Why Everyone’s Schismatic But Us (Orthodox)

Añadido: 2026-05-05

[00:00:06]Hey, what's going on? Welcome to Cleave to Antiquity. My name is Ben and today I'm joined by a very special guest, Craig. Welcome back to the show.

[00:00:13]>> It's good to be back to Cleave Antiquity.

[00:00:16]>> Yeah, I'm glad to have you on. I think this will be an interesting discussion.

[00:00:19]I like the uh I like the title. People are saying it's like excellent rage bait.

[00:00:27]It's it's interesting you say it's ragebait because um the more one studies this question and you realize the tragedy of these schisms and the the human cost of these schisms um spiritually speaking there was physical cost. people do die uh due to a lot of this too >> that you realize uh maybe the newer you're orthodox there's a triumphalism when you realize oh yes you know the eastern orthodox aren't the schismatic side in these cases but um the more you study it you start realizing that there this is the triumphalism goes away you just see how tragic it is and it's uh >> it's it's a serious subject because the >> I mean we might get into it but the scriptures themselves say that those who belong to sex will not inherit the kingdom of God, >> right?

[00:01:13]>> Um, and it's that's in Galatians 5:20.

[00:01:18]And so if people realize this is damnable, this is serious stuff. I mean, you great, well, who were the church, but what what's this mean for all these other people that are guilty of the sin?

[00:01:28]And so, it's I'm not going to be God and judge each person individually, but this is very very serious.

[00:01:34]>> Yes. And so that's why I felt uh a topic like this would be very helpful to answer people's questions and again to the general historical things that do pertain to these schisms.

[00:01:47]>> Absolutely. Yeah. I think it's a super important discussion really cuts to the heart of the matter especially as you said if uh if scripture has such a harsh condemnation on those who are uh partakers in a schism then obviously we want to find out where the truth is where the true church is uh which is the church that Christ established and I think that by walking through this and by doing kind of a historical analysis of what constitutes a schism what are some of the markers that these groups show whether orientals the orient iental Orthodox, quote unquote Orthodox, whether Roman, Catholic, uh, the, you know, Syrians and these other groups.

[00:02:24]Um, this is really a very clearcut way to show in a short in a short form really because we're going to be going for like what, like an hour and a half, two hours. Um, >> yeah, we're just going to blast >> to show that uh, you know, that this is actually the true church, that the Orthodox Church is the true church. um really by process of elimination and by walking through history. So I think this will be really helpful for people. Um so I appreciate you swinging by to talk about this subject.

[00:02:53]>> No, definitely. It's uh this is something that's reason why I became an Eastern Orthodox Christian. It's very dear to my heart and like I said it's it's something where the receipts are there and I think anyone who's looking at this soberly would arrive at the same conclusion.

[00:03:10]>> Absolutely. And this is something that's being discussed uh quite quite uh more frequently lately. I know there's going to be uh you know some some more dialogues and discussions with Aen and his crew and some other people are going to be doing debates. I think David's got one set up and I know they're looking for more. So I think this is something people are going to be talking about a lot more. uh you had one recently uh as well that I thought you did very well uh in in your your debate with uh with the same gentleman there. So, let's just dive straight into it. So, when we're talking about schism, what are some of the what are some of the markers that people need to look out for uh to kind of identify whether or not a group really was a partaker in a schism?

[00:03:53]Because anybody who studied church history soberly will recognize that sometimes things if you're unst if you're unlearned on this particular subject may seem like a couple of wires get crossed or something like this. What are some key markers to look out for if somebody's earnestly studying church history?

[00:04:11]>> Well, there's I'll speak very briefly because what this isn't going to be is sort of like a quote mine of here's every passage on it. So if I speak somewhat generally it will be for that reason. But let's start scripturally because that's actually even historically our earliest source material and it just so happens to be our most important source material. And um the traditional be beginning of schism um is Kora's rebellion. That's what the church fathers point to is the first schism. And Kora was someone who made himself a priest among other people um against Moses because they disagreed with Moses and the earth opened up and swallowed them up. And that was God's condemnation of this first schism. And the real issue here is that they set up a priesthood that was not the real priesthood. It was Moses and um the Levitical priesthood from his brother Aaron.

[00:05:06]And so this example is essentially the scripture showing a opposing altar here.

