Great video, I’m an Orthodox, I married a Catholic woman, and since Orthodox priests have more objections to Catholic traditions while Catholics are very welcoming to Orthodox Christians, we got married in nearby Catholic Church. Also since I’m white and my wife is black, and Catholics are more Universal while Orthodox now tend to be nationalists, I started reading more about Catholicism, now I’m thinking about conversion. This book seems very interesting for me. Thanks for the review!
The nationalism you reference I have heard others complain of. It reminds me of the history of The Great Schism-I remember having the impression that cultural pride played a roll in driving the split from Rome. Should it be any surprise to find elements of that same ethnocentrism alive and well today? But these are my private ruminations and I am not pretending to be an expert on the topic.
@@allegedly6 Yes they do recognize it, but in order for my Catholic wife to be married in Orthodox church they have more requests regarding the paper work, while Catholics did not have any requests for me except the proof that I was baptised. Also both Churches ask from the wedding couple to not be against children being baptized in their Church.
Once again Thank you for this Elisabeth! Clearly there is much to unpack in Michael Lofton's book and you have done a good job doing this. I have only recently come across Mr. Lofton's book and your review have helped to make up my mind to buy it! Also I hope you have a happy new year and are richly blessed in 2024. Your channel is certainly a blessing and may it continue to be so!😀🙏
If the Orthodox claim that the RCC broke away from Othordoxy not vice versa, how does that make any sense based on the Orthodox ecclessiology where each Patriachate operates under its own authorithy? In other words, who determines what constitutes Orthodoxy and what confers on them the power to do that and declare another church at odds? On the other hand the RCC position would be completely consistent under its own ecclesiology. Food for thought.
@@nathankirwan2565 Ok, in fact, at the time of the Great Schism, heresy wasn't the contention but authority. But that aside, who decides who is heretical or not, and on what authority? How do we know that Rome isn't right and wouldn't whichever Patriarch(s) simply be playing 'Pope' by such a determination? The Orthodox position doesn't seem to be internally consistent.
@@nathankirwan2565 And who determines that there is a departure from Orthodox y by giving an authoritative interpretation? Btw I hope you can appreciate the impracticality of the highest authority in anything being synodal, where the members of the said synod are able to disagree with each other on what constitutes correct interpretation; as well as the logical inconsistentency on applying to a body of coordinate jurisdiction for adjudication. All this should be pretty obvious unless one is being casuist. So, we are simply going around in circles, and though you may not realize it, you've just made excellent arguments for why a 'Pope' is needed. However those who have a problem with the actual arrangement, can take it up with Christ (see Matt. 16:18 for e.g. as reference, noting that the particular authority was conferred earlier and much more emphatically than the general one in Matt 18:18 !)
@@nathankirwan2565 Surely unless one is simply being casuistic, the the logical inconsistentcy in claiming a synod can be the final arbiter of anything where members of same synod can (and almost always have) disagree on either substance or interpretation; much less in asserting than such a body can apply to another body of coordinate jurisdiction for adjudication, should be clear!
@@nathankirwan2565 'The Holy Spirit guides synod', yes, and yet they are often so fractious, what mechanism do you figure the Holy Spirit uses to resolve that? Who do you suppose guides the Pope? Recall that the particular authority was conferred in Matt 16:18 earlier and much more emphatically than the general one in Matt 18:18 for your answer. The Council of Jerusalem is actually a great example of this, especially if you recall that the issue was settled by Peter's declaration, to which James appealed in demanding his followers get in line eventually, in Acts 15:13- !
@@nathankirwan2565 And that is exactly the point! If he chairs the council then he presides over it! In this sense, only one of the apostles can have this gift as Matt 16 clearly states, and Acts amply demonstrates in his exercise of such an office. In particular, any such 'chairing' over any such body requires ajudicative powers which is the only context in which the apostolic exhortations by Jesus in Matt 16 and John 21 (among others) make any sense. The rest is just playing with semantics. But I think we have both made our positions quite clear and only the Spirit can convict at this point. Shalom for the New Year!
Personally, them getting rid of purgatory by itself is heterodox. How, could they be Orthodox if they don't hold the same beliefs as the early church? That was the deal breaker in my discerning of what church I would belong to.
Except purgatory was not the belief of the early church. The concept of purgatory appeared towards the end of the twelfth century. At the Second Council of Lyon in 1247 AD, the Eastern Orthodox opposed the notion that purgatory was a "third place" in the afterlife distinct from heaven and hell containing literal fire.
@@clivejames5058This is a blatantly false ahistorical assertion. When was 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 written? The Jewish teachers of Jesus time all believed in Purgatory. To pretend it was an invention of the 13th century is simply ridiculous.
Yes, Jews believe in purgatory, but they call it something different. As christianity is a derivative of Judaism, it follows that the early Church fathers believed it too. Can't understand why protestants object to this concept. They are always harping on about Catholics corrupting gods teachings , when it is they that are doing so
The Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is a third place (if it's a "place" it would be the entryway to Heaven) and it doesn't teach that there is literal fire either.
I have Michael Lofton’s book. I’ve read several of the chapters and find them insightful and thorough. I think it’s an excellent book and a handy handbook to have on one’s bookshelf. I just discovered this CZcams channel. I will have to explore it. Nice review by the way.
@@BiblicalBookworm I posted it at the book club. I already got a positive comment on your episode of the book recommendations across the Catholic podcasters.
According to the documents of the Church, Papal infallibility is proper for ex-cathedra teachings only in cases where there is no formal teaching only. When the Pope errs by teaching doctrines against the sensus fidei, the dogmas and the Bible, there is not infallibility. Salvete ex Columbia in América Meridionali.
I frequently use "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" - I don't know how formal it is. But I frequently use it when people push the boundaries of what should be legal to get things done and then pitch a fit when the other side use the same tactics against them. If it's good for you to use against others, it's good to use against you - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Thanks Elizabeth! Love your videos! And, this was a well done review. You are really on top of things! Haha what's good for the goose is good for the gander is just a saying that means what's good for one is good for the other. I suppose it's more common in the southern US.
Just found your channel. Its odd though that am now leaning more Orthodox because of the recent declarations of the Pope but i choosed to be Catholic because its the one true church. i may have my doubts but i will always stand with the church
Thank you my Sister in Christ! I am sorry for my mistake in disposition of the invitation "card" to Veritatis Missio which is about the present crisis of Christianity (which has been going on only ca seventeen hundred years)! Soon, very soon, Jesus willing!
