I love our EO brothers and sisters. Pray for reunification. 🙏🏽

@SirMemesAlot71

Жыл бұрын

We’re not reunifying.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker

Жыл бұрын

@@SirMemesAlot71 Then we continue to wound Christ. He established one unified Church with two lungs East/West..Those who demand we remain apart are wounding Christ with their own selfish desires.

@SirMemesAlot71

Жыл бұрын

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker no this two lung language is a lie. The West left the church and now has fallen to secularism and scandal. The west chose to embrace nestorianism, polytheism, Papalism, created grace, and turned its back on Christ. Unity while still upholding this heresy isn’t unity it’s only Ecumenism. I’m sorry that this has happened to the West.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker

Жыл бұрын

@@SirMemesAlot71 The problem is EO don't have the authority that Christ conferred to Peter/successors. Everything else is a distraction, none of it matters without authority. From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. The 120 is the Knesset HaGadolah which was supposed to be restored in the Olam Haba when Messiah comes. Judaism and Catholicism was born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was. Rachi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the davidic kings were away the steward/vizier of the davidic kingdoms was in charge. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter/successors is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward/vizier), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie the bishops. It's not a lording over them type of role. He figuratively sits in the Seat of Moses which we now call the Seat of Peter. Moses had the 70 elders who he consulted as equals. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood (which pre-exists the Aaronic priesthood). This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham. Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return. Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, Peter/successors are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium.

@SirMemesAlot71

Жыл бұрын

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker The Orthodox Church is the Only Church that was given authority by Christ. The Pope left the Church and lost any authority he once had. And funny how you accept Nestorianism, di-theism, and created grace, your Eastern Catholic brothers all consider to be heretical. Yet you only care about if the Papacy is valid. And your entire religion is just a giant apology for one bishop.

You really need to get an actual Orthodox person on the show at some point.

@vaskaventi6840

Жыл бұрын

Didn't they get Fr. Patrick on before?

@bobthebuildest6828

Жыл бұрын

he just did like last week, plus Lofton is a former orthodox

@shadow9495

Жыл бұрын

​@@vaskaventi6840 I thought he had fr Patrick on twice, although I could be confusing it with when Eric yabara

@vaskaventi6840

Жыл бұрын

@@shadow9495 He probably did (I think he had Patrick on for a universalism interview and for a debate, if not more) EDIT: that was Loften who did the universalist thing with Patrick not Matt

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker

Жыл бұрын

He's had a few on, just a week ago I think. Perhaps if he had a Catholic turned EO on it would be interesting.

Pray for unity!

To be charitable, I think Michael tries to apply scholastic legalism to Orthodoxy and fails to see the forest through the trees. This is true of many of his statements in this clip.

For the folks who say us Orthodox are like Protestants, consider two things. First, Michael and other Catholic apologists aren't saying this at all. What they are saying is that they think we Orthodox have a deficiency in Ecclesiology. In other matters, they see us as having the same Faith. They don't see us as Protestants or like Protestants at all. Second, Orthodox have a unity of Faith and Worship. Deviation from that means being outside the Church (often referred to as non-canonic). In Orthodoxy, there isn't a way to hold different views on matters of Faith and theology and still be Orthodox.

@wilsonw.t.6878

Жыл бұрын

Is that Christ like behavior to go "at least I'm not like them"?

@matuskaandme5408

Жыл бұрын

@@wilsonw.t.6878 I apologize, I'm not sure if you're asking me a question or not or reflecting on the video in some way. Sometimes, folks call us Orthodox Protestants for not accepting Papal claims. In my view, that's simply inaccurate. Our theological approach to Ecclesiology and working out church issues was around well over a millennia before the protestant reformation. It's not a case of "at least I'm not like those Protestants" or saying/thinking we're better than anyone, its just factually and theologically inaccurate.

Let's pray for all churches. I am especially fond of the eastern orthodox church and their history. Their massive century long oppression under caliphates, war and destruction, still to this day. Yet they are still there in the Middle East

@Baboonfromdatoon

8 ай бұрын

And the RC couldn't survive Martin Luther

@CarolinaGroyper

Ай бұрын

​@Baboonfromdatoon are you illiterate?

@Robbie-ut6mw

14 күн бұрын

@@Baboonfromdatoon???? 😂 you must be a anti catholic troll 🧌

@MaxStArlyn

9 күн бұрын

The only way is to debate.

the Orthodox in the replies making the tired criticism of western Christianity being "too intellectual" or whatever don't realize how that criticism falls flat to those of us who through our Catholic faith have had intense personal encounters with Christ though which His truth has been written on our hearts forever. Many of us have sat in adoration, or have received the Eucharist, or have read the Gospels, or have sat in prayer in a silent Church and have had encounters with our Lord that cannot be explained in words, a simple but powerful knowing in our hearts that the Gospel is true and that Christ loves us. Christ has revealed himself to us through the Catholic Church - why would we ever leave because some "orthodox" Christian on the internet says we can't know Christ unless we leave the Church through which Christ revealed himself to us? Why would we just take your word for it? You can throw out all the Greek words you want, but the fact is for many of us Catholic life and specifically western, Roman Catholic praxis has brought us to know our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. There is also the fact that Christ has revealed himself to western people through centuries of Roman Catholic heritage - this church ministered to my ancestors, it has ministered to me, and through that ministry we have come to know Jesus. Again, I don't see why we would ever leave the church through which Christ has revealed himself to us. This truth makes that silly criticism - that Catholicism is "too rational" or "too intellectual" - fall on deaf ears.

@bad_covfefe

9 ай бұрын

That you believe it doesn't apply to you does not mean it is a bad argument. Plenty of false churches claim to have had a personal encounter with Christ. Indeed, some parts of evangelicalism claim to have daily conversations with Him.

@paulkersey7458

2 ай бұрын

I think we have to acknowledge that the church in the West faced many challenges that the East did not face. The renaissance, Protestant reformation, scientific advances, enlightenment etc. I’m EO and I can make all of the arguments for EO and that’s what I’m sticking with. However, I have a profound respect and love for the faithful in the RCC. We are very close in faith. Like 2 lungs in 1 body imho.

@Harmytwo

Ай бұрын

Goes same for me as Protestant.

@robcarpenter1225

27 күн бұрын

I'm baptized EO and this is a beautiful defense of Catholicism. Thank you. I don't get the whole back and forth b/w Orthodox and Catholic. It's silly. It's pointless. It's just mostly men having to stir up some kind of perpetual competition or rivalry when in fact, we are all children of the same loving God.

@Robbie-ut6mw

14 күн бұрын

@@bad_covfefethe Orthodox Church has NO unity. Literally so many schisms within it. So they aren’t this united front they claim to be actually they are as divided as the protesters

I’d love to see you on with Dr. Michael Brown

I definitely do not have the same level or area of education of orthodoxy to speak extensively into this, but the goal of objectively identifying what is right and wrong for things as peripheral as whether you should be baptized once or twice seems like flawed thinking. You could give someone a meal with the appearance of it being a good act, but inwardly have selfish motives making it actually an evil act. This to say, the idea that you can define what is explicitly right and wrong on such peripheral details outside the confines of what scripture directly communicates or indirectly implies, seems like a major stretch. Yes, you can create standards and authority holding the church accountable to those scripture-based standards is very important but trying to create such detailed rules serves what purpose?

