Eastern Catholicism Vs Orthodox Christianity

Añadido: 2026-05-14

[00:00:00]Today I'm going to respond to this Catholic YouTuber named Byzantine Bro.

[00:00:03]He made this video called The Thousand-Year Mistake: What Orthodoxy Gets Wrong About the Pope. And the ironic thing about this is that he doesn't say anything wrong with the Orthodox position in the video.

[00:00:15]Actually, he admits that the Catholic position is wrong. He admits that a Catholic ecumenical council is wrong and overreach.

[00:00:24]>> Infallibility had not yet been formally defined the way it later would be at Vatican 1, which is in itself problematic. But the beginnings of that view were already festering. He is necessary for unity among the church, but his power as defined in Vatican 1 is an overreach.

[00:00:40]We believe that the ecumenical councils are guided by the Holy Spirit. But according to him, Vatican 1, which is a dogmatic council for Catholics, is an overreach. He doesn't actually show that Orthodoxy has anything wrong about the papacy. Actually, he has lots of admissions. He admits that the Orthodox have valid sacraments.

[00:01:01]>> Note to my Orthodox brothers and sisters, Catholics fully affirm the grace in your sacraments. You are part of the church, just simply a part of the church that has been broken off. Some of your critiques are valid. Unification is possible in our lifetimes through the grace of the Holy Spirit and the openness to admit fault.

[00:01:12]>> The Orthodox still make amazing saints.

[00:01:15]So if you're choosing between Catholic and Orthodox, why would you go Catholic when the Catholics are telling you that the Orthodox have the Eucharist, we have Christ, we're making saints still, we have consistent theology, we have remained true and faithful to tradition, not like Vatican 2 in the modern Catholic Church that's constantly trying to change and evolve with the times, making their mass more Protestant [music] to appeal to the world. If the only good things left in Catholicism are the Eastern part, then why not just be Eastern Orthodox, it doesn't make [music] any sense. And that's what I want to talk about in this video is that if this church can't maintain its [music] teachings, can't maintain its liturgy, and has modernist saints now, why would you trust this church with your soul?

[00:02:01]You wouldn't. You would go and visit an Orthodox church that still has sacred environments, not the Catholic church.

[00:02:07]You go to your average Novasordo parish and they're playing Protestant songs. I know because I didn't even know about Orthodoxy when I became interested in Christianity. So, I became Catholic. But I got into traditional Catholicism and I found, hey, Catholicism isn't even consistent with what it used to teach before the 1960s. And then going further and further in church history, I realized that Catholicism split from the Orthodox Church. This YouTuber, Byzantine Bro, is a Eastern Catholic.

[00:02:35]Now, many people aren't even aware of the Eastern Catholics, and they're very diverse. There's different types of Eastern Catholics. They're basically either Eastern Orthodox or Oriental or Assyrian Church of the East that regained communion with Rome. And he even admits in this video that these are for political and coercion.

[00:02:56]>> Eastern Orthodoxy began to have a real desire to come back into union with Rome. This was for a variety of reasons including theological, ecclesiological, geopolitical, and at times coercion. The Roman Catholic Church accepted these back into communion with Rome and so became known as the Eastern Catholic Churches.

[00:03:07]>> But a lot of time it is just politics.

[00:03:09]It is just coercion because the Catholic Church was more wealthy. So the Eastern Catholics basically they do all the same things some of them and they just basically submit to the pope even though they're doing all the Eastern practices like having leaven bread, having married priests, giving infants communion, all of these things. And they venerate, you know, like the Melikites, they venerate post schism saints, pillars of Orthodoxy like St. Gregory Palamos. And so this really shows the Eastern Catholics that Catholicism doesn't actually care about true unity in theology, liturgy, and the saints. It just cares about submit to the pope and do whatever after. People think Eastern Catholicism is appealing because it's like, oh, I can get the best of the East, but I can be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But again, you gain literally nothing being in communion with a pope is that the Orthodox church has perfect continuity with the church of the first thousand years. The Catholic Church admits this.

