They want us to think the Apostles were teaching eternal manifestation 😭

@robdee81

Ай бұрын

xD

@roshandsouza2787

Ай бұрын

Lmao

Social media is an interesting place. As a faithful Catholic from a country here in Africa with 0.00001% orthodox I could really care less about EO since they you'll barely find them here and in America there only like 0.5%. Like I'm yet to meet one. I think the EO should focus on establishing an universal church and not an eastern European social club before they can actually try and combat Catholicism. Because many of them on social media have deluded themselves thinking that many ppl are becoming orthodox when in real life I'm yet to see it happen(This just an opinion) God bless

@Calciu_83

Ай бұрын

You should worry about having clean water

@javierduenasjimenez7930

Ай бұрын

​@@Calciu_83 Most respectful and charitable take by an orthobro:

@Calciu_83

Ай бұрын

@@javierduenasjimenez7930 and you should be worried about tamales

@michaelwachira8484

Ай бұрын

@@Calciu_83 LOL

@gebranhaddad6312

28 күн бұрын

It is not really the number of converts that matters. I don’t think they try to destroy Roman Catholicism… They are trying to make the Truth visible, they may do it in a really wrong way though but they do as they can… I think it comes from the frustration that it is somehow hidden and you have to dig up the Truth yourself and it’s easier when you are in a community. Indeed, it is sometimes too aggressive or clumsy but the informations are not easily accessible… When you seek for the Truth, you end up with two big options for the Church and it is not evident to see clearly. That is why you have these debates and this kind of internet war between the two. And I don’t think it comes from deeply cradled orthodox that aren’t really like that. It is more a westerner mindset…

The fact that temporal procession was the default position is insane

Orthobros will cry at the sight of the title

@Arvidholders

Ай бұрын

Let them cope 😂

@harleymann2086

Ай бұрын

Only the real Orthodox know and understand. The other orthodox are heretics.

@flanksinatra5392

Ай бұрын

Christos Anesti ☦️☦️☦️

@t-ravisaurusrex6139

Ай бұрын

They aren't charitable though. In fact, 90% of orthobros I've encountered seem to be Orthodox so that they can call everybody else a heretic. Most of the online apologists are the same way. The liturgies I've been to all are ethnic and the parishioners are not very welcoming or friendly. There seems to be three kinds of EO layman: the terminally online hipster Orthobro calling everyone a heretic, the ascetic that came over from some other eastern spiritual practice prior, or the cultural EO that grew up in the EO church and doesn't want to or can't even communicate enough to welcome new parishioners in their native tongue. I've been to multiple and they all feel like cultural social clubs. This is perhaps why they've been so unsuccessful at fulfilling the Great Commission, ask any normie and they don't even know the EO church exists. Once they get a glimpse of the fruits of the online EO people and realize that them and their entire family and friends are deemed heretics by some guy that attends a Russian or Greek church they've never heard of, that's usually enough to turn them off. Be better if you want to grow the Church. I wanted to go the EO route but I'm crossing the Tiber instead. I hope this message is delivered with grace and finds you well, I don't want to argue, just offer some advice from someone who could have possibly been convinced had the EO faithful been more charitable.

@jlouis4407

Ай бұрын

@@t-ravisaurusrex6139They’re ancient Protestants, ask 5 orthos what they believe you will get 5 different answers

Lol I immediately googled "eternal manifestation" and the Google AI returned this: In the 13th century, Gregory of Cyprus, the patriarch of Constantinople, developed the theological concept of "the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son". OOOOOOOOOOOOOOF

@TheGreekCatholic

Ай бұрын

No, no, no.. u got it all wrong. It's supposed to say "rediscovered."

@thomistica_

Ай бұрын

@@xravenx24fe keep coping.

@egonomics352

Ай бұрын

It's already in St. Dionysius the Areopagite's On the Divine Names.