[00:05:13]There'd be the ark of the covenant with Moses versus Kora and his rebellion in opposition, right? So, you're setting up an opposing altar. Now, uh for Protestant viewers, they don't really have altars per se in the sense orthodox or Catholics, other people have it, but they kind of have the idea if the most important thing in the liturgy is the Eucharist and the altar attached to this Eucharist, you can see, well, having two of those is problematic. And for a Protestant viewer, it would be like, imagine having someone else um take half your congregation and preach to them and they only listen to that person. That'd be essentially like a Protestant view of a schism. But in the scriptures, it's always these opposing altars. Um I was reading in my own reading today um in 2 Chronicles where one of the accusations made against the nation of Israel is they set up their own gods with their own priests, >> right? So, it's not always, oh, well, of course, they're heretics. They're synretatizing. They're worshiping the farm bells, and yes, they do all those things, and it's wrong. But the pa the scriptures focus in on the fact they set up another rival priesthood as the passage points out. And I um I I left the verse in my wallet, so I don't have my wallet here, but it it says in opposition to the Levites.

[00:06:32]And so, again, it's this the issue of schism is you're you're creating this rival priesthood. um compared to the one that is the original.

[00:06:40]>> Yes.

[00:06:41]>> In in the New Testament, we don't have the like Levitical priesthood to act as this like type for what we have now today, the apostles. So the in the New Testament, it's sometimes more general.

[00:06:54]I did discuss it literally um condemns sex. So like denominations are damnable.

[00:07:00]So it's not like it doesn't give you exactly what you need to know. But a lot of the emphasis is for example we have the letter of third John which is against the schism against therophies who cast people out of the church and so we see an example of how schism is dealt with there and with condemnation but also we see just more generally Romans 16 and other passages where St. Paul warns against uh those who make they wrangle over words and over disputable matters create problems. And we see even applications of this. People that create problems over what kinds of fastings and things like that. And this is really in the early church. The main cause of schisms are issues that have to do mostly with rigorism. Tertalian and then the innovations eventually the Donatist. Um this idea that the church is too permissive with sin. And so you know us who are pure right that's even where the word cathari comes from if you read the canons and it talks about the cathari which means the pure ones those are it's a name for the novationist but the point is that there are those who will create schisms because they're more right than you right and so we are justified because we are correct to create this schism um but the quote strenus no reform of any importance could be attained through schism. And so th this is an issue where the church fathers are aware of this. It's been a motivation um forever that there's a better way of doing things or you know this side is not as pure as we are. We got to create a schism.

[00:08:43]>> Right?

[00:08:44]>> And so that that is the the earliest warnings in the scriptures and in the church before the church made cannons.

[00:08:53]And the question is then what's a cannon? I think a lot of people don't understand how the early canonists, the people who made the cannons understood the cannons. The cannon's not like this magic wand where the church decides one day, all right, we're going to make a new rule like Bill Maher, new rule XYZ.

[00:09:11]No, the cannon is making a rule. That's what cannon means based upon the tradition that was already there. It's essentially make an official what was already to the rule, but no one bothered to write it down. And so because that's the case, there was already this opposition to opposing altars. We see this in St. Ignatius. We already were talking about St. Arnaeus. And so when they made cannons, particularly because the innovations and then uh there were something called Malaysians, not from the late 4th century, but they were people that made rival altars in Egypt around the time of Na. Um and eventually the Donatist the cannons are made to be very specific that is someone who creates a second altar is liable for judgment. Now this is important because just doing it doesn't make you instantly damned per se, right? like they're the church has a way where this person has to get their you know day in court so to say an ecclesiastical court and then they could be inappatized as a result of a judgment of bishops right uh Matthew chapter 18 2 or three meet in my name there I'm in the midst of them this is in reference to church discipline so again this doesn't really exist in protestant context but it exists in the scriptures and there are direct applications to this in early church history now before I bore people too much I'll just cut right to the which is to make a second altar with a second bishop or a second priest um is liable for punishment. But how about that second priest or bishop? This is very important. That second priest or bishop is invalid according to canons. They don't have holy orders. And so those schisms that are the result of someone violating these cannons are cananically not churches. They are cananically don't have clergy. They just have people who have maybe the the form of uh consecrations and ordinations and things to this effect. And so this is important because if grace is through the sacraments and through a sacramental priesthood and you have something that is counterfeit like the priesthood of Israel visav Judah and the Levites, >> right? Or Kora visav Moses. Now, now we could see or people the super apostles visav St. Paul, right? these false apostles.