[00:04:04]The modern Orthodox saints like St. Piusio, St. Saraphim Rose teach the same thing as the church fathers. We have a reverent liturgy everywhere. There's no dogmatic contradictions like Vatican 2.

[00:04:14]There's no evolution of dogma like Vatican 1 and Florence and all these mental gymnastics and revising it. And it says that Rome is a false church and does not validate their saints and sacraments. Now the Catholic Church, it says that the Orthodox have valid sacraments. We have valid apostolic session, a canonized postcism saints.

[00:04:31]We're the other lung of the church.

[00:04:32]Orthodox literally miss nothing. We are the church. I mean, he says this in this video. So there's no reason to be Roman Catholic over Eastern Orthodox. There's a huge amount of problems in the Catholic Church and you are bound to heresy if you're a Catholic. And he says the pope is necessary in scripture and history. But he doesn't actually show how it's necessary. He just makes this claim and brings up some example of the pope being the first among equals. None of this show that the pope is necessary.

[00:05:00]The pope is not necessary for salvation.

[00:05:02]This is a dogmatic contradiction. The council of Florence said that no one can be saved even martyrs unless they are in communion with the bishop of Rome. There is no martyrs outside the Roman communion. is this is very clearly taught throughout Catholic history. But now we have the Catholic Church canonizing non-atholic saints. They have a doctor of the church, Gregory of Naric, who is a oriental. He was never in communion with the Roman Sea. Yet he is a doctor of the church. This makes no sense. How can he be a doctor of the Catholic Church but never be in communion with him? It doesn't make any sense. Eastern Orthodox saints like St. Sergius of Verdones again never in communion with the Catholic Church. So again dogmatic contradiction the pope is not necessary for salvation. There's salvation outside the papacy. There's lots of ecumenical councils and things that show that the pope is not necessary. The pope vagilious was anatized at the fifth ecumenical council. There's also the pope penoria situation. They have councils condemning the pope. So the councils the consilior authority is above the pope not a Vatican one monarchy. But the thing is is that this Eastern Catholic doesn't even believe in the Vatican 1 monarchy.

[00:06:16]But you have to believe that as a Catholic, you have to believe an ecumenical council of Vatican 1. You can't just handwave it. Different Eastern Catholics are more latinized than others. For example, the Melkites are the least latinized. The Mel Patriarch when he saw Vatican 1, he refused to sign it because how ridiculous it was. And when I was a Catholic considering becoming Eastern Orthodox, I thought, "Oh, maybe I'll just become Eastern Catholic." And I called the Malai priest and he literally validated all my concerns. He validated the filioquay >> like the filioquay which the Byzantines do not recite during the divine liturgy >> and papal supremacy. You know the eastern practices of having infants receive communion and married priest. He defended all of that. So but he said oh we need to fight this out in communion with the pope. But it's like what's the point of that if you literally have a different faith. You literally don't even have the same creed. And that's why Eastern Catholicism is just a political thing. It's not it doesn't actually have universality. You're you're going to hear different things at every Catholic church. If you're going to a Nova parish versus an SSPX versus an FSSP versus Eastern Catholic, I mean, they all teach different things. It doesn't actually bring unity. And so, the pope is not necessary. Again, there's ecumenical councils without pope. No western attendance at at this council. the you know you can look into the Malaysian schism who's presided over someone who died out of communion with Rome and people who died outside of communion with Rome are not Catholic but this was later accepted so now it can be you know teaching the Holy Spirit so this makes no sense and there's lots of other councils like this the council of Trulo showing that we have councils that are conveyed without the pope and he brings up this example in church history where it says that the bishop of Constantinople however shall have the honor after the bishop of Rome. He brings up the bishop of Rome has a special honor being the successor of Peter. Peter founds the church in Rome and is also martyed there. St. Peter was also the bishop of Antioch. Antioch is a is a Petrine sea. We don't believe that the bishop of Antioch has infallibility and all these things. The the reality is is that Catholics aren't giving you the full picture is that the reason why Rome was viewed with in high honor, not papal supremacy, is because they were doubly apostolic. Because not only Peter but also Paul died there. They were a center of orthodoxy because they always stood up for the true faith. This is but this is not a divinely revealed and infallible papacy papal monarchy that Vatican 1 claims. And again this Eastern Catholic admits that. But that's the whole problem. How can you just say your ecumenical council is wrong and say oh we we should still be Catholic? It doesn't make any sense. The reason why Rome had this honor again is because they're doubly apostolic. It is a customary honor not a divinely revealed honor. We can go to the first ecumenical council Nika. It says that a bishop should be appointed by all other bishops in the province in the Catholic system.