“as deepe drinketh the Goose as the Gander” from way back in 1579 by John Lyly - "Euphues and his England" Good Job Elizabeth! Holy Family & Christmas Season Blessings!
You said in this video (timestamp 9:22), “Catholics believe that doctrine revealed by God, or doctrine intimately related to revealed doctrine, may develop over time but it cannot evolve, change, or be corrupted.” Your sentence itself seems to contradict itself. If doctrine is “developing” over time, isn’t that in some way, “evolving”? Doctrine can evolve and develop without changing. The principle of doctrinal development in Catholicism allows for the Church's understanding of its teachings to evolve and develop over time while still preserving the core truths of the faith. Some examples of this are Original Sin, the Trinity and the doctrine of Purgatory, the Eucharist, Canon of Scripture, religious liberty, social justice, and the role of women in the Church and society, but to name a few.
@@essafats5728 I mean obviously. The orthodox protested against Rome, therefore they're Protestants. I'll give em credit because they're more traditional protestants with valid sacraments, but Protestants nonetheless.
Their obsession with Papal infallibility is insane. Its limited to the teaching of the doctrine of faith. Otherwise the Pope would be God or a demi-god. The felloque heresy is another non issue in that most diaconates can to choose to either follow the nicene or apostalic creed.
As you will appreciate, Orthodoxy does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, nor of any other individual because the early church consisted of 5 patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome and Jerusalem). This early (Orthodox) church gathered together in Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and was guided in making decisions through consensus. The church of Rome decided to break away in AD 1054 and set their own Bishop up as the/a single ruler. I find it strange that you would accept this rebellion as OK and yet, 500 years later when the Reformers wished to break away from yourselves, you were obsessed and insane with rage over their behaviours - especially when most of it, at the time, centred around the corruptive practices of Rome.
@@clivejames5058As a cradle Catholic I'm okay with PROTESTants being PROTESTants. I just hate it when PROTESTants erroneously attack what they perceive to be Catholicism.
@@clivejames5058 I have put out a long standing challenge to Protestants and Orthodox, who say Peter merely shares same mission as the other apostles, to explain Matt 16:18 where Jesus gives Peter individually, the same power he would later give to all the apostles collectively in Matt 18:18, but in a much more authoritative and specific form, as well as the meaning of the exhortations in John 21:15 not to mention Lk 22:32. Needless to say I have yet to receive a cogent answer!
@@clivejames5058The early Church did not have 5 patriarchates, those came later. Originally there was Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Obviously they are important because they are Petrine, in a sense. Of all the Orthodox online, Fr. Patrick Ramsey deals with the Petrine nature of these three pretty well. Jerusalem came later as a patriarchate as well as Constantinople which, because of it’s pre-eminent status as the wealthiest and most civilly powerful of the Patriarchates was continually trying to replace Rome as the head see of the Church. Still, the pentarchy narrative makes sense in light of the Canons of the councils. But, it loses sight of the bigger picture.
@@achilles4242 Thank you for your informative reply. Still, one should not declare supreme authority over others, however many there are. Corruption runs deep in Rome. The result perhaps of not having others to temper their decisions. Certainly I would not say that the Holy Spirit is keeping error out of Rome. Pope Paul VIth had a point when he said "the smoke of Satan had entered the Church". I'm not, of course, speaking about the ordinary, faithful Catholic here.
You never mentioned that the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Christ as attested in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 16 where he gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone and the power to bind and to loose. And the reality that the Church is the continuation of his mission, see the Gospel of John chapter 20: "as the Father has sent me, so I send you". The schism with the Orthodox Church was caused among other things because Constantinople was the capital of Eastern Roman Empire so it claimed the same status as Rome
If you've never read "The Fathers know best" by Jimmy Akin, it's a really good book that goes into quite a few different objections to Catholicism that get rebutted with the writings of the early church fathers.
Papal infallibility was introduced in 1870 by the Pope himself.It has been controversial in rhe Catholic Church from the beginning.Few Catholics betit any more.That doctrine is ny main objection to being Catholic.
St Malachy's Prophecy of "Peter the Roman " reveals St Peter himself , the First come as the last, leading the Church in the spirit, The Faithful Church (off whom I be a witness) revealing Joels Prophecy to the Army of God, in the latter rain of the Spirit (not the Protestant NAR comedy) The fruit of the Redemption , them who constitue what the Bible calls "The Remnant seed of the woman" The Lamb itself the first, off the Enmity between the seed of the serpent & the woman resp, which are not preconcieved but in the making, who tend to the flock during the tribulations come from within & without, them behind administering the Blessed Scraments of the Alter, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, where there is no Catholic or Orthodox but Christian, for the followers of Christ were first called as Christians in Antioch,
im really struggling. everyday im fearing for my salvation because i cant discern whether to be catholic of orthodox. im only 14, and i dont know what to do. i dont know what to believe, and im terrified of standing before the throne of God and finding out i did something wrong. i struggle with catholics claiming they're the same as they've always been, while also having Vatican I and II, and adding doctrines like the filioque and the Marian Dogmas. but i also struggle with the lack of a pope in the orthodox church, but Orthodox is looking really good right now. im so scared God isnt happy with me and that ill go to hell. i need help. prayers and advice are very welcome.
Little sister, God is a loving father, he only wants you to show you his love through his Son, so that you may become one with him, and when you become one with Christ, you will be able to do God’s will, and the Holy Spirit will fill you with joy and enteral happiness. As a Catholic, I would love for you to become Catholic, but most importantly I want you to get the Holy Sacraments, that you will get in the Catholic or Orthodox Church. I think you are too little to be worrying yourself about this, and perhaps, you should pray, and see where the spirit of the Lord guides you. But, just because you are young it doesn’t mean you are not capable. So, if you want to find truth, find it yourself, read it! Don’t be biased by me or anyone else. I firmly believe that if you pray and study, you will find the truth (which is that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith). God bless you!!! And remember always God truly loves you.
Dear Elizabeth, first of all, let me assure you that you will not end up in hell if you mistakenly chose the wrong religion. God sees your genuine effort to identify and follow his will - a mistake on your part will not endanger your salvation. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28) I have book recommendations for you: czcams.com/video/p0Em3lwY18k/video.html czcams.com/video/ojVFflAu5so/video.html God bless you! I will pray for you! 🌹
9:55 Blessings of lgbt was not added to the deposit of faith since the death of the last apostle ? I don't know if I should laugh or feel ashame to listen to this video. I'm shocked in front of so much audacity. Shocked and speechless.