[00:11:30]There's no grace in what they provide. I can't judge you as an individual, but we could say this is the example the scriptures and in the cannons forbidding these things and saying that the counterfeit is counterfeit 100%. It's totally null and void. And so when we locate what's the side that created the second altar in all these cases, it very obviously always vindicates the Eastern Orthodox side according to the cannons.

[00:11:59]And the burden of proof would be on someone this to demonstrate that what we discuss today historically um is somehow incorrect because they're going to have the cannons are black and white on this.

[00:12:12]There's you know um for example there's uh canon 13 of Antioch. this 10 and 22 of Antioch. Um they're they're cut and dry in this. You cannot create um bishops without the consent of a cinnid in the metropolitan which in Antioch means the patriarch um and that to do so is null and void.

[00:12:34]The person does not have any holy orders and that's why those people don't get disciplined. There's nothing to discipline. Mhm.

[00:12:41]>> So, um, might be a long answer to your question, but it's a good overall introduction of how we understand this matter.

[00:12:48]>> Yeah, I think that's a good it's a good overview. So, it seems like the key thing to really focus on is whether or not these groups are setting up parallel jurisdictions uh and parallel altars and these types of things.

[00:12:59]>> Um, this this ties into a discussion that I was having earlier. I'm not going to get into specifics, but I will mention some cannons that I was referencing here I thought were uh very interesting because a lot of people get tied up with this concept. They they feel that well, you know what, if somebody uh you know, I'm I'm ultimately me as especially people that are ex Protestants, they have this idea.

[00:13:20]They're like ultimately I am the arbiter of truth. Even if they won't admit it, that that that's the way they're looking at it. But they're saying, well, you know what? I've I've read this thing in church history. I've read this cannon.

[00:13:30]I've read this. Uh therefore um you know I can I can say this bishop according to my own uh interpretation or whatever is a is a heretic. Therefore it gives me the the ability to break off from them or whatever the case may be.

[00:13:45]>> And that's never been the way uh that it has been expressed or demonstrated. I'm just going to share something really quick here up on the screen. Uh, one key thing that we need to take a look at would be are canons like self-actualizing magic spells? So, the answer is no, they are not. This is from the footnotes of uh uh Canon 3 um of the 85 cannons. So, this is uh number seven. If you want to follow along in the rudder, you can actually uh you know, pull this up online. And there's free rudder PDFs if you want to. This would be in the footnotes of canon 3. Cannons cannot defrock or excommunicate. We know that the penalties provided by the canon such as deposition, excommunication, and anathematization are imposed in the third person according to grammatical usage there being no imperative available. In such cases, in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. Meaning a bishop has to apply the canons. I'm going to explain the matter better. The cannons command the Senate of living bishops to depose the priests or to excommunicate them or to anathematize laymen who violate the cannons. So it's not up to you random lay person to apply these cannons. This is up to the living body of bishops. This is something that people really need to understand. This is so so so so important. The other part that's important is the grace literally remains until deposition takes place. So are they have they been deposed? Have they been uh you know deposed by a senate? Have they been deposed by uh the bishops, living body of bishops? Yes or no? Well, there you go. That answers your question. So uh people will people will often in these kinds of circles say well this person is teaching ABC123 or whatever. Uh so this gives me the right to kind of split. Um there was a conversation I was having in which they were citing an interpretation of this uh uh well an interpretation that included this specific cannon from Gangra. But it literally is talking about what you're talking about here the condemning setting up parallel jurisdictions. This is uh this is this cannon from the from Gangra. If anyone conducts a church of his own apart from the church and scorning the church wishes to perform the functions of the church without a priest helping uh with the approval and consent of a bishop, let him be anathema. And then it cites all the parallel cannons uh from other councils that this is actually >> and again and that would be like guys like uh Helvidius and um the Kalandrians and there were groups back then that would essentially be priestless modern times, right? The old believers. um the idea you could do church without a priesthood, without the the apostolic uh successors, the bishops. So, it's um the you can't do church that way according to early cannons. But, of course, if you just don't accept cannons in general, then that's irrelevant. Um >> yeah, >> but you say that the uh you mean to say that the the the Roman Catholic lady we were we were looking at yesterday in the live stream where she's doing mass all by herself is invalid.