@YoLkE-22222

Ай бұрын

​@@thomistica_it's Google ai it's gonna get silly things wrong

@airpodman1259

Ай бұрын

Google AI told me women can be priests

Another one for the „Contra Errores Graecorum“ Playlist

@macedonian_catholic_

Ай бұрын

*Bessarion* entered the chat

@ianeldrige9953

Ай бұрын

Let me get that playlist😂

@kurtnotafed4645

Ай бұрын

@@ianeldrige9953 kzread.info/head/PL-qv1iqYzEYyfQi0FXlUWaUQLybv7qPG5&feature=shared

Fascinating. Thank you!

I’m 100% positive everyday Christians were not supposed to discuss such extremely complicated theological/scientific matters. Just wanna be obedient to my priest and pray unceasingly. Online orthodox and Catholic arguments make me sick

@TairyGreen89

Ай бұрын

True.

@user-je5ib5nv8u

Ай бұрын

then get off youtube

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Then don’t watch, lol.

@B1bLioPhil3

Ай бұрын

​@MilitantThomist you missed the point...

@forgivemylaughterihaveacon2556

Ай бұрын

If the first century Christians were gay like you we’d all be Pentecostals

Energetic procession can be found as far back as St. Dionysius the Areopagite's writings, the disciple of the Apostle Paul...please don't be disingenuous.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Why didn’t Photius or any of the Greek Anti-Filioquists before Gregory of Cyprus know about it?

@dankmartin6510

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist Why did they need to if the primary concern at the time of the western innovation as that it ran against the Ecumenical councils that were closed by the Holy Spirit? Are you trying to prot your way into justifying what you could not then and cannot now, do?

@danieljoyce6199

Ай бұрын

​@@dankmartin6510most of Photios' arguments were based on arguments like "if he proceeds from the son then the Holy Spirit is a grandson" if he had about better arguments, he would have used them.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

@@dankmartin6510 That's crazy...so you haven't even read the Mystagogy?

@dankmartin6510

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist that seems like a dodge to the objection - I do not even accept your premises so obviously your conclusions do not fare and better. The point remains as to why EO would need to systemically develop something prior to the schism when for one thing: Catholicism claims all doctrines recently dogmatized 'have always been taught or known', and secondly why during the time it would require them to move beyond the fact of attempting to overturn a decision by the Holy Spirit at the ecumenical council?

Christos Anesti ☦️☦️☦️

@robdee81

Ай бұрын

Surrexit Verre - Alleluia! ✝✝✝

@denknichtschau2778

Ай бұрын

​@@robdee81 Who Is Verre?

God bless all my Greek Orthodox brothers.

I thought you were going to mention the Sultan appointing the patriarch of Constantinople after its fall

Can you recommend any books that deal with this

I thought this was gonna be a 'eastern orthodoxy was invented by lossky in paris' take. I love those.

greetings, can you give some evidence/talk about eastern patriarchs endorsing filioque after schism, I find it very interesting.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Unionist Initiative has two works from Patriarchs translated

@RaptorLlama

Ай бұрын

It's really not that interesting. Patriarchs of Constantinople have variously supported iconoclasm, nestorianism, and lately, ecumenism. A line of Patriarchs entertaining the Filioque is nothing new (and in this case not even necessarily heretical if understood in a way akin to St. Maximos the Confessor as opposed to what was declared at Florence). The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the infallble Pope of Orthodoxy so the truth claims don't hinge on what one or even a successive line of Patriarchs believe or believed.

@alonsoACR

Ай бұрын

​@@RaptorLlama If your churches can fall into heresy, then the whole principle seen in all the Fathers and Scripture of the Church being who leads us to all truth, who teaches us the faith uncorrupted, and is the only way to be saves, breaks down completely. How do you reconcile this? I couldn't help but think you'd be bothered by this some.

@dankmartin6510

Ай бұрын

@@alonsoACR "The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the infallble Pope of Orthodoxy so the truth claims don't hinge on what one or even a successive line of Patriarchs believe or believed." You were already answered had you bothered to keep reading.

@alonsoACR

Ай бұрын

@@dankmartin6510 Then who or what is it? Where does a Christian ought to go if he wants the faith of the Apostles uncorrupted?