I would like to talk with one of you guys sometime, about the controversial subject of "Orthobros" and the increase of Orthodox popularity, particularly on the internet. Either way, God bless you and let's keep fruitful dialogue going

@Jeem196

Жыл бұрын

@Ed There is indeed a plethora of issues with internet-only Orthodoxy, however there is a difference between a 16 year old adopting orthodoxy as a reactionary movement, and the genuine adults I've spoken to who join our Discords to learn and become Catechumen. That said, we're living in an interesting time.

@Shernickyholmes221

Жыл бұрын

I am truly confused 😕

@syn4588

6 ай бұрын

Orthobro is a term used by left wing people to put down conservative orthodox people online by inferring that they aren’t really orthodox.

@stevenirizarry9427

2 ай бұрын

Are you against Orthodoxy gaining more publicity?

So, a few points: (1) If the assertion of papal claims immediately struck most of the Church as new and extreme, then it is clear that it was not the tradition handed us by Christ. (2) There is no need for confusion. If you have been received into the Orthodox Church by your bishop, there is no need for scrupulosity. Are you growing closer to Christ? If that is not a good enough answer for you, then are you sure that you are worshipping God and not an idol constructed out of your own rationality? (3) Christ is not the author of any confusion in the Orthodox church, humans are. If we were all following the teachings of the Church, there would be no problems. (4) You are thinking of Christ's Body like a Constitutional republic, with all powers allocated and everything certain; God does not promise us that. He promises himself, and God willing, we seek after that and see all difficulties settled. Look at the end of the Macedonian and Serbian schism; it is an example of what can happen when humility prevails and the desire for a true solution.

Those are some good questions

It raises the question!!! Begs the question is not asking a question, it’s making a circular argument.

The funny thing, the authority structure he speaks of, every book from Acts until Revelation in the NT is stories and Epistles of the Church's authority structure imposing teaching on local Churches. So any faith tradition that denies that a central authority is invalid, denies more than half of the New Testament.

I am now curious, how the recent firing of Bishop Strickland affected Michael Lofton considering the points he was making in this video about how the catholic church has a prescribed way to handle ecumenical differences.

This idol worship of "authority" is precisely what has caused so much abuse in my personal life. Authority-worship very quickly turns into mere Power-worship, and that's why you start abusing those under you.

@N1IA-4

Жыл бұрын

The abuse of a practice does not de-authorize its use.

@charlesnunno8377

Жыл бұрын

@@N1IA-4 Not having legit authority does.

@N1IA-4

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesnunno8377 What to you constitutes legitimate authority? In every area of life, someone has to be in charge. It's how life is.

@charlesnunno8377

Жыл бұрын

@@N1IA-4 Indeed. Jesus is in charge and you worship a usurper Pope. Deal with it.

@pennsyltuckyreb9800

Жыл бұрын

​@Charles Nunno The Biblical model is all about authority! Go be a Buddhist then? There HAS to be an authority! Can authority be abused? Absolutely. We see it all the time. But Jesus already addressed this.... "...saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." ~ Matthew 23-2-3 Jesus didn't say "ignore and throw out Moses' seat."

I agree with him and I can make many more points as a former Eastern Orthodox

@iliya3110

Жыл бұрын

People have their own journeys. I believe the Orthodox Catholic Church is the original Church however. Becoming Orthodox Catholic after having been a very serious Roman Catholic for years was the best choice I made for my wife and my 4 kids. It was a difficult discernment but I have zero regrets.

@no_more_anymore

Жыл бұрын

Same. I've come to realize that the Orthodox ecclesiology and how they determine doctrine and dogma basically becomes the same as Protestantism.

@iliya3110

Жыл бұрын

@@no_more_anymore ? No. We permit diversity of opinion on theologumenon, but dogmas from the 7 Ecumenical Councils, General Councils and from the Pillars of Orthodoxy aren’t seriously disputed in Orthodoxy except by a fringe few since “yesterday” in America.

@no_more_anymore

Жыл бұрын

@@iliya3110 Yeah, you use the canons, but many things are still disputed by many others in Orthodoxy that uses canons and or cites Holy Tradition.

@evaneparat

Жыл бұрын

@@no_more_anymore perhaps, but we are bound to our jurisdictions and spiritual fathers in obedience, so in the end it is not Protestant in the least.

Obviously, this guy is confused. What issues did Vatican II clarify? LOL 😂

I wanted to join the Eastern Orthodox Church and was told that, before baptism, I had to have an exorcism. I then had to be re-baptized even though I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. You must also agree never to receive the Eucharist in any other church or you would be guilty of heresy.

@stevenirizarry9427

2 ай бұрын

What church was this? Did you speak to their Bishop about this? I attend an Eastern Orthodox Church and our priest acknowledges the baptism I receive in the Catholic Church, he says he will do Christmation. He didn’t say anything about an Exorcism. Are there details you leaving out?

@OMNIBUBB

Ай бұрын

@@stevenirizarry9427an exorcism is always a part of welcoming someone into the EO as far as I know. Not like you see in the movies where someone is tied to a bed and a priest is throwing holy water and holding a crucifix and yelling prayers … but there are some prayers read over the catechumen to cast out any demons before they are sacramentally welcomed into the Church.

@TheMOV13

11 күн бұрын

The excorcisim is a standard part of Orthodox baptism that everybody undergoes as part of the ceremony.

@MarkSeydel

11 күн бұрын

@@stevenirizarry9427 Saint Phillip's Church in Souderton, PA

How exactly was he an orthodox?

Jonathan Pageau or Fr Josiah Trenham. Those would be interesting Orthodox men to interview

Lofton, will stay under the authority of the pope, while venerating saints in eastern Catholicism that explicitly rebuke the pope and his "authority" Talk about double mindedness.

I still don’t understand stand how or why Eastern Catholics venerate Orthodox Saints. At this point might as well venerate Martin Luther.

@johnosumba1980

Жыл бұрын

Nothing is wrong with that, the question is when were those saints declared?

@franciscovasquez9417

Жыл бұрын

Way after the great schism and were against Catholic doctrine. St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus to name a few who are venerated by Eastern Catholics

@BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian

Жыл бұрын

It only vindicates Orthodoxy.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker

Жыл бұрын

Catholic Church believes the Saints belong to everyone including EO, atheists, protestants, pagans etc. Many non- christians were converted to the faith by fascination/direct intercession of Saints. We don't OWN Saints and we don't get to place limits on how God uses them. St Charbel has healed muslims, jews, atheists, protestants, he's outta control. 😂

@johnosumba1980

Жыл бұрын

@@franciscovasquez9417 anyone who has full truth can recognize a Saint when they see them and it doesn’t matter where they come from.

Interview Robert Spencer

@ 10:28 when Lofton says that he is “not seeing that” in response to the Orthodox argument, I think the reason why is because of the emphasis he places on rationalistic knowledge which he spoke about it at the beginning of this clip. Sometimes a specific desire can cloud our judgment and lead us to believe what we want over what is true. . . I’m not saying this as an insult, just an observation.