[00:16:56]It's, you know, it's and we could play games all day like, you know, you sort of wonder like, will they have women one day dressed up like priests, but there's a male priest somewhere actually consecrating the Eucharist and then the whole thing goes through this woman going through the motions, but otherwise there's a valid Eucharist behind it or something like that. And we we all have these degrees of pheriseical legalism, but God can't be mocked. Um, and I think that's why there is a um, when the question is schism, you know, the side that starts getting to like these tiny little things about names you never heard of, doing little events that sound very petty. Again, the wrangling over words and kind of petty nonsense. You that's to me a spiritual tell that that's precisely what's going on in a situation like that. That's sort of phariseaical wrangling. Um, it's with a lot of these things. It's pretty clear um who violated some very obvious cannons, cannons they accept um and instill on their books and in doing so they broke the terms that they even agreed to.

[00:18:04]>> Yeah. I think um I think one of the key things to look at with this I mean maybe we could just pick a we can pick a church and start breaking down some of these how they would fall under this category. I think that might be a helpful way to go forward. But before I do that, let me let me just uh say this.

[00:18:19]I do want to do a a Q&A section towards the end if that's okay. Craig, I don't know how how much time do you have? T like two hours.

[00:18:25]>> Um I'm hoping done at seven, so it' be an hour and a half, but uh we'll try to jam as much in by then.

[00:18:31]>> Okay. I'll probably keep streaming a little bit longer than that, but um if you have whenever you have to drop off is fine. So I'll do a Q&A towards the end. If you guys that are watching, if you have some questions, uh send them in. I will star them, but I'm going to get to the super chat questions first.

[00:18:44]So, if you want to jump in line, support the show, send that in. But let's jump in. Let's do um let's go church by church and explain how they would fall under this category of setting up like a parallel altar, parallel jurisdictions, these types of things. I think the pressing one on everybody's mind right now would be the oriental uh quote unquote orthodox. So, why don't we discuss them first?

[00:19:07]>> Yes. I think this is one of those that are actually much simpler.

[00:19:13]um than a lot of the cases um simply because um they violate cannons that they hold to and it's not like this is our interpretation versus theirs. I could quote John of Ephesus, their first major historian who was actually one of the early patriarchs taking exactly this interpretation. So you could tell I'm not pulling this out of thin air um of the cannons. And so let me just cite canon 19 of the council of Aniac which states only a council held in the presence of the metropolitan bishop may ordain a bishop. Furthermore, it is best to do this when all the brothers in the ministry of the province gather together with the metropolitan bishop. He should therefore send them all letters to invitation. It is best if all can meet.

[00:20:00]However, if this is impossible, so this is important. We could already see like well what if all these mitigating factors right persecutions could make it impossible other and whether who knows what this is impossible. It is imperative that a majority either be present or take part in the election by letter. In this way the decision will be made by the consent of the majority. If anything takes place contrary to these decrees such action is hereby nullified.

[00:20:31]And so this is cut and dry. And for the oriental orthodox, all their holy orders originate ultimately from Jacob Orai.

[00:20:41]And so anyone who starts arguing about Seis or Diiocerus, these are all interesting things to talk about. Um, but they're actually irrelevant to the ecclesiastical question ultimately because the holy orders don't derive from Seus. They they they don't derive even from Theodosius of Alexandria because ultimately um that patriarch the churches he tried setting up were not the ones that became the oriental orthodox church of today. The cinnid in Egypt and the cinnid in um the their Syria their Antiocian sinned um were both created by bishops all consecrated by Jacob Barardai.

[00:21:22]And Jacob Bardai was consecrated a bishop and not by the patriarch of Antioch, not with her permission of the Antiocian cinnid. Um, but he would have something of a cananical gray area because he wasn't a bishop within Roman territory. And why is this relevant?

[00:21:43]Because it's like the Roman Empire doesn't decide everything. Part of it is because the cannons themselves uh demand that among Roman provincial lines that's where dascese would be set up. So the church kind of voluntarily agreed to this sort of geopolitical arrangement lack of some better way to decide jurisdictional boundaries.