Is there a good book that discusses your points in this video? Or a book on Filioque from the Catholic paradigm that you'd recommend?

Wjat exacly is eternal manifestation ? Can someone explain to me in simple words ?

Thanks much for this video.

Orthodoxy was supported by the Muslim Sultan. It was their move to weakening Christianity.

You’ll do what you’re told mate

The pride of an empire long gone

Great video

Claiming that something is obvious does not make it so to everyone. Much of what you're saying here could similarly be said of how St Athanasius invented language which made it into the Creed in spite of how Paul of Samosata had already been condemned for using the key word involved (though he used it in a different way). Merely explaining an idea in a new or different way does not necessarily make it wrong, even if not everyone understands it. For example, the Immaculate Conception was not always explained as it is now.

Subscribed!! Keep churning out these videos, mate! You are doing God's work!

I agree of the universal support for the Filioque, just that St. John of Damascus was a little weird on the issue and St. Thomas even said he was wrong.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

St. Thomas waffles on St. John’s teaching…in De Potentia, Sentences Commentary, and other places he says that St. John taught it

@vaseman3639

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist thanks. I knew of a quote that was more in favor of the Filioque from St. John Damascus…Just been a while since went into it all.

Im looking into both, heavily leaning EO as they have adequate responses to these critiques and RC has poor or no responses to theirs.

@rorkeday2600

Ай бұрын

The EO responses aren't great

@informedconsent369

Ай бұрын

The filioque is the clearest controversy in church history...in favor of the Latins.

@luisrios3446

Ай бұрын

🤔If you are already pre-disposed to become EO, there will never be a good enough argument to convince you that Catholicism is the truth. Anti-Catholicism is a thing, you know? There are great apologists in the Catholic World. William Albrecht, Divine Mercy Apologetics, Dwong, Scholastic Answers, Elijah Yasi. You should listen to them and see their responses.

@jakewilliam15

Ай бұрын

@@luisrios3446 thanks. Ive only exposed myself to yabarra, trent horn, lofton, and voice of reason. none of them have rebutted EOs rebuttals of their claims.

@jakewilliam15

Ай бұрын

@@luisrios3446 thanks, ive only exposed myself to voice of reason, yabarra, lofton and trent horn. none of which can adequately respond to EO responses to their arguments without simply restating their initial claim.

Can’t wait until bro finds out “eternal manifestation” isn’t an Orthodox dogma.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Some have claimed…

@garrettklawuhn9874

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist St. Gregory Palamas, who reinterprets Gregory of Cypress and corrects him, does not use that language. He explains the relationship between the Son and the Spirit using patristic language.

@DrownedinDesigner

28 күн бұрын

No body really knows what is orthodox dogma

@geckoniner5625

25 күн бұрын

@@garrettklawuhn9874Gregory palamas defines all of church dogma?

@garrettklawuhn9874

25 күн бұрын

@@geckoniner5625 A Saint whose writings were vindicated in an Ecumenical Council is authoritative.

Me when I defend a doctrine as essential contrary to a body that is now only schismatic and fully communing endorsed portions of my ecclesial body completely reject the essential doctrine I am defending and all of my hierarchy has capitulated the doctrine entirely Unfortunately the Filioque being true or false literally can never prove the Latin position anymore

@ShaNaNa242

29 күн бұрын

No Catholic rejects the filioque. This is a lie touted by eastern schismatics.

@bookegaijin

29 күн бұрын

​@@ShaNaNa242 meanwhile eastern catholics...

@ShaNaNa242

29 күн бұрын

@@bookegaijin they believe in the filioque, they just don't say it in the creed. It's so stupid that Orthos will actually try to make this point.

1:44 Photius was reconciled to Rome. Did you mean "after Caerularius"?

the pope should convene another ecumenical council with all the eastern catholic churches to reaffirm and regularize the filioque in the creed, and also anathematize palamas

How Orthodoxy works: 1. Have a theological opinion 2. Declare a man with the same theological opinion as a saint, without really checking if he was indeed a saint and maybe even calling him "great" 3. "Saint XY the great supports my opinion."