[00:09:03]Now the pope has to pick every bishop in the entire world. And this is something clearly that evolved because we look at the first council is it was done locally. It was done consiliarily not in a papal monarchy model. And the sixth canon from this council says that honor of Rome is customary. It's a customary honor and also let the choice of the majority prevail. The pope is the papacy is not absolutely required. The bishop of Rome was the first among equals because of it being doubly apostolic because of it being you know one of the most famous cities. But it does not mean people infallibility ex cathedral statements. They need to pick every bishop in the world. All these things that Catholics are required to believe.

[00:09:45]They have a customary honor not a divinely revealed like Vatican 1 claims.

[00:09:49]And so that's a huge problem for this Eastern Catholic. If you just admit that Vatican 1 is wrong, then it makes no sense to be Catholic. Every Catholic is required to believe something that is incorrect in Vatican 1. And previous popes like Pope St. Gregory specifically warn about what Vatican 1 would say is that whoever calls himself the universal bishop is the antichrist. That pride equal to the antichrist is there is no universal bishop is that all bishops are fundamentally equal. You know patriarchs, mropolitans, all these are administrative titles but fundamentally every bishop is equal. And a huge point is that the Vatican literally admits they are wrong on this. Like a Catholic who is going to go in the comments and and show all these quote mines. Well, first of all, look at what the Vatican actually teaches in the Alexandria Chada document and you can read what the modern popes teach. They all teach that basically the papacy is something that evolved that the Orthodox churches have authentic doctrine. They are petrified.

[00:10:43]They remain faithful to the tradition of the first Christian millennium and they reject later developments. And Roman Catholicism has added all of these things after the schism. These documents Alexandria and Chady admit that the Catholic view of the papacy evolved after the schism based on forgeries. It wasn't divinely revealed. So Vatican 1 is false. Pope Benedict says that Rome was not required from the east with respect to the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask more. So he's basically admitting that in the first thousand years the church structure was orthodox not Catholic. These are major forgeries that basically led to the development of papal supremacy especially with the Gregorian reforms after after the schism is it basically shows that the Catholic system is a innovation. It's an evolution of dogma. It just keeps evolving. Another issue of the great schism was the filioquay. You know I have a whole video on that topic but there's an important time in history where St. Fodia stood up against and they have a ecumenical council without a pope because he condemns a filioquay because it is heresy. It's an invalid addition to the creed and it denies a monarchy of the father what was laid down by the capidosian fathers and later you know the next pope after this was recognized as council's authority is he acknowledged Fodius's restoration and gave him a gift indicating acceptance of the council's outcome. We have St. Fodius going against a pope and then the next pope validates him and says you're right about the filioquay and this shows that was the western patriarch was rejecting the filioquay into the 800s and clearly the patriarch of Constantinople could go against the bishop of Rome. If the bishop of Rome was always necessary and in infallible and always needed then you wouldn't question them. But yet we see St. Fodius and many other saints throughout history do this. And then there's the Vatican clarification on the filioquay which basically is a admission of the orthodox view. It's closer to the orthodox view of procession of the holy spirit and the bible clearly rejects the filioquay and double procession. So on the filioquay issue we see that the bible teaches against the filioquay. The ecumenical councils forbid and anaize any changes to the creed. We see that the church fathers teach against a filioquay. We see popes resisting the addition into the 800s. I brought up one example.