The fact that you are saying all of that demonstrates the high level of ignorance and prejudice that you have on the Catholic Church. If you are Orthodox, you shouldn’t be commenting on matters that don’t concern you, and if you are either Protestant or a nonbeliever, I’d tell the same thing. If you don’t know about a topic, don’t say anything. Be prudent.
With the publication of _Fiducia Supplicans,_ assessing the Pope’s claim to infallibility may shortly turn out to be an experimental matter. Mr Lofton is doing his PhD at an interesting time.
@@killianmiller6107 Actually I am not saying anything at all here. Other people are implying that, and a lot of them are bishops. The Pope appears to have rushed into this without a preliminary warning letter like _Deiparae Virginis Mariae._
I like Mr. Lofton, but I don't think he would like me. I have problems with the use of the word "couple" in the recent document causing a stir in the church. His open hostility toward his brothers and sisters has forced me to unsubscribe to him. I am not afraid of the arguments that there is nothing wrong with the document. I listen to them because I want them to be true, as much as my mind tells me it is confusing at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. At any rate, I think he should stick to the subjects like those in his book. We need to be united with other Christians if we are to fulfill Christ's prayer for us, to be one as he and the Father are one. Being able to give a gentle answer (please remember that, Mr. Lofton, when arguing about the above matter) is critical in calling others home to the Catholic Church, as I was last Easter. It is also important as we deal with one another so that we might stay together. After all, where else can we go? Great review as always, Miss Elizabeth. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" just means something like, if it's fair for me, it's fair for you. It's just more fun. God bless you in the new year. "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection." - Abraham Lincoln
He should continue doing what he does because he excels in his work. I also agree with his views on FS, including the term “couples.” In the current state of confusion, which I insist is brought about by people, not the document itself, he stands out as one of the few shedding light on these matters, bringing comfort, and fostering peace within the Catholic community. There's a reason he is one of the fastest-growing Catholic channels, if not the fastest, and around 95%, maybe more, of the comments on his channel express gratitude for his edifying thoughts. On the other hand, most dissenter Catholic CZcamsrs lack peace and exhibit extreme hostility, even those who were once known for their humility and holiness. That must signify something profound; it's almost as if holiness has departed from them (true to what has been said in certain papal documents).
I unsubscribed from his channel a couple of years ago, more or less. He's seems to have become a popesplainer, becoming a type of Gay Jay Liar Dyer for what might be called the Pop Catholic Church. With his so called jewish background, it occurred to me that maybe he's a mossod agent.
I've been trying to listen to him and give him a fair shake because there is so much crossover in viewers of his and other catholic channels and his followers mention him often. But I just can't stomach his holier than thou attitude, he comes off so pompous and condescending. Maybe if I try another video or two.....
Im an Orthodox who isn't inclined to the "normal" discourse between Catholics and Orthodox. However, I do have to question the issue of the papacy. Whilst I would agree that the church on earth does have a leader, and that leader was St. Peter. and by tradition Rome has taken on the mantle of the leadership of the Church. Amen, sure we can agree to this. But St. Peter and St. Paul never claimed infallibility EVEN IF I were to grant some form of universal jurisdiction, that say St. James and the others didn't seem to exercise. Therefore one cannot say that the current papacy is the papacy of the 1st millennium, but I would not take the Orthodox position either that it is purely honorific. Both these positions seem to be at odds with the ecclesiology of the 1st millennium.
So the reason for the infallibity doctrine is that if there weren't some sort of protection against the Pope demanding heresy, than the faithful might be put in an impossible position were they must choose between heresy and schism. The core of the doctrine on infallibity is "the faithful will never be put in such a position". Everything else is just trying to work out the implications of that
@@marvalice3455 that’s we had councils in the first millennium. And yes papal ratification was necessary for the infallibility of the councils. But the pope by virtue of his office wasn’t considered infallible.
@@EricAlHarb"Nemo dat quod non habet"! If you accept that the Pope, as the successor of Peter did have the responsibility of ratifying the decisions of the councils as commonly accepted then (linking that to the explicit conferment of the keys on his person in Matt 16:18 and the apostolic exhortations of Lk 23:32 and John 21:15 ) I think it's pretty illogical to then go ahead and argue that the infalliblity you presumably admit that the councils possess does not find expression in the office of Peter. How is it that the councils are infallible, but the one who ratifies them is not?
@@mandatumnovum7127 precisely, it’s the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the council that is infallible. Sure one could say that the chair has a special charism, let’s call it the charism of fraternal pastor . That this one bishop speaks with authority and must be appealed to as the final authority, but that bishops authority isn’t very different from what we would say the authority of the ecumenical patriarch is.
@@EricAlHarb So that's just what the Pope is. The ecumenical patriarch...for the whole church:) My point still remains though. Logically speaking, his arbitral authority can't be less than that of the body over which he arbitrated!
Just to point out another inconsistency /contradiction in the orthodox position. In response to those who point to a supposed equality between the early 'Patriarchates'. Where do the Patriarchs get the authority to preside over the bishops in their respective jurisdictions, which they claim, at same time, the Pope doesn't have over them.
Your presentation is very nice. Lofton's distinction between the visible head of the church and the invisible one is an attempt to create a distinction where none really exists (so as to justify the error of Papal Supremacy). We see nowhere in Scripture or in the early Church that Peter or the Bishop of Rome is spoken of as the "head of the church," and this is without even going into the question of Roman Catholic position of Papal Supremacy, which is that the Bishop of Rome has universal, unilateral authority and is infallible. On the contrary, when the apostles attempted to argue amongst themselves about who was greatest, Jesus repeatedly shut them down and told them to not think that way. The reality is that the rest of the Church has NEVER accepted Rome's claims of Papal Supremacy. Even Rome admits this now. Lofton attempts to counter this by claiming that the Orthodox USED to believe in Papal Supremacy. Strangely, he does this even though the various Orthodox AND Rome both say that he is incorrect. Lofton likes to beat the "Hormisdas drum" to try to justify his belief in infallibility. However, there is nothing about the formula that actually asserts infallibility to the Bishop of Rome -- only that Rome has generally been right in the past. Further, if it asserted infallibility, Lofton errs further by thinking that "X says Y is infallible" is proof that Y is infallible. Obviously, this is a rudimentary fallacy. Lofton's book is "beginner friendly" because Lofton's ideas and arguments are simplistic and generally fallacious. His points have been addressed in depth by various Orthodox and other scholars and apologists. Lofton simply ignores the factual corrections -- often blocking those who point them out --and drives forward in confidence.