@Billyjoe78517

Жыл бұрын

Should we not be able to have even the most basic of understanding about our faiths? I have read that the orthodox say that they are ok with being able to say “I don’t know”, but how are you reasonably able to covert people if you can’t answer some of these questions? I think a lot of pride goes on on both sides, and I think it would be ideal to lay that pride down and work together. Honestly, the pride in both churches is a bad thing. I have seen Catholics say that the orthodox are the original protesters and other uncharitable things, and I have seen orthodox claim that the Catholics don’t have valid sacraments and say disparaging things about our miracles as well (shocking to see, to say the least). I will say this though, many Catholics long for reunification, and many orthodox simply couldn’t care less. It seems like there is one side that wants to reach across the isle and one that doesn’t. What’s also shocking is that, at the same time as some in the orthodox community talk about how Rome needs to “come home” they will disparage and seemingly shut off the idea of discussing our differences in communion. Like I said, pride in both sides, and I truly wish It could be solved

Michael, how did your priest treat you when you decided to leave? Are you still friends with your EO brothers and sisters?

Every time this topic comes up, the answer seems to be "the Orthodox don't have an answer for everything." I personally don't get that criticism. Why should we assume an answer to everything is available?

@CashFreedman

7 ай бұрын

Thank you

Hey thanks for the video! In terms of ecumenical councils, what happens if a pope refuses to come or even send legates and opposes the emperor and the other bishops and their rulings on it? And what if a council anathematized the pope as a heretic such as the sixth council and Honorius? It seems like the criteria that a council is only ecumenical if a Roman bishop affirms it doesn’t play out in the historical narrative where ecumenical councils were binding well before the Roman bishop affirmed them, even in opposition to the Roman bishop. Great video overall though, I agree that the Eastern Orthodox claim to exclusivity also doesn’t hold water upon scrutiny.

@koppite9600

Жыл бұрын

The Pope is above all. Read what Peter says to the Council. He seems to say only he (Peter) is allowed to preach the gospel. The whole council can only draw from Peter. 7...: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

@TheRoark

Жыл бұрын

@@koppite9600 what does this have to do with pope honorius being a heretical bishop subject to the ruling of the council? He wasn’t the supreme head of the church, just another bishop who was preaching false doctrine.

@koppite9600

Жыл бұрын

@@TheRoark what matters is what you conclude from what Peter said. Pope Honorius, just like Saul, failed God in some ways. But he is still God's chosen as successor to Peter. Peter's Faith was preserved so he could strengthen us all, you probably know of that.

@TheRoark

Жыл бұрын

@@koppite9600 I think it is far more likely that Peter was a leader of the apostles, but not the church as a whole, and certainly not the first in a line of infallible heads of the church. The final word of the Jerusalem council was James, not Peter. Not only this but Paul opposes even Peter when he preaches contrary to the Gospel. As something so bedrock to the faith as a divinely appointed CEO office would be you would think that would be something you might want to mention in the first 60 years as the New Testament was being written. Instead it is something that develops and is read back in to earlier texts. That’s my two cents anyway! Goodnight

@koppite9600

Жыл бұрын

@@TheRoark that's your two cents but shouldn't you read and know about it definitively? James offered a proposition up for debate, Peter delivered a bombshell. Peter is claiming to be the only one to preach the gospel, this makes the others his extensions. Do you see that this directs the gospel to be one? Today protestants have many Peters and thus varying gospels. Which gospel do you follow?

I’d recommend dialoguing with a seasoned Orthodox Christian to experience our mentality and mindset (what we call phronema) to help understand our perspective and provide answers for the struggles Lofton dealt with. With the proper phronema, Lofton’s stumbling blocks aren’t really all that problematic. The argument here seems to be “Catholicism has a system of governance that gives the *feeling* of certitude and objectivity [to the inquistive] in this era of the post-schism Church, and in [Lofton’s] opinion, history supports that Christ established Catholicism’s form of governance [papal supremacy]”. Lofton for his part acknowledged that these aren’t proofs for Catholicism, but rather a hermeneutic that, I presume, guided his decision to join Catholicism. One can see that with an alternative phronema and hermenuetic, the history would appear on the Orthodox side. Phronema, presuppositions, and hermenuetics clearly play a role in those that go through this discernment. God bless ☦️

@matuskaandme5408

Жыл бұрын

Michael has pretty consistently said he believes the universal magisterium is one thing he thinks we lack. He's offered a further clarification saying we have authority on a local level (synod of Bishops or Church), but we lack a universal teaching mechanism or "office". In a literal Roman Catholic sense, I'd agree with him. On the other hand, we see universal teaching a bit differently. Its not that we lack this, but that it takes a completely different form than what Roman Catholics have developed.

@iliya3110

Жыл бұрын

@@matuskaandme5408 yes, I suppose the question is “do we need what he was looking for?” and having been Roman Catholic and disenchanted with the epistemic certainty it claims to offer, I would say “no, we do not”. What we need to definitively know, we know by the Councils and Liturgy. I don’t see this as a bug but a feature. Moreover, their infallible magesterium needs an interpretator. The Holy Office or the Pope will provide some writing aimed to expound and clarify. And then people fight over interpretating the clarification. It’s not as cut and dry as it is presented. There’s the ideal that people imagine and then there’s reality. Catholicism is, de facto, very internally divided. I understand the Western mind and perspective having been them and thought like them, but there is a strong temptation to take on more responsibility than what is proper for a lay person. What I mean is, it is not a lay person’s responsibility to try and solve the issue of pastoral disagreements on contraception or the praxis on the reception of converts or to interpret the canons at a universal level. Thats already presupposing that there even *should* be “one way” for doing this or that. That’s for a Synod and one’s bishop to worry about or a General Council, etc. Not a lay person to try and solve perceived problems - real or imagined - at a local Church, let alone at the universal level. Besides, when one is Catholic they discover they are still looking for the epistemic certainty they thought they were promised. Which magesterium do you want to believe? The pre or post Vatican II hermeneutic?

@iliya3110

Жыл бұрын

@Ed Yes, the point came not from me but from my spiritual father who keeps reminding me of the primacy of phronema on this stuff. He's right, but man, my mind has a long way to go to reforming to it.

@iliya3110

Жыл бұрын

@Ed Yup - You did. lol Thanks

@matuskaandme5408

Жыл бұрын

@@iliya3110 Please remember to keep me and my family in your prayers! Honestly, we are saying the same thing but with different words, just to clarify. That's my view too, that even though Catholics might think we are missing something, we Orthodox don't really see it that way. There have been a lot of discussions about why we see it differently and what that means. I admire Michael's honesty. Also, I think he does a good job of pointing out that we Orthodox don't hold some things that Catholics do. He even states that we Orthodox are convinced we have the advantage for much of the same reasons that Catholics believe they have the advantage. I like that he's videos aren't just a badgering "you're wrong" style. He tries to be fair to Orthodox and represent our views accurately, imo.

I love how catholics repeat the word "objective" a thousand times. That is poison. I've been so familiar with that rhetoric.

@hildegardnessie8438

Жыл бұрын

And what’s wrong with that?

@charlesnunno8377

Жыл бұрын

@@hildegardnessie8438 So many things. It creates a top down condescending attitude which denies any possibility of error. Which means that when you are wrong YOUR PRIDE will drive everyone around you into the GUTTER....because you think you are right SO STRONGLY.