@henrykurniadi4805

Ай бұрын

Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus mentioned in this video is not even a saint in the Orthodox Church up until this point. He has no feast days, synaxarion, service, or patronal name for the faithful or the church building. What is even the point of your comment?

@bobskanal

Ай бұрын

@@henrykurniadi4805 St. Photios

@RaptorLlama

Ай бұрын

​@@bobskanalthe St. Photios reinstated by Rome only to be retroactively condemned hundreds of years after the fact?

@bobskanal

Ай бұрын

@@RaptorLlama being in communion with rome, doesn't make you a saint on earth. The same goes for having the "right" theological views. Pothios died living in the exile after his council of 879-880 and the death of his patron.

@gebranhaddad6312

28 күн бұрын

@@bobskanalNo having the right theological point of view does not make you a saint. But confess the right theology and suffer living it makes you a saint.

Holy fire magician trick is my favourite Ortho 🧢

The way you pronounce "Thessalonika" is goofy lol

Dude, you are and i say this from my heart, the most smart catholic apologist we have, i cannot agree with you more, i have gone to michel, to trent, to jimmy akin, even peter dimond (stay away from this heretic he is the most dangerous cult leader that calls himself catholic), and you are a monster in comparrisson with them in the way you know things, thank God you left anglicanism, because you are such a jewel to our faith, thanks Christian.

Based and true

Brah what the heck is enteral manifestation?

Why wouldn’t the Greeks want John Bekkos to reunite with the west if it would be good politically?

@Cklert

28 күн бұрын

Probably because the effects of the Fourth Crusade was still fresh on their minds. Heck even John Bekkos hated the West for a time before realizing that the theological disagreements they had were minuscule.

@georgelupas3499

8 күн бұрын

@@Cklert That's what happened but this guy does not want to tell the actual truth. The actual story goes as following: Michael VIII takes back Constantinople from the Latins. Pope Gregory X urges him to turn to Rome. Michael VIII wants to do that for the political reasons you have presented. The patriarch of Constantinople Joseph I resigned under the pro unionist pressure of Michael VIII that wanted Byzantine Bishops to endorse the union. Michael VIII appoints John Bekkos who was pro union. Bekkos agrees with the union, Michael VIII wants to implement it but the people and Church of Greece reject the union and it never actually ends up properly taking place. There are no uniates today that have united with Rome out of sheer theological discoveries or any other dumb fairy tales. All unions were political in nature.

It is a common knowledge for Eastern Orthodox faithful from certain patriarchates that at some point in the past their respective patriarchate was held by heretics. Alexandria and Antioch were once held by Arian, Henophysites, and Monothelites while Constantinople was once held by Eunomian, Nestorian, Henophysite, Monothelitist, Iconoclast, and yes, Unionist. Guess what? There were lot of Greek-speaking Christians of Roman Empire that also propagated the mentioned heresies. And if I follow your logic straight then all Eastern Christian should become all of these heretics simply because those were propagated by patriarchs of same ethnicity of same language speaker. But Patriarchs are never mattered so much in Holy Orthodoxy as Pope to Old Rome so Holy Synods can simply shove them in time when they teach anything contrary to the Conscience of the Holy Church. This is the immune system of the Church, which Old Rome lacked when they elevated Pope above anything else.

@jlouis4407

Ай бұрын

@@henrykurniadi4805 the west had to develop their theology to combat heresies coming from the east constantly

@henrykurniadi4805

Ай бұрын

@@jlouis4407 It is in mutual, both ways. Valentinian Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Priscillianism, Jovinianism, and Helvidianism were also sprung from West and had to be defended from in the East

@RaptorLlama

Ай бұрын

​@@jlouis4407the East was the hotspring of heresies for the first millenium, then the west has really gone "hold my beer" for the 2nd millenium. Basically all the madness and ideologies around todsy are western in origin; even Rome can't deny that for at least the 18th century onward.