Your comment is riddled with error, from one end to the other. Please read some actual Church history, not polemical trash like Michael Whelton. And Rome certainly does NOT "admit" any such thing. Why would we "admit" something so obviously false?
Nowhere Peter was recognized as the head of the Church!? You clearly never read the New Testament or somehow you surely skipped Matt 16:18, Lk 22:32, John 21:15 Acts 1:12-26 or Acts 2:13-
@@mandatumnovum7127, no, apparently you've never read them. In which of these passages does Jesus tell Peter (and the others) that Peter has unilateral, universal authority over the entire Church, is infallible, must be obeyed? Oh, right: Nowhere. Tell us this: When the apostles argued among themselves about who was the greatest, Jesus told them "Peter is your leader," right? Or did he tell them not to argue about such things or to think in that way? Why do you find it necessary to engage in deception to promote your faith?
@@dianekamer8341 wrote "Your comment is riddled with error, from one end to the other." Okay. Precisely what did I write that was false, and what is the truth? "Please read some actual Church history, not polemical trash like Michael Whelton." I don't know who Michael Whelton is. I don't think I've read him. However, I have read a lot of church history, hold graduate degrees in theology and philosophy, and have taught theology, philosophy, and history at the college level. I know it would be convenient to just assume that someone who has a belief that is different from your own is an idiot and unread, but that is not the case here. "And Rome certainly does NOT "admit" any such thing." It is interesting that you don't even know what your own church teaches, and simultaneously accuse others of being ignorant. Look up and read the Chieti document. In it, Rome admits that Papal Supremacy was never accepted by the other churches... which anyone who has actually read history (or is otherwise familiar with the Orthodox churches) knows.
@@philoalethia Can you please quote Chieti document about East never accepted papal supremacy? I cannot find anything like that in document, closest to it is that East do not adopted view that primacy of Rome is based on primacy of Peter among apostles.
What do you mean by that? We do not celebrate daily mass to pope, but to God. None of sacraments are about pope, they are about God. Our prayers are not adressed to pope, they are adressed to God. …
Lofton's book was horrid. I mean genuinely badly researched and badly written. Even then, he gets basic positions of Orthodoxy wrong. If you want a more robust view on Orthodoxy and its objections ask our apologists and clergy.
Catholicism is only words. We are Truth. We are the body of Christ. But the fact we are true is not convincing by itself. Otherwise the Lord would have emptied all hell during the resurrection. God created man with his free will and whatever how powerful he is he didn't make physically impossible to Adam the ancestor of Mankind to disobey him. In the same maneer I feel he let people thirsty of error to be satisfied of it,and at the same time let the ones hungry and thirsty of Truth to find him and to keep Him in the Temple of their Heart. It is not worthy to deny pigs their rights to eat and be full of shit. There is no partial adhesion to Christ as we don't partially baptise but in all. Authentic (syn of orthodox) christian Life is a daily Martyrdom. The kingdom of God is not obtained by deying others but by denying oneself. "Whoever wants to follow me take his cross"... . Truth is accessible. Especially now with Internet. It is accessible but not interesting for everybody. It is not appropriate to feed pigs with pearls. Our Lord and Master said it. In conclusion I would say the battlefield for our Martyrdom is inside our Heart. Let's search for Truth instead of trying out of superficiality to foolishly win arguments. Let's remember in this period approching Christmas what Saint Nicolas did to the impious Arius, and how Saint Spyridon which relics are reverred and make many miracles nowadays and you never hear about it, let's remember how did he answered the smarter and more educated than him philosophers. Being eloquent doesn't change facts Happy new year
Well the Orthodox no help whatsoever in the civilization of the West. Had to be the big, bad Catholics to do so. Will take the un-unified Orthodox 5000yrs to undo the wrongs of the Catholics. Bring the Sophia Haggia back to its rightful people; and don't rely on the Russian Orthodox to do so either.
If Jesus were here would he watch these videos or read these books? No, Jesus would be spreading love and tolerance and forgiveness and helping the poor.. We should be doing that, too. Remember Jesus?
I’d say looking out for other denominations and leading them to the truth is a form of love. And how do you know this CZcamsr isn’t doing those other pious things on their own time? There isn’t anything sinful about this video so there’s no need to act like there is.
Thank you so much! Great review!
You're welcome! Great book! 😊
Great video, I’m an Orthodox, I married a Catholic woman, and since Orthodox priests have more objections to Catholic traditions while Catholics are very welcoming to Orthodox Christians, we got married in nearby Catholic Church. Also since I’m white and my wife is black, and Catholics are more Universal while Orthodox now tend to be nationalists, I started reading more about Catholicism, now I’m thinking about conversion. This book seems very interesting for me. Thanks for the review!
You're welcome! The book might be helpful for your discernment!
The book Russia and the Universal church is also a great read.
The nationalism you reference I have heard others complain of. It reminds me of the history of The Great Schism-I remember having the impression that cultural pride played a roll in driving the split from Rome. Should it be any surprise to find elements of that same ethnocentrism alive and well today? But these are my private ruminations and I am not pretending to be an expert on the topic.
Does the orthodox church recognize your marriage?
@@allegedly6 Yes they do recognize it, but in order for my Catholic wife to be married in Orthodox church they have more requests regarding the paper work, while Catholics did not have any requests for me except the proof that I was baptised. Also both Churches ask from the wedding couple to not be against children being baptized in their Church.
I'm English (British) and 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander' is a well known metaphor.
Good to know!
As a native Englisher, I have heard it many times… and it has made me want to snicker every time
I think this idiom is more commonly quoted as, “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, which sounds better!
I think this idiom is more commonly quoted as, “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, which sounds better!
@@maikeirini4631 never heard it that way, fascinating! Sounds even stranger to me tbh 😅
Once again Thank you for this Elisabeth! Clearly there is much to unpack in Michael Lofton's book and you have done a good job doing this. I have only recently come across Mr. Lofton's book and your review have helped to make up my mind to buy it!
Also I hope you have a happy new year and are richly blessed in 2024.
Your channel is certainly a blessing and may it continue to be so!😀🙏
Thank you, God bless you too! Happy New Year! 💫🌷
Excellent review! Now I definitely want to check this book out.
💯
If the Orthodox claim that the RCC broke away from Othordoxy not vice versa, how does that make any sense based on the Orthodox ecclessiology where each Patriachate operates under its own authorithy? In other words, who determines what constitutes Orthodoxy and what confers on them the power to do that and declare another church at odds?
On the other hand the RCC position would be completely consistent under its own ecclesiology. Food for thought.
