History of Christianity 6: Schism and the Seeds of Schism

[HailMaryAdvent]

Our friend here has already (or will soon) discover the truth. All of those who separated themselves from the Church (schisms) are now showing signs of dying just like branches cut off from the living vine (Christ). Modern schismatics have little in common with their own historical beliefs- embracing things no Christian of any name would accept 100 years ago (homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc,). Christians are realizing this and heading home to Rome. I am blessed to be one of them.

[HailMaryAdvent]

mismindles: After reading davidpwithun's responses on this page, I'd wager he is preparing a new video entitled "Crossing the Tiber" (i.e. joining the Catholic Church). As GK Chesterton once said (paraphrase): Once you stop fighting the Church and begin defending Her, you soon find yourself loving Her. Christ Himself instituted the Church, The gates of Hell are being broken down.

[mismindles]

Where is part 7 and higher. I watched till this point and don't see any videos after this. I see you have a ton of videos, but I would like to know what is next in the series.

[yadsik]

Quite happy you praised the Celtic church so much, my ancestor, Niall Noígíallach, is often attributed as his kidnapper, unknowingly bringing Christianity to Ireland.

[pandirasbox]

Christotokos is also incorrect though.

[pandirasbox]

That's too bad the laity rallied against him because Nestorius was correct. All believers are theotokos according to our buddy Ignatius. :P Mary is the mother of Jesus, not of Christ.

[JohnTheHutDweller]

fantastic video

[1Femme1Stud]

Great video!



[bolivarcortezfarfan]

Good Job!

[76BlueLions]

@edominique01 The Gospel of John 1:1 and also The book of Acts 2:38, Genesis chapter 18. You need to read the bible more often to be more educated in the faith of Christianity. I really have the most hatred for ignorant retards that can't think for them selves. I hope you can start to read a little more often to increase your level of reasoning beyond your ridiculous state of laziness in comfortably ignorant, please make eforts to improve your reasoning.

[ultimouomo11]

Clement of Alexandria A.D. 20], Tertullian A.D. 220 , Clement A.D. 221, Origen A.D. 248. Cyprian of Carthage A.D. 251, Cyril of Jerusalem A.D. 350, Ephraim the Syrian A.D. 351, Ambrose of Milan A.D. 379, Jerome A.D. 396, Augustine A.D. 411, Iraneus A.D. 189, Eusebius of Caesarea A.D. 312, Peter Chrysologus Council of Ephesus A.D. 431., Council of Chalcedon...all confirm and testify to the primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church.

[netmarketingreview]

@ultimouomo11 "[I]f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4, Council of Sardica). [St. Athanasius of Alexandria was present in the council of Sardica and he didn't even protest against Roman supremacy]

[vasilyjc1955]

@ultimouomo11 The Orthodox do not deny that Peter or Rome hold no primacy. What the Orthodox disagree on is papal universal authority and infallibility.

[GutsBrandedSwordsman]

Nestorius was right, and Jesus was the Son, who was subject to the will of the Father. The terms imply as such, and their are countless examples of it. Mary is not the Mother of God the Father, and is not divine in any way. She was the vessel that the Divine Son of God, who was begotton, or conceived, by the Father. But Mary is not divine, and contributes only to Jesus's human genetic nature's makeup, not his divine spiritual nature. So I side with Nestorius, it's too bad he lost to Cyril.

[mitomke]

is it not obvious that nestorius was correct? How could Mary be the mother of God, the creator. It is a ridiculous idea to call mary the mother of God. That is why I am no longer a catholic. protestants are right in saying that mary is the mother of jesus not God. the catholic church is responsible for all sorts of dogma that has nothing to do with the scriptures Jesus read from. Such as original sin, the immaculate conception and transubstantiation, these doctrines are pagan beliefs.