@d.j.p.g.b.9662

Жыл бұрын

...objective 👻👻👻BOOOO👻👻👻

But why is the Immaculate Conception a necessary dogma that needed to be settled? Why could just allow it to be an unsettled theological opinion? It seems like there are things Roman Catholics defined as dogma that do not need to be dogma, which is why I find it difficult to just say “the structure is there to settle questions, therefore it must be true.” The fact that questions that do not need to be dogmatic became dogmatic shows the other extreme of how far a structure can go in the wrong direction to contradict centuries of fathers who contradicted a dogma like the immaculate conception. This is the appeal of the Orthodox. You need a balance. Protestants have zero structure, Orthodox do have a structure in place, whereas Roman Catholics have a rock solid structure that is too dependent on the infallibility of a throne.

Live the life, live your life... don't argue about it until you collapse under the weight of indecision and hypocrisy. That has been my life lesson of late.

None to EO to Catholic here. Lofton's reasons were basically mine, though he states them even more pointedly. Thanks for having him on. Given Lofton's extensive knowledge of the magisterium and the ascent we owe Church teaching, I think a great debate would be: "Does the Catholic Church teach that collecting any interest whatsoever on a loan is the sin of usury?" Affirmative: Anyone from New Polity or adjacent (Imam, Barnes, Jones, Domencic) Negative: Michael Lofton If Lofton would affirm, I'd definitely want to know his reason! Then get Samuel Gregg on instead.

The honest Orthodox, like Metropolitan Ware, know they need something along the lines of the papacy in order to function. Historically they did have something akin to it. After the schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople took on more and more of the papal claims, hence the title "Ecumenical Patriarch." They were kinda the first "sedevacantists" except they had a mostly intact ecclesiological structure. They put the next Patriarch in line, at least in their view, in the place of the Pope. This is partially why most of the papal claims, nixing infallibility, were not seen as a major issue at the Council of Florence. They were only discussed briefly, while things like leavened vs unleavened bread and the filioque were discussed for months. As the Catholics largely proved their case for the filioque and leavened bread at Florence, even though a certain hyper-heretical bishop named Mark denied this, the Orthodox later had to come up with a reason to not be Catholic. Combine this with the fall of Constantinople, the rise of Moscow as a major power within the Orthodox Church, and Vatican I, you ended up with the Orthodox fixating their disagreement with the Catholics not on the theological particularities of each side, but on the Papal claims. And as this was the focus more and more, the Orthodox devolved more and more into isolated communities with no union other than the diptychs. That is where they are today. And that is why serious, honest, and educated Orthodox who are not just triumphalist, xenophobic Russians, Greeks, or Serbs recognize the need for the Papacy, even if they can't quite bring themselves to admit it.

@claesvanoldenphatt9972

10 ай бұрын

Your reading of ecclesiology and history is so terribly slanted toward serving Rome. There is a pope in Alexandria still, whose title is a mere convention. We don’t need other popes who misinterpret ‘papa’ as meaning ‘we are own all your bases’. The pope in Rome was the bishop in the administrative capital of empire, and it no longer exists. Likewise the patriarch in Istanbul called Ecumenical only received that title because Constantinople was the new seat of imperial admin, New Rome. It never meant he was what you mean by pope, and it never will, despite the pretentious maunderings of Phanariots in the religious press. Bartholomew is not the spiritual leader of anyone outside his own Greek churches. Metr. Kallistos never averred that orthodox churches need a pope, an extraordinary ‘super bishop’ to exert authority over the whole Orthodox confession. The ancient arrangement of 5 great sees (‘pentarchy’) was according to political divisions of the Roman empire. A couple centuries after Constantine the Church had extended beyond roman political boundaries, into Persian-controlled lands, Ethiopia, Georgia and Armenia. Churches around the world never hankered after some Italian boss for their synods. ‘Catholic’ means self-sufficient in ministering the Gospel of salvation, not ‘a church under the rule of an Italian bishop’ halfway around the world. Christendom (historical, apostolic) is a lot larger and more varied than your eurocentrism allows.

@josephmoya5098

10 ай бұрын

@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 That is not how people treated the Pope on the first 5 centuries of the church. Read some primary source documents. Second, the Ecumenical Patriarch took on many of the papal claims. He called councils, he issued decrees for the whole church, and even practiced something akin to global jurisdiction. This is why the Orthodox all have the same liturgy. This only broke down with the fall of Constantinople and the rise of Moscow. Before then, what the Patriarch said kinda went. I say kinda because it is true that this was not perfectly true, just as was the case in the west prior to V1. But it is a good description of how people behaved. I mean, Mark of Ephesus didn't reject the Lateran Council over the papal claim to universal jurisdiction, it was only over the Filioque. If there was no precedent for this, why did he, the love bishop to reject the council, not reject the papal claims with the fervor he rejected the Filioque? Finally, while Ware has never directly said that the Orthodox need a Pope, he has stated in many lectures that the inability to organize and meet and hold councils that is experienced by the Orthodox today is not a problem for the Catholics who have the papacy. He has stated in these same lectures that for Orthodox ecclesiology to function, you need an authority to call councils. He does make the point that historically this has been a mixture of patriarchs and Emperors. But he also explains how this is an issue without a single central Christian empire, and he suggests that there must be an Orthodox authority with the power to call councils.

@bilkuandris8219

2 ай бұрын

@@josephmoya5098 You know the ecumenical councils wasn't called by the pope but by the emperor? Also the catholics accepted the council of 879 until the 11th century so you're filioque claims are ignoring your own teaching. Rome has defected and nobody else but Rome thought papal supremacy in 1054. It was not an apostolic teaching. Matthew 16:18 was never interpreted in the RC way in the first millenium.

@GetSicRiCH

23 күн бұрын

wow it’s auto deleting all my comments here? 🙏😞💭

Magisterium has "objectivity".. boy did this one age well!!

3:50 There is only one baptism and it is settled in the Credo.

I really don't see the need for the magisterium or papacy.

@Robbie-ut6mw

14 күн бұрын

That’s why the EO is beyod divided 😊

@PhilosophyOfNoa

12 күн бұрын

@@Robbie-ut6mw We are not divided at all, that's why there is no need for a magisterium or papacy. Catholics like to imagine scandal and division where there is none.

I was thinking of Mormons when he was talking about this. Because it’s not something they would have difficulty with.

I would like to see this topic addressed again with someone other than Lofton. Anyone other than Lofton. He's most uncharitable when engaging with people in his comment section. He seems very self-satisfied but I am not impressed with his intellect. He's akin to a library assistant who can find source material but can only parrot it. He cannot apply it judiciously, without apparent bias. I almost wish he had chosen the other side because he does not represent Catholics well.

‘When I look at the data’ What a devastating way to determine faith, no wonder the Protestant reformation happen & we find ourselves in such a materialist mess.

Definitive... Can go both ways including definitively wrong.

