Video

Really appreciate this discussion.

Please go on a live discussion with Gavin Maybe he will eventually convert

These shorts are great ! Quick simple and engaging

Is there a chance you could ever do a video on Unigenitus?

Thank you Erick. I'm a Catholic who's faith has been shaken up a bit at the debates between Orthodox and Catholic on the papacy. I'm reading your book and gosh is it complicated. But it's helping me formulate what appears to be the truth

When you said that bread and wine dont have the value for a sacrifice, it reminded me of Cain's offering that was crops versus Abel's which was animal. So we know at least based on that, your point there is 100% Scriptural.

sincere and very honest question Sir: how can you claim to love Christ and follow Him when your 'church' teaches, preaches and practices the contrary? Sir, catholicism isn't Christianity and you can't even answer basic Bible questions. if you have anyone in your family who depends on you, please pray, study and yield to God's Word.

Erick I have a question for you: Paul’s office was subsumed, so to speak, into Peter’s in the Bishop of Rome, such that the Bishop of Rome inherits Peter’s and Paul’s offices, right? That is my question for you. But, based off of that: Then the Bishop of Rome, in his office, or we can broaden that to be the Church at Rome, more specifically, can lay claim to producing (or to having a massive influence on the production of): Two Gospels (Mark and Luke, as Mark recorded Peter’s preachings and Luke was a disciple of Paul), the Book of Acts, all the Pauline Epistles, and the Petrine epistles. That comprises 2/3 of the books of the New Testament not including Hebrews, which may have been Paul. That seems to me to be significant. Now, this is not anything even approaching an argument as to what Rome’s role in the Church is. Just an observation to say how significant a role in the early Church Rome had, even from its beginning. A rock, so to speak. Now, let me say this to anyone reading: If I am way off base, let me know. I am spitballing here and am in no way married to the idea that the Bishop of Rome in his office can take full or partial credit for these various writings, but it was a thought I had.

Thanks much for this video.

In the 1st century... fathers of the Early Church In testimony or written documents I wonder if confession and [transubstantiation] exist.

I have a question as an EO. If Father Patrick admits that see of Rome is a patristic and was created by God for stability as a Rock, then why did the Orthodox break off communion with Rome, even if the EO Church does not agree with something. In general, these are the same disagreements that existed in the first millennium, but the EO Church still maintained communion with Rome. It seems that after the braking the communion, old differences began to be called heresys. It looks like it was more political decision. Cause it's vitally important to be with communion with see of Peter as Rock of the Church and not so much with city of Old or New Rome...From practice we see that New Rome does not have the power to maintain the unity of the Church or make conscious binding decisions; it cannot even gather an Ecumenical Council together.

Peter and Paul were martyred under Nero. They commanded Christians to honor the emperors within due limits, but, especially with Nero on the throne, it boggles the mind that they would have any intention of letting crazy vicious pagan emperors have such influence over the governance/structure of the universal Church. What evidence is there that they designated the Roman Church with special rank or authority based primarily on its political position? What a strange interpretation of Irenaeus that would be! (though Gutee does argue it) The notion that Peter and Paul expected the emperors to eventually be Christian or that Christian emperors could affect the governance/structure of the universal Church by where they located their imperial capitals seems completely baseless and bizarre. And thus a bizarre reading of the council fathers/canons too.

Interesting perspective but still very bizarre to claim that the Apostles/Peter would surrender authority to the emperor to determine which cities hold ecclesiastical privileges. The elevation of Constantinople to ecclesiastical privileges seems to me a concession to political reality rather than political reality dictating ecclesiastical privileges. Whatever happened to Jesus' claim that His Kingdom is not of this world? Surely, He did not mean to say that the governance of His Church should be affected in this way by emperors??

Didn't see my comment on the first video show up when you brought them up and scrolled through them....

I think it's very much the case that Rome can be transferred as many times as the Church sees fit. It's something that the new Patriarch of Bulgaria, Patriarch Daniil, has proposed. That Rome is again transferred from Constantinople (now under Islamic rule) to somewhere else (presumably Moscow?). Just as the Church could elevate Constantinople (and excommunicate Old Rome), it too can elevate Moscow, Athos, etc.

Thanks guys, I actually enjoy seeing real orthodox scholars talk about this stuff because it just seems more productive then whatever dribble and polemecs so the majority of internet orthodox "apologists" like jay dyer put out

The comment about being more confused is regarding this two Rome’s. If that’s the case, the Orthodox Church technically never lost the See of Peter. They still call the Patriarch of Constantinople the first amongst equals. It’s really causing me to re-evaluate things.

Catholicism is not a new religion but natural continuation of Judaism under the new covenant instituted by Jesus with his salvation for entire mankind and his first followers were all Jews and they started this new covenant Judaism in their respective synagogues of Jerusalem Damascus Antioch Rome Antioch Smyrna Corinth Hippo Carthage etc with the basic traditions intact like tabernacle, alter, menohra, priesthood, confessions to priest intact and eucharist as new passover ritual which nobody disputes until the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced just five hundred years ago

Really appreciate this video.

Oh don't be so humble If only authority was the only problem -papal supremacy -filioque -separation of the Body and Blood (laymen receiving only the Body) -unleavened bread (judaizing practice) -elimination of the Cappadocian view of the Holy Trinity -elimination of pre-sanctified liturgies in the west -rationalism replacing living faith -Ostrogothic papacy -Frankish papacy -Pornocracy -papal forgeries which include -Donation of Constantine -Symmachian Forgeries -Pseudo-Isidoran Decretals -Thomas Aquinas using forgeries in his "On the errors of the Greeks -literally every other patriarch booting the pope in 1054 -fourth crusade -Uniates in Ukraine -catholic attrocities in Ukraine and Serbia Gregory Palamas said that your rationalism would make the west atheist... Seems like he was right. Orthodoxy is vindicated and you have become so pathetic that now that you feel threatened by modernity you come to us with ecumenism

Such a good discussion. Best version of the Orthodox position I've heard. Thank you Eric for engaging with thinkers, not twitter trolls