[davidpwithun]

@mitomke A few points here: 1. While I don't believe in original sin, the immaculate conception, or transubstantiation, these beliefs are not of pagan origin. Let's at least be honest here and refrain from slander and lies. 2. Most Protestants call Mary "Mother of God." It is a relatively small minority who do not. 3. It is actually rather obvious that Nestorius was wrong. Mary is Jesus's mother. Jesus is God. Mary must be the Mother of God. Anything else compromises his divinity.

[mitomke]

@davidpwithun If Mary is the mother of God then she existed before God which mean she is the Queen of Heaven and created the Universe. Yeshua was filled with the Spirit of God so he had the power of God through his father. But he was not God himself as he stated many times, he had no authority but what was given him by the father God. Yeshua died to save his friends and his faith but he was raised by the Father. If Yeshua is the Word he is not God but the breath of God not the same thing.

[davidpwithun]

@mitomke I don't see any point in discussing this with you further as you are not even a Christian. The Scriptures and the history of the Church are both univocal in their proclamation that Jesus is God. ALL Christians -- whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant -- believe that Jesus is God. Even Nestorius believed that Jesus is God. You don't seem to understand that, the Trinity, or what is meant by the term "Theotokos." I suggest you do some study before you continue to speak like this.

[mitomke]

@davidpwithun what you believe in is BS fed by you by "theologians". there is no mention of the Trinity in scriptures. It is made up by theologian anti Christs as Yeshua said would come after him. What you need to do is follow the 2 commandments of Yeshua. It is very simple and does not take any extra dogma. Theotokos is BS like all the other antichrist dogma.

[davidpwithun]

@mitomke I don't put up with disrespect, insults, and vulgar language. Your comments here have done a wonderful job of showing how far you are from our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. Any further such comments from you will be deleted and you will be banned from my videos. I pray that you will do the research, pray, and finally come to a knowledge of the truth. Until then, thanks for your interest and good bye.

[mitomke]

@davidpwithun You take right after "saint" cyril the butcher,and his followersof the antichrist.

[aplacetotalkatgmail]

@davidpwithun @mitomke I know I am five months late into this conversation, but I'd really like to talk to both of you about this. David, I too believe Jesus is God. Mitomke, I too recognize Jesus as the Word of God as Scripture says. David, I don't want to be disrespectful to either of you but don't you realize that you threw the first unkind punch when you told mitomke that he wasn't a Christian? Essentially you told him that he was going to hell and that you didn't care.

[propheticman]

@mitomke Nobody can know the Father, who God is, nor what God's Divine Nature is like, and what God requires of all of us unless they look at King Jesus, the Messiah, in whom all the fullness of the deity (father, And Holy Spirit) indwells and speaks through, not Moses, nor any other human sinner needing a Saviour, Healer, Deliverer,..who will be called wonderful, Consellor, Everlasting Father, Almighty God, Emmanuelle, God with us, (Is. 7, Is9, ) whom ALL power and authority has been given to

[propheticman]

@davidpwithun Mary was and is a sinful fallen human being who needs King Jesus to be her Teacher, Good Shepherd, Healer, Deliverer, and Judge, and whom will ultimately need King Jesus to raise her from the dead, fill with the Life-Giving Holy Spirit ("living water")..give her eternal life in God's Holy Presence and Kingdom for eternity...like all of us..but yes, it is hard to find a Virgin, nowadays, at the age she was, ..none in this era could be trusted by God to physically birth the Messiah.

[propheticman]

@mitomke God is a Spirit, it says in the scriptures..Mary did not birth any spirit, so she is not Mother of God, but God's (Holy) Spirit indwelled the Physical body of the Messiah, Christ Jesus, ..The Fullnesss of God indwelled, and fully spoke and worked through King Jesus, who is fully AT ONE with The Heavenly Father, and the Holy Spirit... no human could do that, due to sin

[76BlueLions]

@mitomke Mike the Protostant chuch does belive that MAry is the Mother of God. The Protostants argue over the ever virgin assumtion of Mary is all. To be a Christian you must belive that Jesus is God.

[mitomke]

is it not obvious that nestorius was correct? How could Mary be the mother of God, the creator. It is a ridiculous idea to call mary the mother of God. That is why I am no longer a catholic. protestants are right in saying that mary is the mother of jesus not God.