You don’t have to be baptized again. This debate was settled centuries ago when St. Stephen I and St. Cyprian of Carthage were debating about baptism. It was further confirmed by the 2nd ecumenical council, by St. Augustine against the Donatists (who were affirming the Cyprian position), further affirmed by the Quinisext council, by Trullo, and was again affirmed by the Jerusalem Synod of 1672, and yes, was further confirmed by the Council of Crete of 2016, that is why all of the Churches (with the exception of ROCOR) all affirm the apostolic tradition of NOT BAPTIZING all heterodox converts. Yes, there have been those in the Church who have pushed for re-baptism, but when they have done so, they are going against the apostolic tradition and are deviating away from Orthodoxy. We don’t consider individual men to be infallible.

I was Roman Catholic for 50 years and left 15 years ago to become Orthodox. I feel I am now at home and am very happy I left for the true, ancient faith.

P.S. The Great and Holy Council did not have the participation of all autocephalous Churches.

I am considering leaving EO to convert to join RCC. I love EO liturgy but RCC has so many resources, and a more significant and strong connection to my western culture. I believe that EO has many strong points but it is still too marginal (although it is getting more widespread) here in the US. I don't think the nuances and theological disputes will ever be fully settled between the two. I hope EO and RCC can coexist without so much spite between them.

@Tomislvo

11 ай бұрын

become eastern catholic its basically orthodox with communion in rome

@giovanni545

11 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hIJ6wbmDk6Wncpc.html

@user-lh5kn8tv4f

10 ай бұрын

It's not all about you

@ionictheist349

9 ай бұрын

There is a western rite orthodox church

@ionictheist349

9 ай бұрын

@@Tomislvo but heretic

Am Oriental Orthodox Chrstian and proud😊 and I think Eastern Orthodox is better than Catholic The video is Unimportant

The law of prayer is the law of belief. Christ has risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

i have Questions but yoo toob sensors my every comment 🙏😞💭†

All I gotta say to this guy is, why didnt you ask your priest? Bro... you didnt look hard enough.

Catholicism "settles" issues by legislating them, these days, not by discerning the living tradition of the Church. In reality, diversity as the Church works out hard topics is the Apostolic model, not the heavy-handed rule of a Pope.

@Billyjoe78517

Жыл бұрын

How do you think this legislation was made? Do you think the legislation was devoid of the living tradition? How can you possibly separate the two? Legislation, at least in the secular sense is normally created after back and forth discussions between two sides. I don’t have any proof that this is different in the church. So ultimately I fail to see your point.

So…am I hearing this right? He left The Eastern Orthodox Church and converted to Catholicism because he didn’t like the administration style and they didn’t have everything tightened up in his timing. Sounds kind of Protestant to me, tbh.

So he wants answers rather than proper teachings

Every Orthodox Patriarchate offers answers to the questions that Lofton claims he couldn't find answers to. And many offer answers that Rome does not adequately address. He just chose the Patriarchate in which he liked the answers more than those offered in the other Patriarchates. He asserts that the answers he likes are "objective" and "definitive" whereas other groups' answers are not. I will presume that he is just confused and not being deliberately deceptive. Each person should choose the path that helps him draw as close as possible to Christ, but it would be nice if that didn't involve misrepresenting the circumstances and confusing others. However, I do recognize that when I am confused about something (and don't realize it), it often leads to spreading that confusion to others.

@johnosumba1980

Жыл бұрын

They don’t have same answer and that is where the problem is. More like Protestants.

@philoalethia

Жыл бұрын

@@johnosumba1980, you are making precisely the same error that Lofton is. Any particular Orthodox Patriarchy has answers to whatever question Lofton wants to ask. Rome is simply one among these various Patriarchates. Lofton has presumed that the answers from Patriarchate R are "objective" whereas the answers from Patriarchate C, D, E, are not. Lofton likes to throw around the terms "objective," "definitive" and similar. He asserts that Rome has these but other do not. But he is simply presuming that which needs to be demonstrated.

@Fasolislithuan

Жыл бұрын

@@philoalethia The problem is that your solution point and open the door to different Orthodox Churches with different doctrines (that is precisely the nowadays situation in orthodox churches about rebaptism, biblical canon, anticonceptives and other important issues). This automatically disqualify Orthodoxy as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. With individual decisions (without an ecumenical Council) the Orthodox Patriarchies lack unity in doctrine and cannot be One Church, cannot be Catholic (one universal doctrine) and cannot be Apostolic (the apostolic doctrine should be one). The catholic Church is not an Orthodox Patriarchy and there is not communion between Rome and Orthodox Churches so, you cannot spread an specific and structural orthodox problem to a different Church that has not the same structure and has not communion with orthodox churches.

@philoalethia

Жыл бұрын

@@Fasolislithuan wrote "The problem is that your solution....: Well, let's stop you right there, as I didn't present a "solution." I merely pointed out what Lofton is actually doing while claiming that he is doing something else. And that brings us back to the fact that you are simply making the same mistake as Lofton -- presuming that the Roman Catholic Patriarchate is something absolute and universal rather than one patriarch among several. That is, you are presuming that which you claim to be demonstrating. Your attempt is especially sad, however, insofar as you seem to think merely claiming the word "Catholic" somehow settles the matter. Claiming to be the whole enchilada doesn't make it so.

@Fasolislithuan

Жыл бұрын

@@philoalethia It looks all people disagree with you make the same mistake that Mr. Lofton. But it doesn't change the fact that existence of autocephalic structure in orthodox churches makes impossible two things: 1) an ecumenical Council 2) an unified doctrine. So ontologically those churches actually are not in communion and epistemologically the Orthodox churches cannot be united in doctrine as long as they keep this structure.

Michael, at 3:40 you say you found objective ways to settle issues in Catholicism, not present in Orthodoxy. In what way has it''s teaching authority saved the Catholic Church from unclear, bewildering, and often offensive papal statements and actions, that the faithful need find some way to abide, or else? The insistence on the top down "unity" that a pope provides is the singular reason that the Catholic Church has come to spiritual tatters, compared to it's beginnings. I so wish that all of the historical bishops of Rome would have valued real unity, instead of exclusive power and authoritarianism. Michael, please step back and witness the mosaic of the image that the pope has helped create. He is shepherding his flock into ever descending secularism, unrecognizable from your former selves. Please remember the saying about when good men do nothing. A prayer for you.. "

The pope doesn’t solve that problem. Since future popes have the authority to overturn everything past popes said, you can never be sure what the pope says won’t be done away with some day.

@lukebrasting5108

Жыл бұрын

What? No Pope has the authority to abrogate authoritative decrees on issues of faith or morals. Once they're defined, that's it. They can never be overturned. So it's sounds like don't understand how the Magisterium works and what the limits of Papal authority are.

@nicodemuseam

8 ай бұрын

​​@@lukebrasting5108 Interesting; Better look at the Popes Against Modern Errors and then take off your rose colored glasses. I came into Orthodoxy through Sedevacantism from Protestantism, and I must admit that the Sedevacantists, if they're good for nothing else, point out the contradictions between past teaching and the Modernism of the last century in the Roman Catholic church fairly well.

What is so confusing to me is why people are worried about believing what the church tells them to believe, instead of what the Bible says we should believe, directly from the mouth of God or the mouth of Christ. The Bible sets forth the articles of faith, between the law and the prophets, the Gospels and Paul’s letters, we have every single aspect of faith enumerated that we need. A corporate body has no authority that it’s not already given to them through the Bible. If anyone questions how to be saved and how we may live fully in Christ as God intended, start with the Gospel of John and the book of Romans. Salvation by faith alone through the grace of God, formed by scripture alone.

