successfulness of a society to prove or disprove a sectis not a very good way to prove these things. I know this video is a personal take on Orthodoxy, but i feel like you should focus less on that point. And plus, Orthodoxy has brought out some of the most culturally and economically successful empires and nations on the planet, like The Eastern Roman Empire, and the Russian Empire. These nations may not be successful in the modern time, but the Eastern Romans golden age developed a lot of our codes of law and preserved many christian works that would have otherwise been lost. And their empire even lasted longer than Western Rome.

Nice workbbut I think you belittle Eastern orthodoxy too much. Yes the orthodox countries are poorer but emphasise religion too much here. The Byzantine empire which was even more developed than the West was the main hub of Eastern orthodoxy. The orthodox kingdoms were the ones that were always attacked by muslim forces or nomadic tribes from Asia. The nomadic tribes were especially harmful to the development of East Europe especially the Mongols were horrible. If the eastern orthodox kingdoms did not ezist then Western Europe would be overrun by the nomads and the muslims especially the ottoman turks which although conquered the orthodox kingdoms (except Russia) they wasted a lot of resources doing that. Also don't dorget that Western Europe got rich because of the New world not because of what denomination they are. Not to mention that communism did huge damage to eastern europe. Before communism, dyrng rhe interwar period eastern and western countries were not so different in terms of culture and fashion only economically because the West had much better geographical postiton and right next to the ocean while the east was landlocked couldn't trade as much and was overrun by barbarians.

Yeah, lets just ignore what Christians have consistently and regularly done since the Apostles, lets ignore 1500 years of tradition, because we think we know better, becaue we think the Holy Spirit hasn't had an active role in the Church, and because we think all the Christians that have come before us is wrong... There is the Law, and there is the Spirit of the Law, which is more important? The Pharasies would say the Law, Jesus said the Spirit of the Law. 8:34 "its not in the creed", yeah, the creed that all of Christianity came together and agreed upon, the creed that was based on Scripture... You literally have a puffed up Patriarch deciding that he is going to change something that has been consistsnt for centuries, and to do so without consensus. Half of Christiandom regected the changes to the Creed, yet he went through with it anyways.

So I’m Pentecostal (Not oneness don’t worry) but I’ve been leaning toward and heavily studying Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy did not cause economic disparity in Eastern Europe communism did, a prime example is the Kingdom of Romania in the 1920s was the richest country in the world even during the depression, but you also have to look at the wealth and power of the Orthodox Byzantine Empire which existed for another 1000 years after western Rome fell. Eastern European nations now have the largest booming economies while the west is slowly declining, and they aren’t just “catching up” but they are past their expected GDP growth quotas. Romania is one of the fastest growing GDPs with 78% increase in annual growth on average and the country is 98% Christian with 87% being Orthodox.

Little impact? how? The Eastern Orthodox Church is The True Church Of God, and had so many empires, especially the byzantine empire, that still influence countries today. serbia and tons of other balkan countries like albania still use the double headed byzantine eagle.

I agree, but the filioque has pretty clear patristic as well as biblical support. Not just virtually all of the western fathers, but ss. Athanasius & Cyril also display filioquist theology.

Poland is not doing better than Russia!

We keep tradition to stop you heresies from perverting the Church.

The Orthodox Church is not the most conservative denomination. It's changed its teachings on divorce and remarriage and contraception, while the Catholic Church has not.

@marcmanolache2106

6 ай бұрын

No, it has not. The canons of St. Basil the Great from the 4th century talk about divorce & remarriage. These are canons that your own Roman Catholic Church accepted for centuries. Even the Latin Church had divorce & remarriage along with married priests. Nowadays, the papists hand out annulments like it’s candy. After Vatican II, annulments in the US increased 8500%. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s much easier to get a Roman Catholic annulment and walk away scott-free than to get an ecclesial divorce and have to do years of penance. Papists have flip-flopped on the death penalty, changed their ecclesiology so that non-Catholics can be saints, destroyed their liturgy, and recently allowed transgenders to get baptized and serve as godparents. Oh, and the pope now says trying to convert people to Catholicism is a mortal sin against ecumenism. And your so-called “saint” John Paul the “Great” kissed the Quran and prayed that St. John the Baptist would protect Islam.

@marcmanolache2106

6 ай бұрын

Also, Francis just changed Catholic teaching to allow communion for divorced-and-remarried people under certain circumstances.

@thehighlander6770

6 ай бұрын

@@marcmanolache2106 He didn't actually change anything. He simply suggested that pastors could be willing to discern whether or not divorced and civilly remarried could receive in certain circumstances. However, no further changes came about from this hypothetical. To put things into perspective, I'd like to clarify that the Orthodox outright allow divorce and remarriage up to and including a third marriage.

@marcmanolache2106

6 ай бұрын

@@thehighlander6770 So in other words, Francis changed the teaching. Glad we’ve clarified the papacy has defected. 3rd marriages are incredibly rare and difficult to obtain. There’s more people who’ve gotten a third annulment than a third marriage. Annulments are literally Catholic divorce. It is easier to obtain an annulment, and there are zero consequences. There’s no penance. Nothing. You just marry again like nothing ever happened. This is a liberal innovation. Compare this to the Orthodox practice of having to do years of penance for divorce. Orthodox are stricter on this matter.

@marcmanolache2106

6 ай бұрын

@@thehighlander6770 Also, Orthodox do not allow contraception. There is not a single saint, church canon, or dogmatic statement that sanctions the use of contraception-including natural family planning. Meanwhile, Catholics have dogmatically blessed NFP in Humanae Vitae. Once again, Orthodox are stricter on the matter.

if the orthodox ppl only include the original parts of bible why do they still think the homophobic part of bible is okay.(originally it was about ped*philia) as someone who grew up in an orthodox country i can say for sure that barely anyone knows what actual bible is about. im only reminded of church on pride month when the prists and chirstians physically and verbally abuse pride members (even tho pride was celebrated privately this year)

brother, you really dropped the ball on that one 👎

WHAT ABOUT ORANTEL ORTHODOX AKA APOSTOLIC. EXAMPLE( COPTIC )

@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901

Жыл бұрын

Just call them miaphysite it's easier

It is disheartening to see that the vast amount of talking points in this video come from the distorted understanding of the the Church and its beliefs