[00:13:13]There's many others. There's a Vatican mission on the filioquay. Eastern Catholics, he even says they don't recite the filioquay. How can you be united if you don't even have the same creed? We have modern popes when they are meeting with the orthodox they omit saying the filioquay. Post schism Orthodox saints like St. and Gregory Palmas are venerated who said the filioquay is from Satan. So again all this shows that the core issues of the schism papal supremacy and the filioquay the Catholic church has admitted they are wrong on and he admits that Vatican 1 is wrong. But why are you joining yourself to this church? The title of his video is that what Orthodoxy gets wrong about the papacy, but he doesn't actually explain. He actually literally says Catholicism is wrong about the papacy. And so this is just ironic is that as Orthodox, we believe that the bishop of real is the first among equals. Not an absolute universal jurisdiction or infallibility over the entire church. The binding power given to Peter was given to all the apostles.

[00:14:06]Not only Peter but all the apostles. And we can look at the church fathers and they did not believe that Matthew 16 move proved Vatican 1 a divinely revealed papacy is they believe that Peter's confession was the rock because Peter confessed the divinity of Christ and that is the rock of the church is that none of them had this Vatican one view of the papacy of oh you always need the pope uh for for salvation and so you can just read the church fathers on this it's like during the great schism they didn't cite Matthew 16 the orthodox know their bible these None of these Bible verses prove papal supremacy.

[00:14:42]He brings up this parallel in Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22. But even if we admit that this is a valid parallel, it does not prove the Vatican papacy because Eliakim was a royal steward minister under the king, not an infallible monarch. He was governed under the authority of the king, not above everyone without accountability. This directly contradicts Catholic canon law that says the first sea is judged by no one. And the office in Isaiah could fall. So this alone weakens the argument that this parallel proves indeibility, infallibility, absolute supremacy, aka what Vatican 1 and Catholics are required to believe. Again, just reading Vatican 1, no one should be Catholic.

[00:15:17]And Ubie Petrus has a lot of great videos on this. He's an ex- Catholic, but he's debated this. Clearly, the Orthodox understand biblical typology.

[00:15:24]So these arguments uh don't really work.

[00:15:27]Even if Peter really did parallel Eliakim, the parallel at most proves primacy, leadership, stewardship, administrative authority, which is the orthodox position is that the bishop of Rome was the first among equals, but it doesn't mean that they're always going to preach the true faith as they can fall into error just like any other branch. And so it's like the first among equals is gone. And so now the next first among equals is Constantinople. So again, nothing in this proves that the pope is necessary. And acts 15 supports Petrine primacy and honor which is consilier not a papal monarchy. Peter clearly has prominence. Again this is an orthodox position that yes Peter was a first among equals but he was not a dictator. He speaks first among equals from the apostles. His to testimony carries great weight but the chapter does not show Vatican 1 supremacy. After Peter speaks the council did not end.

[00:16:16]Paul and Barnabas continue speaking. St. James says the final judgment. Therefore I judge. James appears to preside locally over the council in Jerusalem.

[00:16:25]Most importantly, the final decree says it seemed to good to us and the Holy Spirit. So this is the orthodox model of the church. It's consiliar. It's collective. It's issued by the apostles and elders together, not just by the pope. In the Vatican one Catholic system, you can't question the pope because they are the center of truth.

[00:16:43]They can't be necessary in the way that Cath Catholics say. Peter doesn't issue a unilateral doctrine. It is is that the church is consilier. He tries to say that Galatians 2:11 is actually proving the Catholic position. That they say that when Peter's error was only in personal behavior and not doctrinal teaching because Peter basically withdrew from Gentiles out of fear of the circumcision party, this implied gentile Christians were not fully acceptable without Jewish practices.

[00:17:10]Separation between Jewish and Gentile believers are justified. That directly touched the gospel issue being debated.