@rikta9591

Жыл бұрын

Why do all sports have umpires and referees? Why don’t we just trust the players to memorise the rule book and leave it at that?

@wilsonw.t.6878

Жыл бұрын

@@rikta9591 Because those are human people, playing human games. And people have constantly appealed to rule books to overturn referees judgements.

@nicodemuseam

8 ай бұрын

Eastern Orthodox here: What you don't seem to recognize, the Protestant blind spot, is there's as many interpretations of the Scriptures as there are interpreters, unless there's a standard to fall back on: Say, Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptures, Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers, the Liturgy, the prayers, these all contribute towards forming a proper mindset or worldview. The Orthodox Church has, by the grace of God, preached and taught the Gospel and the Commandments of Jesus for 2,000 years.

So many Orthodox and Protestants in the comment section.

i think it is safe to say that he never had the orthodox phronema and had to have everything laid out. sure you may have differing thoughts within orthodoxy but then you have the same in the roman church. infact having been a roman catholic in the past there is nothing in place to stop a pope leading everyone into herecy without a circular arguement or without admitting that counsel actually have supreme authority and the pope doesnt

@josephmary969

Жыл бұрын

the objective authority is wheather the apostles and church fathers taught it or not. each bishop holds the others bishops accountable in passing the apostolic succession and teaching along. having a different pope who has an individual mind and goal will lead the church into error...unless you admit a counsel has power to remove him and correct a heretic pope

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker

Жыл бұрын

We have the magisterium, the Council of Bishops. They formulate doctrine, the Pope doesn't do it on his own. He only pronounces it in a formal infallible declaration from the Seat of Peter. And bishops have counselled popes.

@johnosumba1980

Жыл бұрын

@@josephmary969 so with that reasoning, did the apostles taught contraceptive? And is it wrong or right according to Orthodox?

@maggyinahat

Жыл бұрын

His demeanor lacks the orthodox phronema. That's exactly what I thought listening to him speak. I don't want to attack him but I agree that his arguments are instantly recognizable as western in phronema.

@josephmary969

Жыл бұрын

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker a completely Roman concept. The Romans never lost their emperor. The Roman church teaches that the Pope is the head of the church...whereas the apostles taught is was, is and always will be Christ himself. Ask your self this question if a pope becomes a heretic and doesn't repent, does anyone have authority to remove him from office , since himself has automatically excommunicated himself?

You know what I would watch? You talking with an Anglo Catholic.

The Creed is the proper teaching. Seek fist the kindom of heaven then all these things will be added unto you. Seek truth and righteousness. You will find god if you seek him out. There will always be poor examples and bad teaching in the church.

Am I understanding this correctly? His problem was the EO church wasn't telling him what to believe enough? It's a legitimate point to make(as in, it is coherent), but that is a piping hot take.

@davatho

Жыл бұрын

Yup. Too "loose goosey" for him I guess.

@ashtree5957

Жыл бұрын

We are not our own God. The whole point of the Catholic Church is that Jesus established it and the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, Jesus will keep us unified and protect us from heresy. The second people start interpreting things for themselves and doing things because THEIR holy spirit told them something else then you get never ending schisms.

The issue I have with the orthodox is that they make some very bold claims and they think we’re not going to question them if we are “true orthodox” because apparently nothing is wrong with them lmao like seriously it’s really annoying. It really sucks because I really love orthodoxy and it’s rich history and the prayer rope and the beautiful saints. I dislike how much they hate us even tho we’re all close to them. It’s always the Catholics that speak highly of the orthodoxy it’s very rare that I hear the opposite. My heart hurts a lot because of these issues.

@CashFreedman

7 ай бұрын

Well when the Bishop of Rome admits the filioque is false and accepts he isn't the king then we'll be more social

@LorenzoMasterConnector

7 ай бұрын

@@CashFreedman The Filoque is correct and he is the first among equals as appointed by Jesus Christ himself. So if we’re gunna call ourselves Christian let’s make sure we follow what he told us not just cherry 🍒 pick what’s convenient. The east is Catholicism with a dash of pride !

@CashFreedman

7 ай бұрын

@@LorenzoMasterConnector what about the Eastern catholics? They say it should be taken out. Also yes Peter was the first among Equals; not commander and king of the other apostles/bishops.

@CashFreedman

7 ай бұрын

@@LorenzoMasterConnector also if I recall correctly Pope Gregory the second(3rd century pope) had written the creed in its original form on stone and had said that it shall not change. Though we both know how the Pope has since changed it.

@michaelwachira8484

7 ай бұрын

The church fathers approved the filioque themsleves. So that just debunks your claims@@CashFreedman

As a Protestant (Presbyterian), I love this channel and the thoughtful conversations. I honestly think Lofton, whose channel I've also watched many times, is looking for an epistemic certainty that just doesn't exist. There are plenty of holes in his own adopted magisterial framework, which is why RC apologists are constantly appealing to dubious "development" for 180 degree turns on doctrines like whether capital punishment is a just and due punishment for murder (a unanimously held opinion until JP2 started fudging with it and introducing "protection of society" as the sole basis for the death penalty in underdeveloped societies). The closest thing we have to an objective norm is that of the prophets and the apostles, and all of our Christian communions are disagreeing about how to interpret it and always will disagree. The problem of subjectivity is not solved by picking one over the other, especially one (Rome) that has so many internal problems itself on formal doctrinal matters.

@jacobwoods6153

Жыл бұрын

I'm sure you understand there's a difference between doctrine and dogma.

@lukebrasting5108

Жыл бұрын

That's just not accurate. Capital punishment was never a Catholic doctrine, it was only a discipline. The doctrines of the Church are fixed and permanent and can never be changed, but that's not case for disciplines. The only people who tried to make the reversal of the death penalty an issue were the uneducated "traditionalists" online who don't understand how the Magisterium works but go around spreading their false opinions in videos and blogs and cause chaos amongst an even more ill-informed laity. And it sounds like you have fallen victim to it too, because how would a Presbyterian even know about that issue unless you were following certain Catholic figures and media outlets. Michael Lofton, the guy being interviewed here, has multiple videos on his Reason and Theology channel where he explains the Church's position on the death penalty. You might want to check them out.

@rockpaperscissors82

Жыл бұрын

@@lukebrasting5108 I don't buy that capital punishment was merely a "discipline." It's validity was universally taught for centuries, which, per Lumen Gentium, makes it binding on the faithful as a doctrine de fide. I'm a former Catholic, by the way, which is why I've followed all of this for several years now. The lawyer-like distinctions that y'all have to make is not convincing to me, and I have zero expectation that I could ever persuade you differently. Your premise is that Rome cannot bind the faithful errantly, so you conveniently slot the changes into "discipline" so as to preserve the authority of Rome. Whatever, it's not my fight anymore. I'm happy in the Reformed tradition.