[mnbctogether]

Thank you very much for these informative Vids and listing those suggested readings in the summary sections. It gave me a nice basis to work from in doing some personal research in religious history. Again thank you for taking the time to put these up and I look forward to any new ones you may have in the future.

[Reazzurro90]

Do you consider Western Rite Orthodoxy as legitimate? Many Orthodox seem to oppose it.

[vasilyjc1955]

@Reazzurro90 Some Orthodox consider it a form of "uniatism". The Antiochian Orthodox Church has a Western Rite Vicariate. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has recently received a Western Rite jurisdiction. There are a number of Western Rite Orthodox, but are independent churches.

[Reazzurro90]

@vasilyjc1955

Why would it be a form of uniatism? It's not like they're compromising religious doctrine, right?

[vasilyjc1955]

@Reazzurro90 Some Orthodox would consider it similar to the Eastern Rite Catholics, even though the Western Rite Orthodox would not be under the Pope. I personally do not agree with this analogy.

[Reazzurro90]

@vasilyjc1955

But if theologically they are consistent to what the Orthodox Church holds, then I don't really see the problem?

I'm not Orthodox so I don't really see the big deal.

[vasilyjc1955]

@Reazzurro90 I agree.

[topheronline]

why didn't the video explain about the famous "tome of Pope Leo the great"?? This Tome of Leo is so important in the council of Chalcedon...

[davidpwithun]

@topheronline There's a lot more than I would have liked to put in here, but there's only so much that time and viewers' attention spans allow for; this entire series is a very condensed telling of early Christian history. As I do more videos later on, I plan to expand on some of the topics I covered here.

[OrthodoxVideos]

Nestorius was condemned by the pope at the synod of Rome before the Council of Ephesus. He gave Nestorius ten days to repent of the heresy, but he didn't. Saint Hypatius broke communion with Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus condemned him.

[Leobrigada]

St Cyrill was orthodox, and refuted miaphysism and the anti-chalcedon heretics. They based their schism on only one sentence of St Cyrill, that they do not even understand. In his Letter to John of Antioch he explained clearly his Christological position. St Leo is a hero. Amen! A great book on this issue is : "St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts " by John Anthony McGuckin

[drakeshelton]

You didn't even touch my arguments.

[drakeshelton]

So where then is the source of sin? Well, according to Athanasius and Cyril it is in man's material body and this is the true barrier between him and God. Another major difficulty with making “being” or ontology the primary emphasis of redemption is that the concept itself is ambiguous. Dreams "are', right? They 'are" therefore they have "being", right? So are dreams real? I suppose this system must say so.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton Perhaps you should try dropping the straw-man arguments. You're not going to sucker me back in. Your comments here demonstrate why I discontinued my previous contact with you: because you are incapable of engaging opposing positions in an honest manner.

[drakeshelton]

Cyril's statement is even more disgusting. In his Letter to The Monks, para.25 Cyril says, "But then, as life, he destroyed death, refusing to suffer anything contrary to his own nature, and he did this so that corruption should be weakened in the bodies of all, and so that the dominion of death should be destroyed." (McGuckin 219, St. Cyril and the Christological Controversy)

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton How is that "disgusting"?

[drakeshelton]

Gnosticism:

Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 10

On the other hand, if a man from the atmosphere of material indulgences has the weakness of passion spreading like a film over the keen vision of his soul, all force of expression will be wasted upon him...he sees it as fully as a mortal can see who has quitted his fleshly envelopments and entered, by the mere power of thought, upon the contemplation of the spiritual and intellectual world

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton No, that's Origenism. And Gregory moved away from it significantly later in his life.