[00:17:17]It means are Gentiles fully part of God's people without becoming Jews. St. Paul the Apostle says that it was not in step with the truth of the gospel. This is not just oh Peter was rude or he made he he did something wrong. His behavior was on faith and morals. It had doctrinal implications. It had consequences. In fact, even Barnabas was led astray. So Peter's error affected the churches publicly. And so the highest ranking member in the church could still act in a way that distorted the gospel publicly and required correction from another apostle. And this shows that the pope has essentially uncorrectable doctrinal authority over the universal church. This proves the orthodox position is that he didn't have infallibility. And the thing is is that you know he has this image about the same principle applies today. Authority does not mean perfection. is just oh you know when St. John Paul kisses the Quran. It's just it's just a personal moral failing. But the thing is is that you look at the modern Catholic popes, it's not just moral failings is they literally teach a different gospel. Like John Paul 2 didn't just kiss the Quran once. He received a zapotch witch blessing. He engaged in pagan worship countless times. He praised Islam. He praised every false religion. And we can see the successors like Benedict, Pope Francis doing the same things, promoting the Mayan right of the mass, uh, venerating Patchchamama, Pope Francis who constantly praised all religions.

[00:18:49]This isn't just personal failings. This is a different gospel and it's all just rooted in the spirit of Vatican 2.

[00:18:57]Again, another ecumenical council Catholics are required to believe that says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. that contradicts all of Catholic teaching on religious liberty.

[00:19:07]We can see the the fruits of Vatican 2, the modern saints who literally engage in this apostasy. Uh St. Mother Teresa who says help a Hindu a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Catholic a better Catholic. This is a day andight difference from the church fathers from the early saints who were literally destroying pagan idols. And you can look at the modern Orthodox saints St. Piusio, St. Sarah from Ro. They say this is the religion of the antichrist. Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through him. Not this one world religion stuff is that if if you want to be a Catholic, you can join the one world religion. But if you want true Christianity, it's only in the Orthodox church. And not only that, but the Catholic Church literally wars against their own tradition. They've replaced their mass with a Protestant mass called the Novasordo. They literally made it more Protestant on purpose and it's very irreverent and it's one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. And people say, "Oh, that's just a personal preference." It's like no, like liturgy is essential to our faith. This is a sacramental life of the church. And the Catholic Church doesn't even respect their own liturgy. Is a war against the traditional Latin mass. And they're going to do the same thing to Eastern Catholics. They're going to try and make the Eastern Catholic divine liturgy more Protestant. Why would you trust this church with your soul? You wouldn't. The next argument is oh the tome of Leo proves that you need the pope is necessary because the tomb of Leo says that Peter has spoken through Leo but at the council of calcedon the tome was examined. It was compared to St. Sirill's teaching. It was accepted because it matched the apostolic faith not because it came through from Rome.

[00:20:44]Is that that is where they mess up they're like oh look it it's because it came from the pope. It's like no that's a it's an important distinction that the tome of Leo they said this Peter spoken through Leo because it was true because it was orthodox it was orthodox theology if it were papal supremacy in a strict sense the bishops would have accepted it simply because the pope spoke but instead they tested it they verified it affirmed it as in line with the apostolic faith and so the authority functioned as agreement with tradition not the Vatican one view and Catholics really don't understand honorific language that this was a theological affirmation of orthodoxy. It was not proving Vatican 1. And there's a really good debate on this. Alex Saurin, definitely go check him out and subscribe to him. But he debated the Vatican 1 papacy because it's indefensible. But Catholics have to believe that. If you really want to be a Catholic, you have to defend Vatican 1.

[00:21:37]And they make all these mistakes where honorifics. They think proal supremacy.

[00:21:42]Again, I'm sure Catholics are going to quote mine on this video. She, oh, look at all these quotes. It's like Peter spoken through Leo. All these things it's like all these honorific language is constantly used you know Ignatius who which has received mercy and established in agreement of God the church of Antioch it's the sound head to the whole body the church of the world now what could be more vital to the church of the world St. Athanasius is entrusted with chief rule in the ch charge of the world and is the fountain of life in the church is there's countless quotes like this of honorific language and and we still use this in the Orthodox church to this day and it doesn't prove papal supremacy and so that's the problem with the the Catholic paradigm is they they read these they don't understand honorific language and if they have this view then then nothing makes sense because this honorific language is used multiple times it's also used for emperors and uh different bishops and people in the church is like honorific language does not prove papal supremacy.