@jlouis4407

Ай бұрын

@@henrykurniadi4805 But Arianism which almost consumed the church, iconoclasm, and many many more came from the east I’m not saying there were no western heresies, of course

@alonsoACR

Ай бұрын

​@@henrykurniadi4805 Except there was never a Pope who held these things. Let me tell you something shocking. It is dogma in the Catholic Church that there has never been a holder of Rome that has taught heresy. The Orthodox try to debunk the Catholic Church by finding a case where a Pope fell into heresy and published anything at all defending it. Indeed, a single case would debunk the entire Roman Catholic Church to no repair. They often raise up Honorius, but everyone that knew Honorius said that he never held a heresy. Why did the other Patriarchates fall under heretics so often while Rome never had that? There were hundreds of Popes. Sure you could call this blind luck, a coincidence, a matter of time until it fails, or that any such case got immediately censored and forgotten. But do you buy that? I don't. It's way too crazy for there to be nothing behind it. The fact that the single case you could raise is Honorius, a 4th century Pope who was branded innocent and considered mistakenly charged soon after, that showed a very forgivable phrasing, speaks VOLUMES. There's just no way brother. Orthodox Patriarchates fell into heresy so often, sometimes all at once, and I can't help but feel unsafe in such a thing. It feels wrong. The Church is meant to lead us into all truth, and we must stay obedient to Her. There's none of that there. Those are my thoughts.

Sancto Iohannes Bekkos, ora pro nobis.

What’s a perfect book to read showcasing why EO is wrong & Catholicism is the truth

@harveygosal

25 күн бұрын

Idk. Read: Rock and Sand by Father Josiah Trenham

it's kinda mad you guys attacking extremely complex theological matters, like it's a subject that could be resolved by mere rationality, instead of debating over a simple fact that the pope changed what a council decided to be immutable, even though you all know that the Roman church itself is divided and weakened by the Vatican second, where again a pope changed things that should be immutable.

4:53 Do "uncreated energies" possibly (at least in terminology) fall under condemnations of Priscillianism? It's a fact that Toledo I, finished in 400 well before Visigoths dominated Spain, affirmed filioque (even in exact wording) and ... I'll give the quote: // Hunc: unum Deum et hanc unam esse divinae substantiae Trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse ipsum Filium, sed habere Filium qui Pater non sit. Filium non esse Patrem sed Filium Dei de Patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. ... Hanc Trinitatem personis distinctam, substantiam unitam virtute et potestate et maiestate indivisibilem, indeferentem. Praeter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam, vel angeli vel spiritus, _vel virtutis alicuius_ quae Deus esse credatur. // My translation: // This one God and one Trinity is of divine substance. The Father is not the Son, but hath a Son who is not the Father. The Son is not the Father but the Son of God of the nature of the Father. There is also the Holy Ghost, who himself* is neither Father nor Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. ... Beyond this we believe no nature to be divine, whether angels whether spirits, whether of some virtue*** that would be believed to be God. // Virtus and energeia seem possible matches ... trentophilaret.blogspot.com/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html

Eternal manifestation is just a development of doctrine

@user-je5ib5nv8u

Ай бұрын

With that logic why you bash us for the immaculate conception.

Because it's not invented Al!!

Isn't this a clickbait title? If eternal manifestation was invented in the 13th century, and Orthodoxy began probably around the 11th century, then that's a 2-century gap.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Sorry, I’m bad at math.

@jmmvirta

Ай бұрын

😂 tee

@SPIRIT1949

Ай бұрын

@@theorthodoxapologeticschan9378 The Eastern Orthodox have: - Inconsistent metaphysics. (TAG) - Corrupted theology. (Anti-Filioque, EED, etc.) - No Magisterium. - Strange disunity among communion relations. (Not defeating, but really odd) I will never join the Orthodox Church. I would rather become an irreligious Classical Theist than do that.

@houbertcanitio2199

Ай бұрын

​@@SPIRIT1949 what is inconsistent with TAG anyway

@SPIRIT1949

Ай бұрын

@@houbertcanitio2199 TAG is circular. Some Eastern Orthodox even admit this. God is establishing the very thing that defines Him, in everything He is. It's one of the worst cases of circular logic I have ever seen, lol. Also, the logic in itself just doesn't follow and is inherently corrupt.