@lukebrasting5108

Жыл бұрын

@@rockpaperscissors82 Sorry, but you are confused and have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter what you think. All that matters is the truth, and your personal feelings on the issue have absolutely no bearing on the facts. You are rght in saying that the Church held for centuries that capital punishment was an acceptable penalty for certain crimes that the secular authority could wield at its discretion. But where you go wrong is in your stubborn, arrogant and prideful refusal to accept a basic distinction between doctrines and disciplines, a distinction made in scripture itself and from the very earliest times of the Church. Then you went on to make a false assumption about the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. But just because a discipline was taught for centuries, that doesn't magically elevate it to the level of a doctrine. A discipline can never become a doctrine, otherwise it wouldn't be a discipline. Again, you don't understand how the Magisterium works otherwise you wouldn't have made the claim that a discipline can magically acquire the status of a de fide doctrine (i.e, an essential truth of the faith) simply because it was held for an extended period of time. Only Patristic consensus and the unanimous consent of theologians on certain theological teachings such as Baptism of Desire can be elevated to de fide through being taught and held universally, not disciplines. If you don't understand the basic distinction between the two (one that is made in scripture), you can easily find out. It's not difficult. Catholic. com has a short article explaining the difference. But what I think is happening here is that you either 1) don't want to acknowledge that you were taught wrong and got caught believing in a lie or, 2) want the distinction to be false because that way you can cling to your opinion that the Church makes up nuanced lawyer-like distinctions to weasel their way out of contradictions in its teaching. If that's what is motivating you, then it's clear that you're a prideful, dishonest and bad willed person. And no, my premise here is not that Rome cannot bind the faithful errantly (although I do hold that position, as any Christian would) my premise is that there is a distinction between doctrines and disciplines and that the Church has the authority to change whatever disciplines it deems to be apprppriate and beneficial to the salvation of souls.

@lukebrasting5108

Жыл бұрын

@@rockpaperscissors82 I'm an ex-Presbytarian (Calvinist) that converted to Catholicism, by the way. Now that you have rejected Christ's Church in favor of man-made religion and identify as Reformed, can you explain how Galatians 5:19-21 is compatible with the doctrine of Eternal Security? St. Paul is directly addressing justified believers in that passage and he warns them that if they commit certain sins, they will be excluded from the kingdom. How does that fit in with the Reformed view that Christians cannot lose their salvation? Or how about 1 John 1:9 where the Apostle John, addressing true born-again believers, says that if they confess their sins, God is faithful and just to forgive their sins and to cleanse them of unrighteousness. But the Reformed view teaches that Christ's perfect record obedience to the law (His Active Obedience, as they call it) is imputed to the believer and can never be impacted or lost through personal sin. So how can St. John teach that his followers would need to confess their sins to be cleansed of unrighteousness after failing in obedience to God's law if all our sins (past, present and future) are forgiven at the moment of justification and that our status and friendship and hence our salvation cannot be impacted or lost through anything we do, as the man-made Reformed tradition teaches? Please explain. Also, how does the Reformed tradition fulfill the prophecy found in Malachi 1:10-11 about how gentiles would worship the God of Israel in the Messianic era? Does your "church" offer incense and a pure sacrifice to God all acroas the world in every nation? Nope. The Calvinist sects rejected the Apostolic doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice, even though that was (and still is) the universal teaching of the Church throughout the centuries.

That didnt take long. You two should get back together and discuss the Fiducia Supplicans just released. I think it really highlights the issues Michael describes with inconsistencies in doctrine vs Papal proclamations. How is the catholic church now going to bless the very thing it calls intrinsically immoral and contrary to the divine order?

@ToddFrizzell-zi5nj

6 ай бұрын

They look for technicalities and sow confusion. They say we're blessing the couple ( as in individual people) not the union.

After watching this and the full podcast it’s clear that unfortunately Michael is attempting to reach a scholastic understanding of faith in Orthodoxy- searching for the singular best objective method to become closest to God. Baptisms, chrismations, etc aren’t magic potions for this. It doesn’t matter what specifically his local bishop prefers over the next one- it’s missing the point.

@Billyjoe78517

Жыл бұрын

Is a scholastic understanding of your faith a bad thing? What do you mean by scholastic? If by scholastic you mean an understanding of the church fathers writings and scripture, I fail to see how that would be bad for fostering an understanding of faith and tradition

This is all just cope. Catholicism, doesn’t even compete with Orthodoxy,…debate it out stop running.

"I want to live my faith according to what the church tells me to believe." Wow. I think he just articulated the main thing that separates me from catholics.

We all have our own paths towards Christ, Roman Catholicism wasn't for and I wouldn't recommend it. I was born and raised within the catholic church and it wasn't enough. In Eastern Orthodoxy I found fulfillment, sense of purpose and a newfound love for Christ and his teachings that I never had before. That's what I know.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker

Жыл бұрын

From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. The 120 is the Knesset HaGadolah which was supposed to be restored in the Olam Haba when Messiah comes. Judaism and Catholicism was born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was. Rachi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the davidic kings were away the steward/vizier of the davidic kingdoms was in charge. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter/successors is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward/vizier), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie the bishops. It's not a lording over them type of role. He figuratively sits in the Seat of Moses which we now call the Seat of Peter. Moses had the 70 elders who he consulted as equals. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood (which pre-exists the Aaronic priesthood). This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham. Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return. Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, Peter/successors are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium.

@nathanc777

Жыл бұрын

Born and raised in Catholic Church = cradle Catholic with next to no catechesis.

To me, The orthodox ecclesiology is just perfect. Its the reason orthodoxy remained the same. Unlike Catholicism which relies on the fallible pope which is the reason for the evolving and changing doctine and tradition. And its also the reason RC is really odd from the other apostolic churches interms of teachings and doctrines.

@CashFreedman

7 ай бұрын

Thank you so very much

Isn’t part of this desire for a definitive authority based on a longing to be in a state of permanent spiritual childhood? So many problems arise because the church authorities have made the Faith so very complex. Neither EO or RC solves the problem for the individual believer. All of this takes us away from following Jesus in the present moment. Ultimately there are no EOs, RCs, or Ps - there are only followers of Jesus and if you do not follow Jesus then the structure is irrelevant. This is a long term problem and it was Celsus in the 2nd century who was put off Christians because of their continual arguments and divisions. What seems to define Christians is not their love for each other but their ability for arguments.

@nicodemuseam

8 ай бұрын

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I would disagree that the desire for a definitive authority is based on a longing for Spiritual childhood; To the contrary, we need an authority like St. Paul to feed us milk until we're able to Spiritually mature. If I've learned nothing else in the Orthodox Church, practicing the Spiritual life begins with self control. Granted, proper Theology is important(because praxis follows Theology), and I believe the Orthodox Church has the correct and therefore strongest foundation possible.

The Orthodox absolutely do not accept the immaculate conception, there’s no need for it in our view of the fall and view of ancestral sin as opposed to original sin - we do not inherit the guilt of Adam but the consequences of fallen human nature. Thus there is no need for the doctrine.

@JJ-cw3nf

Жыл бұрын

That's too bad for the EO. Because it's true.

@duckhater729

Жыл бұрын

@@JJ-cw3nf obviously disagree but God Bless anyway

@elliotmahood982

Жыл бұрын

@@duckhater729 Can you explain ancestral sin? I looked it up, but I want to be sure I am understanding it correctly. From what I could tell it means we are capable of sin, even inclined to sin but we are not born with the guilt of any sin. If this is the case what do EO believe about the effects of baptism?