[00:22:45]He brings up St. Athanasius appeal to Rome. Well again Rome was a center for orthodoxy especially during the Aryan crisis is that if people in your church if they're embracing heresy then you're going to have to go to people in you know different and it was the most prestigious apostolic se it was doubly apostolic and again it stood up for orthodoxy. Rome was a center for orthodoxy. It's like if you go to someone and they happen to be right a lot, it doesn't mean they're infallible.

[00:23:12]I mean, that's what we see with Rome.

[00:23:14]But asking Rome for hope is not the same as believing the pope has universal jurisdiction, infallible, supreme over the entire church. We we see that even in St. Athanasian's life broke communion with the pope. The pope did that. And so the pope condemned Athanasius. And Athanasius did not conclude that the pope is spoken infallibly. Therefore, I must admit, is that they treated him like another patriarch because that's what he was.

[00:23:40]That you'll see these people appeal to uh Rome because they happen to be right, not because they're infallible. [music] He brings up this council of Sardica.

[00:23:49]Again, this is not an ecumenical council and the canons grant Rome a limited appeal function, not absolute universal jurisdiction. And so, this is very different than immediate universal jurisdiction of the entire church. And again, the same courts of appeals is used in different seas. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch. We can read about the cannons of the council of Calcedon gave Constantinople a very similar authority. So having appeals system in the church again does not mean infallibility. It does not mean the papacy is necessary. And so that's why these arguments fundamentally fail. And that's the problem with Eastern Catholicism is he acts like you get the best of both worlds, but you actually don't. Is that accuminism is a grave sin. It's like having this false unity.

[00:24:33]You don't have unity. And the practical reality of being a Catholic is you are taught so many different things. You can go to a liberal Novasordo church, they'll teach you one thing. A conservative Novasordo church, they'll teach you one thing. Eastern Catholic, you know, Melkite, Marinite, uh, Oriental, all these different groups all teach you different things. You can go to an SSSP parish, uh, FSSP, set up a contest, all these things. These all these groups teach different things. When I went to an FSSP parish, I was getting into traditional Catholicism and I was I'm like, well, why did they change the mass? Can I receive communion on the hand? And the priest said, receiving communion on the hand is a sin. Do not do that. So, basically, this FSSP priest is right.

[00:25:17]Then the entire Catholic Church is in mortal sin because of the way that they're receiving the communion on the hand and accepting Vatican 2 and all these things. It's a clear contradiction. It doesn't actually bring you unity. And so he he's like, "Oh, I can hope for reunion in our lifetime."

[00:25:35]Obviously, we want union, but it needs to be based on repentance and truth. Is there can be no reunion without repentance. One side is right, one side is wrong. The Catholic Church has already admitted they are wrong on a lot of these issues, but it really needs a full repentance. They need to undo all the things that they have added in the the past thousand years because it has been so damaging. And he tries to paint it as, oh, it's just like people online who care about these issues. But it's like, no, if you read the Orthodox saints, if you read the pillars of orthodoxy, they didn't just believe that these were, oh, it it doesn't matter.

[00:26:08]It's like, no, they were willing to die for this.

[00:26:10]>> I will not betray the faith of our father.

[00:26:12]>> Your defiance CANNOT STOP UNITY. THEN I STAND ALONE. But in truth, orthodoxy cannot be bought.

[00:26:20]>> And they were willing to stick up for it. Like St. Mark of Ephesus, he stood up for orthodoxy because truth matters.