The Schism occurred only for political reasons. The Greeks were right that the Pope is not a monarch on the church just first among equals. Later, both parties had some times wrong, some times right in a variety of secondary and without any real importance issues. The most important Schism was the Lutheran Reformation's one, because it occurred only for theological issues.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

What?!? The reformation did not occur for merely theological reasons.

@techelitesareadisease8816

Ай бұрын

That is a wild claim. As a former Lutheran (currently not sure where the true church is but I'm 90% sure its either EO or RC) even I was taught by my Lutheran educators the political background of the reformation. Luther's lifeline was German princes, who had their own reasons for supporting him that obviously go beyond theology considering they were heads of states, the most notable being the Elector of Saxony. Protestantism was intimately intertwined with temporal politics from day one. Which is funny, because that is a common critique that Protestants have for Catholics, but the hypocrisy is seemingly totally lost on them. Even today you have an enormous number of Evangelicals who support Israel on religious grounds and actively participate in politics with such a notion in mind. Not purely theological, clearly.

@harleymann2086

25 күн бұрын

@@techelitesareadisease8816Hey there. Responding to your post where you are in transition from Protestantism into EO or RC. I was a former Baptist minister who became a Catholic at a Baptist Bible College while trying to prove the Catholic Church. This was in the day when the internet was just getting going. EO was a consideration form me, as well; but only for about 15 minutes (hyperbole, here 😆). It did not take long for me to make the observation that the EO have a very similar paradigm in their theological decision making process. As a result, the EO will use the best Protestant arguments to challenge the Catholic Church, Then they use the best of the Catholic arguments when they are defending themselves against the Protestants. My conclusion: Because the EO have too similar a paradigm in their decision making, I realized I would be I would be leaving one Protesting tradition for another. A few examples are include: regarding the legitimacy of certain statements within councils, the literally “pick and choose” what parts of the council they will will follow in ieder to avoid becoming part of the Catholic Chuch. In fact, there is a debate in EO as to wether the Origin was misrepresented and became a heretic. Regardless as to what side you come down on the matter, the debate shows there is no authority to state what EO churches will follow. There is the difference of how to baptize among EO churches. Some want people rebaptized in the way of full immersion, for example; others, are fine with sprinkling. This is important because if me and you decided to become EO some EO churches would be happy to chrismate, others would need to rebapitize either by sprinkling or by full immersion. Anyways, I have to go and eat breakfast but I offered these thoughts for your future reflection.

I think a lot of Protestant doctrines have better grounds in history than most Eastern distinctives

eo

Your church worships the same “God” as the Muslims and Jews (see “Nostra Aetate” and the “Abrahamic Faith Center”). The Orthodox Church does not and has kept the faith whole.

@CalvaryandChristendom

Ай бұрын

This is a good point. I would like to see the RCC response because that is egregious compared to Vatican I Catholicism

@godfreym3550

Ай бұрын

None of those are doctrines. On the other hand, you have issues with actual doctrines such as divorce and remarriage, Filioque, contraception, ordained female deacons.

@michaelwachira8484

Ай бұрын

Then why does your church allow condoms, divorce, and remarriage up to 3 times. Plus what about the interfaith centre in Russia??

@CalvaryandChristendom

Ай бұрын

@@michaelwachira8484 In defnse of the EO, is it actuyally on the same level as the one in the Vatican? Also, at best this is a fallacy of putting blame on the other side for something you also did. (Quid Pro Quo)

@michaelwachira8484

Ай бұрын

@@CalvaryandChristendom The problem is the Catholic church has more to do with ecclesiology not doctrinal issues unlike the EO that allow abominations and can't even agree on doctrines. Plus you're a prot what does this convo have to do with you???

Is there a good book that discusses your points in this video? Or a book on Filioque from the Catholic paradigm that you'd recommend?

@aaronmueller5802

15 күн бұрын

Fr. Thomas Crean's book on the Filioque is excellent