@@nathankirwan2565 Ok, in fact, at the time of the Great Schism, heresy wasn't the contention but authority.
But that aside, who decides who is heretical or not, and on what authority? How do we know that Rome isn't right and wouldn't whichever Patriarch(s) simply be playing 'Pope' by such a determination? The Orthodox position doesn't seem to be internally consistent.
@@nathankirwan2565 And who determines that there is a departure from Orthodox y by giving an authoritative interpretation? Btw I hope you can appreciate the impracticality of the highest authority in anything being synodal, where the members of the said synod are able to disagree with each other on what constitutes correct interpretation; as well as the logical inconsistentency on applying to a body of coordinate jurisdiction for adjudication. All this should be pretty obvious unless one is being casuist.
So, we are simply going around in circles, and though you may not realize it, you've just made excellent arguments for why a 'Pope' is needed.
However those who have a problem with the actual arrangement, can take it up with Christ (see Matt. 16:18 for e.g. as reference, noting that the particular authority was conferred earlier and much more emphatically than the general one in Matt 18:18 !)
@@nathankirwan2565 Surely unless one is simply being casuistic, the the logical inconsistentcy in claiming a synod can be the final arbiter of anything where members of same synod can (and almost always have) disagree on either substance or interpretation; much less in asserting than such a body can apply to another body of coordinate jurisdiction for adjudication, should be clear!
@@nathankirwan2565 'The Holy Spirit guides synod', yes, and yet they are often so fractious, what mechanism do you figure the Holy Spirit uses to resolve that? Who do you suppose guides the Pope? Recall that the particular authority was conferred in Matt 16:18 earlier and much more emphatically than the general one in Matt 18:18 for your answer.
The Council of Jerusalem is actually a great example of this, especially if you recall that the issue was settled by Peter's declaration, to which James appealed in demanding his followers get in line eventually, in Acts 15:13- !
@@nathankirwan2565 And that is exactly the point!
If he chairs the council then he presides over it! In this sense, only one of the apostles can have this gift as Matt 16 clearly states, and Acts amply demonstrates in his exercise of such an office. In particular, any such 'chairing' over any such body requires ajudicative powers which is the only context in which the apostolic exhortations by Jesus in Matt 16 and John 21 (among others) make any sense. The rest is just playing with semantics.
But I think we have both made our positions quite clear and only the Spirit can convict at this point. Shalom for the New Year!
Personally, them getting rid of purgatory by itself is heterodox. How, could they be Orthodox if they don't hold the same beliefs as the early church? That was the deal breaker in my discerning of what church I would belong to.
Mr. Lofton also adressed purgatory in his book btw!
Except purgatory was not the belief of the early church. The concept of purgatory appeared towards the end of the twelfth century. At the Second Council of Lyon in 1247 AD, the Eastern Orthodox opposed the notion that purgatory was a "third place" in the afterlife distinct from heaven and hell containing literal fire.
@@clivejames5058This is a blatantly false ahistorical assertion. When was 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 written? The Jewish teachers of Jesus time all believed in Purgatory. To pretend it was an invention of the 13th century is simply ridiculous.
Yes, Jews believe in purgatory, but they call it something different. As christianity is a derivative of Judaism, it follows that the early Church fathers believed it too. Can't understand why protestants object to this concept. They are always harping on about Catholics corrupting gods teachings , when it is they that are doing so
The Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is a third place (if it's a "place" it would be the entryway to Heaven) and it doesn't teach that there is literal fire either.
Gratulacje za sukces kanału. :) Temat ważny w kontekście tego co dzieję się w Rzymie.
Dziękuję!
I have Michael Lofton’s book. I’ve read several of the chapters and find them insightful and thorough. I think it’s an excellent book and a handy handbook to have on one’s bookshelf.
I just discovered this CZcams channel. I will have to explore it. Nice review by the way.
Welcome to my channel! 😊
@@BiblicalBookworm Thank you. I’ll post your link to my Goodreads Catholic Thought book club. I think some there would enjoy your channel.
@@virgil015 thank you!
@@BiblicalBookworm I posted it at the book club. I already got a positive comment on your episode of the book recommendations across the Catholic podcasters.
Fantastic video Elisabeth keep up the good work, your videos are a treat!
Thank you! 😊
Thank you for reviewing this book. I've been considering buying it and your input has helped me in my decision.
As I am lazy to read the book.. I appreciate your review.. Thank you Elizabeth..
You're welcome hahah
Thanks for the overview, very helpful. Received the book for Christmas and looking forward to reading it.
Glad it was helpful! 😊
According to the documents of the Church, Papal infallibility is proper for ex-cathedra teachings only in cases where there is no formal teaching only. When the Pope errs by teaching doctrines against the sensus fidei, the dogmas and the Bible, there is not infallibility. Salvete ex Columbia in América Meridionali.
I frequently use "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" - I don't know how formal it is. But I frequently use it when people push the boundaries of what should be legal to get things done and then pitch a fit when the other side use the same tactics against them. If it's good for you to use against others, it's good to use against you - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Thank you for the explanation! 😊
I see you saw Michael Lofton's promo of the book in your opening...😄👍🏼👍🏼Good one
🙃
Thanks Elizabeth! Love your videos! And, this was a well done review. You are really on top of things!
Haha what's good for the goose is good for the gander is just a saying that means what's good for one is good for the other. I suppose it's more common in the southern US.
Thank you for the kind comment! 😊
And thank you for the clarification!
Just found your channel. Its odd though that am now leaning more Orthodox because of the recent declarations of the Pope but i choosed to be Catholic because its the one true church. i may have my doubts but i will always stand with the church
Welcome to my channel!
Thank you my Sister in Christ! I am sorry for my mistake in disposition of the invitation "card" to Veritatis Missio which is about the present crisis of Christianity (which has been going on only ca seventeen hundred years)! Soon, very soon, Jesus willing!
“as deepe drinketh the Goose as the Gander” from way back in 1579 by John Lyly - "Euphues and his England"
Good Job Elizabeth! Holy Family & Christmas Season Blessings!
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
God bless you too! 😊
Hello Elizabeth! I'm from India, and I've heard the expression "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Thank you for sharing!
You said in this video (timestamp 9:22), “Catholics believe that doctrine revealed by God, or doctrine intimately related to revealed doctrine, may develop over time but it cannot evolve, change, or be corrupted.” Your sentence itself seems to contradict itself. If doctrine is “developing” over time, isn’t that in some way, “evolving”? Doctrine can evolve and develop without changing.