[drakeshelton]

@davidpwithun

As long as you see the movement toward that in this system i am content. This exact same model is where Origen got his Allegorical interp of scripture. This idea of a lower and higher world. These ideas are rooted in this system. So earlier when you said, "Perhaps you should try dropping the straw-man arguments." They really were not straw men after all.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton There's no doubt that the Cappadocian Fathers, and especially St. Gregory of Nyssa, were heavily influenced by Origen, at least in their earlier writings -- though they all tended to move away from him later in life. Of course, that presents more of a problem for you than it does for me as you hold yourself out to be a "Christian Platonist" -- Christian Platonism (ie Origenism) being at the same time the school of thought you attempt to attribute to me and reject.

[drakeshelton]

The view of redemption that the hypostatic system produces is inherently Gnostic. Aulen says, "Athanasius does, in fact, regard sin as not merely the cause of the corruption from which men need to be saved, but as being identical with it." He makes it plain: sin is material corruption. Cyril taught that man needs an "ontological rescue" (McGuckin, 225). Therefore, what is the barrier between man and God on the Eastern view? Man's mortal and material reality.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton Are you trying to imply that St. Athanasius was a Gnostic? That's a laugh. Charges of Gnosticism ring rather hollow when coming from a self-scribed "Christian Platonist." What was Gnosticism? Oh yeah, Christian Platonism -- good job.

[drakeshelton]

@davidpwithun

First you dont have a clue how I am using the term Platonist so give it a rest Dave you and Jnorm have said this a couple times and you aren't even in the same ballark on that accusation. Way to answer the argument Dave, brilliant response.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton I would assume that you are using the typical dictionary definition of the word -- otherwise you might want to try using a different word. If you don't mean "Platonist" when you say "Platonist" you shouldn't say "Platonist"

[drakeshelton]

Can you define the difference between one single nature and one ontological reality?

Man's problem is not guilt and original sin its lower ontology.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton I have no idea what you're talking about.

[drakeshelton]

@davidpwithun

That is what it means to hypostatize something. It becomes one singular ontological reality. You say you deny Eutychus but accept hypostatic union. Distinguish one nature from one singular ontological reality.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton It's called Chalcedon. :)

[boondox00]

@drakeshelton

What does no confusion, change, or mixture mean to you?

[drakeshelton]

I don't think you gave a complete view here. You didn't mention the politics behind this condmenation. The construction of Chalcedon is an inconsistent compromise between Nestorius' strongest arguments and Cyril's. Nestorius is downed because Church politics demanded the threat of Constantinople be removed by Pope Celestine. It was Rome vs. Constantinople not just Nestorius vs. Cyril.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton Clearly I didn't go into every little detail. I covered a hundred years of history in approximately 6 minutes. There are many things I would have liked to talk about but did not. The Christological controversies had little to do with Rome, and much more to do with the tension between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools -- and their vying against each other for dominance of the imperial seat in Constantinople.

[drakeshelton]

@davidpwithun

"The Christological controversies had little to do with Rome,"

Assertion.

Read Stephen Ulrich's Lynching of Nestorius. Cyril was the first one who attempted to usurp Christ's Prophetic office. He was as it were the prototype to the Antichrist.

[davidpwithun]

@drakeshelton You are the weakest link.  Good bye. :)

[orthodox4eva]

@RIMBR

Orthodox isn't cultural. We have Orthodox missionaries from Australia traveling to, Sierra Lione , Madagascar, Indonesia and South Korea. We even helping out the Orthodox in Cuba, cos they arent rationed with enough wheat to make bread for communion cos of communism. And Australia is doing this where Orthodox is a minority. And i got Orthodox friends on youtube all over South America. The cultural days are over. I hope this pleases you my friend.

[sapperbdl]

@davidpwithun: Nicely done, old chap. It would have been nice if you had mentioned Canon 28 of the Council of Chaceldon in regards to the Archbishop of Constantinople.

[davidpwithun]

@RIMBR Pray. A lot. :)

[davidpwithun]

@RIMBR 3. As for for evangelizing -- as has already been pointed out, the Orthodox Church has not been in the position to conduct extensive missionary activities for the last several hundred years as most Orthodox Christians lived under the oppressive rule of Islam and, later, under the atheist Communists. Even so, there are now Orthodox missionaries all over the world -- I have a friend who is a missionary in Tanzania in central Africa, where the Church is growing very quickly, right now.