[00:26:25]And that's the problem is Catholicism is all about it has a worldly appeal of like oh we have bigger numbers we you know we're we're more unified you know we have all all these things it's like no orthodoxy has been faithful that is the key difference that's why I trust the church the orthodox church with my soul it's because they have an unchanging theology they have a preserved liturgy that's so essential is the lurggical life receiving the sacraments repentance confession and saints that are consistent with the saints of the first thousand years and we see an immediate departure with the Catholic saints after the schism. I mean you can read things like St. Katherine of Sienna she said says even if the pope is the incarnate devil we ought not to raise up our heads against him but calmly lie down to rest on the bosom. He who rebelss against our father is condemned to death for that which we do not him we do to Christ. We honor Christ if we honor the pope. We dishonor Christ if we honor the pope. So the pope is Satan. You still need to submit to the pope. And the Catholics, you know, make all these straw man against orthodox beliefs saying like essence energy distinction and Gregory Palmas is a Hindu yet he is venerated in the Eastern Catholic churches. And so it's like if you're an Eastern Catholic, you're not even respected in your church. You most Catholics believe Vatican 1. And so these Eastern Catholics who try and make these gymnastics of why they don't have to accept Vatican 1, it's not consistent. And there's a great departure in the spirituality of the Catholic Church after the schism. post schism Catholic saints they have some really weird practices public selfhumil humiliation where after breaking a fast due to illness he gathered a bunch of people and he started beating himself and he started publicly confessing his sins the opposite of the what the Bible says the Bible says go and do this in private don't do this public self humiliation ritualally pre-less of the stigmata where he thinks that he really undergoes the same pains as Christ and the Catholic spirituality after the schism really goes off the rails different spirit than the church of the first thousand years. This is very strange where it's a visible wound resembling Christ's crucifixion, hands, feet, side as reported in Catholic saints like St. Francis, St. Padre Peio.

[00:28:34]In orthodoxy, true holiness is primarily spiritual and sacramental, not physical.

[00:28:39]An extreme bodily phenomenon can draw attention to the individual rather than God. So some cases may involve self-inflicted wounds, psychosmatic reaction. So this is a problem with western spirituality and father seros does a really good job of critiquing this. It focuses on sensation and spectacle. Stigmatada can encourage emotional devotion rather than genuine aesthetic struggle, obedience, and humility. And again, why did this not happen in the first thousand years? And there's lots of weird stories with the Catholic saints like the lactation of St. Bernard. This is like right after the great schism. So instantly we we see that the west really changes path. as this type of spirituality was not happening in the first thousand years.

[00:29:19]The Catholic St. Theresa of Avula described a spiritual experience involving an angel plunging a flaming spear in her heart which caused both intense spiritual pain and overwhelming love for God which her autobiography describes physical moans in a physical share in the experience. She insisted the pain was spiritual not carnal and and the sensation was a result of profound divine ecstasy. Katherine of Serena was repeatedly given the foreskin of Jesus as a wedding ring to symbolize her spiritual marriage to Christ. This is all very strange where people are having these preles. We see the western church depart from the true church and we see pretty soon after they start embracing all these strange practices and actually Jonathan Pio has a really great video on this about the search for the Holy Grail. It's just this obsession with these like weird relics like the the foreskin ring of Jesus, the Holy Grail. It's because the West lost the Eucharist. They lost the grace of God that they had when they left the church.

[00:30:16]I hope you enjoyed this video. Check out my playlist if you're Catholic. I have a bunch of videos that will be helpful if you're a Catholic looking into Orthodoxy. But come and see. Come and visit Orthodox Church so you don't get distracted by all this crazy nonsense in the Catholic Church. This dogmatic heresy in Vatican 1 and Vatican 2. In the Orthodox church, it's just you and Christ just focusing on your repentance, focusing on the spiritual life, focusing on the sacraments. Is that that's the whole point of Christian life is growing closer to Christ is that Christianity is a relationship. It's a religion and it's a kingdom. The best way to do that is in the Orthodox church is they have been faithful, beautiful chance, incense, the Eucharist. It's the real deal. Come and visit a church. I hope this was helpful.

[00:31:01]Pray for Catholics. God bless.