The principle of doctrinal development in Catholicism allows for the Church's understanding of its teachings to evolve and develop over time while still preserving the core truths of the faith. Some examples of this are Original Sin, the Trinity and the doctrine of Purgatory, the Eucharist, Canon of Scripture, religious liberty, social justice, and the role of women in the Church and society, but to name a few.
In spanish we said something similar to 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander', 'Lo que es bueno para el pavo es bueno para la pava'
No lo sabía, ¡gracias! 🙏😊
@@BiblicalBookworm no esperaba que respondieras en español! Que genail!
Why invisible head of the Church ? As he is alive ?
If you don't believe it you're just not Christian. Period.
I'm orthodox
Convert from PROTEST-antism or cradle Orthodox?
What has being invisible got to do with being or not being alive though? Not sure I get your point.
@@essafats5728 What do you mean? Protestants and the "Orthodox" are the same breed.
@@TheMacDonald22 wat? LOL...dude, seriously?
@@essafats5728 I mean obviously. The orthodox protested against Rome, therefore they're Protestants. I'll give em credit because they're more traditional protestants with valid sacraments, but Protestants nonetheless.
Their obsession with Papal infallibility is insane. Its limited to the teaching of the doctrine of faith. Otherwise the Pope would be God or a demi-god. The felloque heresy is another non issue in that most diaconates can to choose to either follow the nicene or apostalic creed.
As you will appreciate, Orthodoxy does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, nor of any other individual because the early church consisted of 5 patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome and Jerusalem). This early (Orthodox) church gathered together in Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and was guided in making decisions through consensus. The church of Rome decided to break away in AD 1054 and set their own Bishop up as the/a single ruler. I find it strange that you would accept this rebellion as OK and yet, 500 years later when the Reformers wished to break away from yourselves, you were obsessed and insane with rage over their behaviours - especially when most of it, at the time, centred around the corruptive practices of Rome.
@@clivejames5058As a cradle Catholic I'm okay with PROTESTants being PROTESTants. I just hate it when PROTESTants erroneously attack what they perceive to be Catholicism.
@@clivejames5058 I have put out a long standing challenge to Protestants and Orthodox, who say Peter merely shares same mission as the other apostles, to explain Matt 16:18 where Jesus gives Peter individually, the same power he would later give to all the apostles collectively in Matt 18:18, but in a much more authoritative and specific form, as well as the meaning of the exhortations in John 21:15 not to mention Lk 22:32.
Needless to say I have yet to receive a cogent answer!
@@clivejames5058The early Church did not have 5 patriarchates, those came later. Originally there was Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Obviously they are important because they are Petrine, in a sense. Of all the Orthodox online, Fr. Patrick Ramsey deals with the Petrine nature of these three pretty well.
Jerusalem came later as a patriarchate as well as Constantinople which, because of it’s pre-eminent status as the wealthiest and most civilly powerful of the Patriarchates was continually trying to replace Rome as the head see of the Church.
Still, the pentarchy narrative makes sense in light of the Canons of the councils. But, it loses sight of the bigger picture.
@@achilles4242 Thank you for your informative reply. Still, one should not declare supreme authority over others, however many there are. Corruption runs deep in Rome. The result perhaps of not having others to temper their decisions. Certainly I would not say that the Holy Spirit is keeping error out of Rome. Pope Paul VIth had a point when he said "the smoke of Satan had entered the Church". I'm not, of course, speaking about the ordinary, faithful Catholic here.
You sold me on the book and the channel.
😊
Good for the gander is normal speech in America at least, I'm not sure about other regions. I can see how it might sound funny though. Lol
Good too know hahah!
@@BiblicalBookwormJust curious, what is your native tongue? Judging by accent, sounds Central or Eastern European, to me anyway.
The accent you hear is probably German. My native tongues are German, Polish and Ukrainian
@@BiblicalBookworm Nice.
Matt16:18-19 it doesn't get any clearer.
You never mentioned that the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Christ as attested in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 16 where he gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone and the power to bind and to loose. And the reality that the Church is the continuation of his mission, see the Gospel of John chapter 20: "as the Father has sent me, so I send you".
The schism with the Orthodox Church was caused among other things because Constantinople was the capital of Eastern Roman Empire so it claimed the same status as Rome
"What is good for the goose is good for the gander" is comical to my ear, note I do live in the USA. The saying is used frequently by my elders.
Thank you for the explanation!
" Thank you. " ~ Monk Antony
You're welcome! 🙏😊
I love books i have been reading how science and religion are in unity with eachother do you have any sugestions.
If you've never read "The Fathers know best" by Jimmy Akin, it's a really good book that goes into quite a few different objections to Catholicism that get rebutted with the writings of the early church fathers.
@@TheMacDonald22thanks
I reviewed the book "Believing is Seeing" on my channel, that one might be interesting for you 😊
@@BiblicalBookworm thanks
Papal infallibility was introduced in 1870 by the Pope himself.It has been controversial in rhe Catholic Church from the beginning.Few Catholics betit any more.That doctrine is ny main objection to being Catholic.
St Malachy's Prophecy of "Peter the Roman " reveals St Peter himself , the First come as the last, leading the Church in the spirit, The Faithful Church (off whom I be a witness) revealing Joels Prophecy to the Army of God, in the latter rain of the Spirit (not the Protestant NAR comedy) The fruit of the Redemption , them who constitue what the Bible calls "The Remnant seed of the woman" The Lamb itself the first, off the Enmity between the seed of the serpent & the woman resp, which are not preconcieved but in the making, who tend to the flock during the tribulations come from within & without, them behind administering the Blessed Scraments of the Alter, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, where there is no Catholic or Orthodox but Christian, for the followers of Christ were first called as Christians in Antioch,
Good for the goose is good for the gander is a dated idiom but I think we’re used to it.
Thank you for the explanation, Jeff!
There is only one definition of "church" and it is found in the Bible 🤷🏿♀️
The Goose/gander phrase is a colloquialism and is not formal English
Thank you for the clarification, Jacob!
im really struggling. everyday im fearing for my salvation because i cant discern whether to be catholic of orthodox. im only 14, and i dont know what to do. i dont know what to believe, and im terrified of standing before the throne of God and finding out i did something wrong. i struggle with catholics claiming they're the same as they've always been, while also having Vatican I and II, and adding doctrines like the filioque and the Marian Dogmas. but i also struggle with the lack of a pope in the orthodox church, but Orthodox is looking really good right now. im so scared God isnt happy with me and that ill go to hell. i need help. prayers and advice are very welcome.
Submit to Rome, the real Church of Christ.