@duckhater729

Жыл бұрын

@@elliotmahood982 In short you’re right. I’m no priest or theologian but - we were created with God’s image and likeness. The fall lost us both and gave us a corrupt weak human nature which gives us a predisposition to sin and being slaves to the passions, these consequences inevitably include the sinful world we are born into since it is made up of other men, and we all end up sinning inevitably. This is obviously a simplified explanation but we do not believe that man is born with the guilt of Adam’s sin but the consequences which resulted from that sin. As it pertains to the immaculate conception, the lack of innate guilt in human nature means that the Theotokos did not need to be conceived without that guilt as an exception from the rest of humanity. Rather we believe she was the great example - she had the same human nature as we do yet reached the level of sanctity that she holds. More honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption thou gavest birth to God to Word, true Theotokos we magnify thee.

@tinag7506

Жыл бұрын

@@duckhater729 that's interesting. But how are we supposed to know if that's true or not? The issue with filioque, Immaculate conception etc are so complex and to my knowledge lacking in some sort of reinforcement. There's no substantial evidence to reject it like the EO , nor easily identifiable information to back it. So strange.

Should have spent that time working on his relationship with his father.

@johnosumba1980

Жыл бұрын

Are you trying to say he is not doing that?

It seems either Lofton really misunderstood Orthodoxy (and still does judging by his characterization of EO) or just had personal reasons for not liking Orthodoxy, neither have anything to do with Orthodoxy being True or not.

@johnosumba1980

Жыл бұрын

There is no misunderstanding there. Simple but important questions he put across could not be answered.

@Syd_3

Жыл бұрын

@@johnosumba1980 he’s definitely mischaracterized EO not just here but other videos. Shows he’s being either dishonest or is mistaken

@JJ-cw3nf

Жыл бұрын

He has so much content talking about the EO. And invites so many EO to come on his channel to discuss. There's no misunderstanding. That man is thorough

@Syd_3

Жыл бұрын

@@JJ-cw3nf yeah and I’ve watch the content. I was discerning between RC and EO and used to watch his channel. It became pretty clear to me what he said was not historically accurate and would quote mine a lot. Also lacks nuance when he talks about these theological issues

@mylifeforthelord5535

Жыл бұрын

@@Syd_3 So please tell us how exactly he mischracterized EO.

Michael Lofton is a joke

Oh, and happy reformation day! 😊

@SirMemesAlot71

Жыл бұрын

No

@DarkAngel-cj6sx

Жыл бұрын

Happy? We mourn division day

@tinag7506

Жыл бұрын

Reformation by a blasphemer whose quotes people hesitate to quote out of fear of judgement. It's like celebrating blasphemy. Have you ever read Luther's comments on the encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well? Disgusting. Shame on anyone who celebrates reformation after reading Luther's works.

@mj6493

10 ай бұрын

@@tinag7506 You misread Luther here. It seems you are looking for the most literalistic and uncharitable reading possible in order to discredit Luther. Luther's point about Jesus "becoming an adulterer" was that by entering into a conversation with the woman, Jesus was subjecting himself to being looked upon as being an adulterer himself. In many places Luther clearly taught that Jesus was without sin. Jesus never committed adultery, but by conversing and identifying with the adulteress he "became sin" (he took on that shame) which he took to the cross for our sake (2 Corinthians 5:21).

"I need to know the definitive, objective position." Catholicism: "We just decided this is objectively true." "Perfect!"

@Thedisciplemike

Жыл бұрын

Actually, you're not that far off, but still wrong. We are guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. This was promised by Christ and gifted to the Church. How do you know the decision of the first council of Jersusalem was objectively true?

@RayvenFE

Жыл бұрын

@@Thedisciplemike Isn't that the exact same excuse protestants use? "Well the Holy Spirit told me this so its true." Catholics make everything up, just like Orthodox, just like Protestants.

@Thedisciplemike

Жыл бұрын

@@RayvenFE the difference is the ancient liturgical Churches have the history and evidence to back it up, where the protestants don't.

@Thedisciplemike

Жыл бұрын

@@RayvenFE lol your rhetoric does nothing. "Just making it up". Nah, not at all. It's always been for the addressing of particular issues that are within the Church. She has always been careful not to push unnecessary doctrine. The only time decisions are made are when there is controversy

@RayvenFE

Жыл бұрын

@@Thedisciplemike Even in times of controversy those decisions were often just the whims of the Pope, and in many cases those decisions were just struck down or even reversed by the next pope that came along. Which if you accept papal authority is great, but thats circular reasoning.

As expected, something unimportant.

@myfakinusername

Жыл бұрын

Inconsistencies in doctrine and lack of authority structure are unimportant?

@benedict7345

Жыл бұрын

@@myfakinusername he’s just coping that he left orthodoxy I myself am ex orthodox

@ItsThatGuy1989

Жыл бұрын

@@myfakinusername what might be right for you might not be right for someone else. Life is messy. How can you tell someone that is poor and can’t afford a child, or has a medical condition that makes pregnancy dangerous, that contraception is therefore wrong? It’s legalistic. You’re making issues black and white that aren’t black and white. You’re hyper rationalizing faith. It’s just silly

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker

Жыл бұрын

@@ItsThatGuy1989 That is moral relativism which is a great sin. "Who are you to try to stop slavery, you aren't a slave and you don't own one." "Don't talk about abortion killing a child you aren't a woman." The Church has a teaching which address dangerous pregnancy and assistance for the poor and/or adoption services.

@ItsThatGuy1989

Жыл бұрын

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker preventing pregnancy and killing a child are separate issues. Making a moral equivalent is simply a bad faith argument. Where’s your rational argument that contraception is killing a baby? Or a sin? “The church said so” sure, your church does. Others don’t. Its not in the Bible. It’s on you to meet the burden of proof.

universal solutions 🤣🤣 the gay loving pope is the proof this works

Michael's view is Catholic (he and Matt are both Eastern Catholic, I think). He defends the Catholic belief that the Pope of Rome is has a divinely instituted office and charism to lead the (Catholic) Church. Therefore, everything he is offering defends the necessity the Pope of Rome and his office (along with the magisterium around him) as THE means for determining (and defending) matters of faith. This is as it should be since he's Catholic. As counter point, he discusses the view that for Orthodox authority can be found and settled concerning matters of faith, at Ecumenical Councils. But who determines what councils are Ecumenical? It's a good question, but I think Michael's contra point against Orthodox fails here. Obviously there is a first millennia criterion that both Orthodox and Catholics agree on concerning what counts as an Ecumenical Council. We know this because both of us accept the Seven Ecumencial Councils (all before 900 AD).

@letrewiarz

Жыл бұрын

"Obviously there is a first millennia criterion that both Orthodox and Catholics agree on concerning what counts as an Ecumenical Council" This is precisely the problem. Obviously there had to be something that made councils ecumenical in the first millennia, but modern Eastern Orthodox can't provide grounds for it without falling into contradiction. Therefore, there is a substantial break between the pre-schism Church and modern EO churches.