[davidpwithun]

@RIMBR every country of the world -- from Russia to Indonesia, from Egypt to South Africa, from Canada to Guatemala. There are Orthodox Christians of nearly every ethnicity on the planet as well. In my own parish, we have the tradition of reciting the Our Father during the Liturgy in as many languages as are present; on a typical Sunday that is somewhere between 10-13 languages! We have people who recite it in English, Greek, Spanish, Hebrew, German, Georgian, Arabic, Romanian, and more!

[davidpwithun]

@RIMBR WeenisLad and RabMaksim have already given excellent answers to you here, but I thought I might add my own thoughts as well. 1. Orthodoxy embraces all cultures -- it embraces and transforms. Greek culture is very different from Russian culture; Russian culture is very different from Arab culture; Arab culture is very different from Inuit culture -- and yet Orthodoxy has permeated all of these cultures. 2. Orthodoxy is absolutely universal. You can find Orthodox Christians in nearly ...

[NikolaosOrthodoxos]

Beautiful video...keep em coming!!

[RabMaksim]

@RIMBR As for evangelising the world, the Catholics church has converted Americas by force, while the Orthodox had not done that ever. Also remember the Crusades , Inquisitions, divinity of Pope and all that when you pick churches. also take into consideration The Holy Flame that only comes to Orthodox Christians. All the best from Serbia.

[SwordsmanOfFaith]

@RabMaksim Hello there, brother :)

There is some misunderstanding, I think. Without the Crusades, Europe would be ruled by islam by now. True, the Latin Crusaders have sacked Constantinople, but the idea of the Crusade wasn't all that bad.

To the inquisitions, it was an attempt to fight heresy. But eventually some intelligent people have taken too extreme measures.

[SleepWhenIamDead]

@SwordsmanOfFaith ... Re: Crusades saving Europe from Islam....the only successful Crusade for the most part was the 1st one...and what really saved Europe was Constantinople...Islam could not take Europe while such a strong fortified city would be behind them...the city had to fall first and by the Fall of Constantinople in the 15th Cent, Europe was too strong to be taken...

[SwordsmanOfFaith]

@RabMaksim But those 2 points aren't that important. As a former Catholic I have to tell you that the Catholic Church does not teach divinity of the Pope. It teaches Papal Infallibility.

What's the difference? Papal Infallibility teaches that the Pope of Rome can, with the help of the Holy spirit, declare Dogma. But is fallible in all other matters.

(Which doesn't change that this doctrine was never taught ;) )

Today is the dormition of the Theotokos. I wish you all best :)

З Бог!

[RabMaksim]

@SwordsmanOfFaith I understand that about the crusades, but you just can't kill people for the Lord. And I understand that about the papal infallibility, but i called it divinity because roman catholics almost worship the pope and give him attributes that only the Lord should have.

[SwordsmanOfFaith]

@RabMaksim Ofcourse you can, the scriptures of the old covenant reveal that God has commanded some really nasty things ;)

But seriously, the goal of the Crusades was to free Jerusalem. There wasn't much of a choice except let the muslims kill Christians over there and even destroy the church of the Holy sepulchre?!

[RabMaksim]

@RIMBR The cultural aspect of the Orthodox Christian nation is a different way of chanting from land to land, different art styles, architectures and robe styles, while faith, dogma and liturgy is pretty much same everywhere. It has not evangelised the world as it was cut from islam from the south and catholicism from the west, and far eastern religions from the east.

[WeenisLad]

@RIMBR

When you look at history, Orthodoxy has typically had it's hands tied. The Greeks were under the control of the Ottomans from the 15th up until the 20th centuries. The Russians had more luck, being able to evangelize eventually in Alaska and in central Asia (although the total subordination of the Church to the crown after the reign of Peter I crippled the Church significantly). Google some of the mission endeavors currently going on in the Church. You'll be pleasantly surprised.