Orthodoxy is orthodox, Catholicism stands or falls on one bishop, we stand by the Holy Spirit.
Little sister, God is a loving father, he only wants you to show you his love through his Son, so that you may become one with him, and when you become one with Christ, you will be able to do God’s will, and the Holy Spirit will fill you with joy and enteral happiness.
As a Catholic, I would love for you to become Catholic, but most importantly I want you to get the Holy Sacraments, that you will get in the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
I think you are too little to be worrying yourself about this, and perhaps, you should pray, and see where the spirit of the Lord guides you.
But, just because you are young it doesn’t mean you are not capable. So, if you want to find truth, find it yourself, read it! Don’t be biased by me or anyone else. I firmly believe that if you pray and study, you will find the truth (which is that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith). God bless you!!!
And remember always God truly loves you.
Dear Elizabeth,
first of all, let me assure you that you will not end up in hell if you mistakenly chose the wrong religion. God sees your genuine effort to identify and follow his will - a mistake on your part will not endanger your salvation.
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)
I have book recommendations for you:
czcams.com/video/p0Em3lwY18k/video.html
czcams.com/video/ojVFflAu5so/video.html
God bless you! I will pray for you! 🌹
@@luisrios3446 really good answer.
9:55 Blessings of lgbt was not added to the deposit of faith since the death of the last apostle ?
I don't know if I should laugh or feel ashame to listen to this video. I'm shocked in front of so much audacity. Shocked and speechless.
Did you read the document? Or did you just read the news headlines.
The fact that you are saying all of that demonstrates the high level of ignorance and prejudice that you have on the Catholic Church. If you are Orthodox, you shouldn’t be commenting on matters that don’t concern you, and if you are either Protestant or a nonbeliever, I’d tell the same thing. If you don’t know about a topic, don’t say anything. Be prudent.
Wow ❤
Does not the Prince come by the east gate?
With the publication of _Fiducia Supplicans,_ assessing the Pope’s claim to infallibility may shortly turn out to be an experimental matter. Mr Lofton is doing his PhD at an interesting time.
Are you saying that FS changes church teaching?
@@killianmiller6107 Actually I am not saying anything at all here. Other people are implying that, and a lot of them are bishops. The Pope appears to have rushed into this without a preliminary warning letter like _Deiparae Virginis Mariae._
I like Mr. Lofton, but I don't think he would like me. I have problems with the use of the word "couple" in the recent document causing a stir in the church. His open hostility toward his brothers and sisters has forced me to unsubscribe to him. I am not afraid of the arguments that there is nothing wrong with the document. I listen to them because I want them to be true, as much as my mind tells me it is confusing at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. At any rate, I think he should stick to the subjects like those in his book. We need to be united with other Christians if we are to fulfill Christ's prayer for us, to be one as he and the Father are one. Being able to give a gentle answer (please remember that, Mr. Lofton, when arguing about the above matter) is critical in calling others home to the Catholic Church, as I was last Easter. It is also important as we deal with one another so that we might stay together. After all, where else can we go?
Great review as always, Miss Elizabeth. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" just means something like, if it's fair for me, it's fair for you. It's just more fun. God bless you in the new year.
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection." - Abraham Lincoln
He should continue doing what he does because he excels in his work. I also agree with his views on FS, including the term “couples.” In the current state of confusion, which I insist is brought about by people, not the document itself, he stands out as one of the few shedding light on these matters, bringing comfort, and fostering peace within the Catholic community. There's a reason he is one of the fastest-growing Catholic channels, if not the fastest, and around 95%, maybe more, of the comments on his channel express gratitude for his edifying thoughts. On the other hand, most dissenter Catholic CZcamsrs lack peace and exhibit extreme hostility, even those who were once known for their humility and holiness. That must signify something profound; it's almost as if holiness has departed from them (true to what has been said in certain papal documents).
I unsubscribed from his channel a couple of years ago, more or less.
He's seems to have become a popesplainer, becoming a type of Gay Jay Liar Dyer for what might be called the Pop Catholic Church.
With his so called jewish background, it occurred to me that maybe he's a mossod agent.
I've been trying to listen to him and give him a fair shake because there is so much crossover in viewers of his and other catholic channels and his followers mention him often.
But I just can't stomach his holier than thou attitude, he comes off so pompous and condescending. Maybe if I try another video or two.....
that is what I thought at first too. After watching a lot more videos I don’t think that.
Im an Orthodox who isn't inclined to the "normal" discourse between Catholics and Orthodox. However, I do have to question the issue of the papacy. Whilst I would agree that the church on earth does have a leader, and that leader was St. Peter. and by tradition Rome has taken on the mantle of the leadership of the Church. Amen, sure we can agree to this. But St. Peter and St. Paul never claimed infallibility EVEN IF I were to grant some form of universal jurisdiction, that say St. James and the others didn't seem to exercise. Therefore one cannot say that the current papacy is the papacy of the 1st millennium, but I would not take the Orthodox position either that it is purely honorific. Both these positions seem to be at odds with the ecclesiology of the 1st millennium.
So the reason for the infallibity doctrine is that if there weren't some sort of protection against the Pope demanding heresy, than the faithful might be put in an impossible position were they must choose between heresy and schism. The core of the doctrine on infallibity is "the faithful will never be put in such a position". Everything else is just trying to work out the implications of that
@@marvalice3455 that’s we had councils in the first millennium. And yes papal ratification was necessary for the infallibility of the councils. But the pope by virtue of his office wasn’t considered infallible.
@@EricAlHarb"Nemo dat quod non habet"! If you accept that the Pope, as the successor of Peter did have the responsibility of ratifying the decisions of the councils as commonly accepted then (linking that to the explicit conferment of the keys on his person in Matt 16:18 and the apostolic exhortations of Lk 23:32 and John 21:15 ) I think it's pretty illogical to then go ahead and argue that the infalliblity you presumably admit that the councils possess does not find expression in the office of Peter. How is it that the councils are infallible, but the one who ratifies them is not?
@@mandatumnovum7127 precisely, it’s the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the council that is infallible. Sure one could say that the chair has a special charism, let’s call it the charism of fraternal pastor . That this one bishop speaks with authority and must be appealed to as the final authority, but that bishops authority isn’t very different from what we would say the authority of the ecumenical patriarch is.
@@EricAlHarb So that's just what the Pope is. The ecumenical patriarch...for the whole church:) My point still remains though. Logically speaking, his arbitral authority can't be less than that of the body over which he arbitrated!
No z bookworm'a robi się powoli ładny motylek.
😂
Just to point out another inconsistency /contradiction in the orthodox position. In response to those who point to a supposed equality between the early 'Patriarchates'. Where do the Patriarchs get the authority to preside over the bishops in their respective jurisdictions, which they claim, at same time, the Pope doesn't have over them.
Thats no contradiction.
Your presentation is very nice.
Lofton's distinction between the visible head of the church and the invisible one is an attempt to create a distinction where none really exists (so as to justify the error of Papal Supremacy). We see nowhere in Scripture or in the early Church that Peter or the Bishop of Rome is spoken of as the "head of the church," and this is without even going into the question of Roman Catholic position of Papal Supremacy, which is that the Bishop of Rome has universal, unilateral authority and is infallible. On the contrary, when the apostles attempted to argue amongst themselves about who was greatest, Jesus repeatedly shut them down and told them to not think that way.
The reality is that the rest of the Church has NEVER accepted Rome's claims of Papal Supremacy. Even Rome admits this now. Lofton attempts to counter this by claiming that the Orthodox USED to believe in Papal Supremacy. Strangely, he does this even though the various Orthodox AND Rome both say that he is incorrect.
Lofton likes to beat the "Hormisdas drum" to try to justify his belief in infallibility. However, there is nothing about the formula that actually asserts infallibility to the Bishop of Rome -- only that Rome has generally been right in the past. Further, if it asserted infallibility, Lofton errs further by thinking that "X says Y is infallible" is proof that Y is infallible. Obviously, this is a rudimentary fallacy.
Lofton's book is "beginner friendly" because Lofton's ideas and arguments are simplistic and generally fallacious. His points have been addressed in depth by various Orthodox and other scholars and apologists. Lofton simply ignores the factual corrections -- often blocking those who point them out --and drives forward in confidence.
Your comment is riddled with error, from one end to the other. Please read some actual Church history, not polemical trash like Michael Whelton.
And Rome certainly does NOT "admit" any such thing. Why would we "admit" something so obviously false?
Nowhere Peter was recognized as the head of the Church!?
You clearly never read the New Testament or somehow you surely skipped Matt 16:18, Lk 22:32, John 21:15 Acts 1:12-26 or Acts 2:13-
@@mandatumnovum7127, no, apparently you've never read them.
In which of these passages does Jesus tell Peter (and the others) that Peter has unilateral, universal authority over the entire Church, is infallible, must be obeyed?
Oh, right: Nowhere.
Tell us this: When the apostles argued among themselves about who was the greatest, Jesus told them "Peter is your leader," right? Or did he tell them not to argue about such things or to think in that way?
Why do you find it necessary to engage in deception to promote your faith?
@@dianekamer8341 wrote "Your comment is riddled with error, from one end to the other."
Okay. Precisely what did I write that was false, and what is the truth?
"Please read some actual Church history, not polemical trash like Michael Whelton."
I don't know who Michael Whelton is. I don't think I've read him. However, I have read a lot of church history, hold graduate degrees in theology and philosophy, and have taught theology, philosophy, and history at the college level. I know it would be convenient to just assume that someone who has a belief that is different from your own is an idiot and unread, but that is not the case here.
"And Rome certainly does NOT "admit" any such thing."
It is interesting that you don't even know what your own church teaches, and simultaneously accuse others of being ignorant. Look up and read the Chieti document. In it, Rome admits that Papal Supremacy was never accepted by the other churches... which anyone who has actually read history (or is otherwise familiar with the Orthodox churches) knows.
@@philoalethia Can you please quote Chieti document about East never accepted papal supremacy? I cannot find anything like that in document, closest to it is that East do not adopted view that primacy of Rome is based on primacy of Peter among apostles.
Lofton lol
Hormisdas would be pronounced, "Hor-Meez-Doss".
Thanks! What language is that?
I like her already. Cute too. 😊
Belo Horizonte Brasil 👏👏🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Bem-vindo ao meu canal! 😊
9:02 All your religion is about the pope. Our us about Goď
What do you mean by that? We do not celebrate daily mass to pope, but to God. None of sacraments are about pope, they are about God. Our prayers are not adressed to pope, they are adressed to God. …
I think your INSANE. I paid the price for the RC.....and YES....I DO HAVE OBJECTIONS.
Michael Lofton is a joke.
Lofton's book was horrid. I mean genuinely badly researched and badly written.
Even then, he gets basic positions of Orthodoxy wrong.
If you want a more robust view on Orthodoxy and its objections ask our apologists and clergy.
Any particular passages you'd like to point out?
Catholicism is only words. We are Truth. We are the body of Christ.
But the fact we are true is not convincing by itself. Otherwise the Lord would have emptied all hell during the resurrection. God created man with his free will and whatever how powerful he is he didn't make physically impossible to Adam the ancestor of Mankind to disobey him. In the same maneer I feel he let people thirsty of error to be satisfied of it,and at the same time let the ones hungry and thirsty of Truth to find him and to keep Him in the Temple of their Heart.
It is not worthy to deny pigs their rights to eat and be full of shit.
There is no partial adhesion to Christ as we don't partially baptise but in all. Authentic (syn of orthodox) christian Life is a daily Martyrdom. The kingdom of God is not obtained by deying others but by denying oneself. "Whoever wants to follow me take his cross"... .
Truth is accessible. Especially now with Internet. It is accessible but not interesting for everybody. It is not appropriate to feed pigs with pearls. Our Lord and Master said it.
In conclusion I would say the battlefield for our Martyrdom is inside our Heart. Let's search for Truth instead of trying out of superficiality to foolishly win arguments. Let's remember in this period approching Christmas what Saint Nicolas did to the impious Arius, and how Saint Spyridon which relics are reverred and make many miracles nowadays and you never hear about it, let's remember how did he answered the smarter and more educated than him philosophers. Being eloquent doesn't change facts
Happy new year
Well the Orthodox no help whatsoever in the civilization of the West. Had to be the big, bad Catholics to do so. Will take the un-unified Orthodox 5000yrs to undo the wrongs of the Catholics. Bring the Sophia Haggia back to its rightful people; and don't rely on the Russian Orthodox to do so either.
Bad book
If Jesus were here would he watch these videos or read these books? No, Jesus would be spreading love and tolerance and forgiveness and helping the poor.. We should be doing that, too. Remember Jesus?
I’d say looking out for other denominations and leading them to the truth is a form of love. And how do you know this CZcamsr isn’t doing those other pious things on their own time? There isn’t anything sinful about this video so there’s no need to act like there is.