[00:22:03]But I would say more important than this is St. Justinian and St. Theodora were aware well we don't want these people to totally become disconnected from us but we don't want to create schism within the church so we'll send them amongst the other schismatics which will eventually get into these Syrians and so this way they're not actually invading anyone's jurisdiction and they wouldn't require um someone who is not uh doesn't have valid bishops of their own like the Assyrians. They're essentially like missionary bishops and I believe it's the 17th cannon of calcedon but the point is it's called in barbarian lands um no one has jurisdiction so that in that way the patriarch of Alexandria that's a a monophysite that's in or not calcedonian that's in exile in Constantinople has no rights over anything in Syria uh but theoretically he could consecrate bishop still theoretically he could send bishops to barbarian lands to evangelize and this was the program that uh St. Justin and St. Theodora underwent and this kind of ignored in all the discussions. No one talks about this. If you look at where was Jacob Bardise technically a bishop, where was Jonatella technically um a bishop and it was within um not within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. They're sending them to the uh the boundaries uh of the Assyrians. So that way it would not be creating a cananical issue within the church itself. Mhm.

[00:23:40]>> Perhaps the motivation because it's never written anywhere is that better to make Christians closer to us and then in time we could reconcile with them or something like that. Sort of like the situation with the Armenians. Um which they have uh cananical holy orders. Um but their schism is like almost like non-commemoration. We're just not going to be in communion with you. Um okay, maybe one day we could restore communion. St. Fodius tried that with the Armenians.

[00:24:07]um a little more difficult with now what subsequently happened after Jacob Barard died because Jonatella was ordaining new priests which are void but not bishops.

[00:24:17]So he was creating local problems but not a churchwide problem.

[00:24:23]When Sephus died, Jacob Arai starting in 557 and he went decades without doing this. two decades without doing this, started consecrating bishops outside of his jurisdiction. And this kind of created this sort of arms race between then him and then uh Theodosius of Alexandria to who could consecrate the most bishops essentially loyal to themselves.

[00:24:46]Now doing this outside of their territories is null the cannon we just read. They they already can't do it.

[00:24:53]Whoever they ordain is not really a bishop. And um to make a long story short, the in Egypt there became a disputed election between the ma the non-caledonian bishop of Antioch um recognized one bishop and he was present during the consecration of a bishop in Alexandria.

[00:25:17]And then one bishop um with two bishops of Jacob Barardai.

[00:25:24]So there's only one valid bishop. you need three in the cannons.

[00:25:28]>> Consecrated a new bishop, a patriarch of Alexandria and then they went and consecrated another 69 bishops and made 70.

[00:25:37]>> So literally made a senate out of thin air, >> right?

[00:25:41]>> And that's where the modern um or uh the Coptic Orthodox church comes from, which we discovered black and white is not canonical. Those all those bishops are void. They're not canatically bishops, but that's where all their bishops come from.

[00:25:56]>> While in Syria, the uh non-caledonian Syriak Orthodox, all their bishops come from Jacob Barardai with after his death, they lost their last um cananically consecrated bishop because everyone he consecrated outside of his territory was in violation of the cannon. Why? Because he didn't have a majority of a cinnid. the cinnid was a bunch of valid bishops and a metropolitan, the patriarch of Antioch, that refused to acknowledge what he was doing. So, this is something which is ironic because not only did John of Ephesus back in the sixth century accuse the um I'll just call it the the Coptic Orthodox side of their bishop of Alexandria of being void and null.

[00:26:41]But today there's a problem with the Eratrayans and the Ethiopians.

[00:26:45]Those who are aware, Eratraa kind of declared their own and like you know started making bishops at the acceptance of the Ethiopian Senate. And so the Ethiopian senate cites the the uh the FHA negast which is a nommo cannon. It's like a later summary of canon law and uh imperial law.

[00:27:07]And because these oriental Orthodox cannons share almost all the same cannons up until the point of schism, it has the exact same interpretation um for priests. And the Ethiopian Orthodox applies, I guess, priest to bishop because they accuse the aratrans of violating this cannon. So this isn't something that as I was referring to before I I pull it out of thin air or some sort of argument that um that pmically that we come up with because it is convenient to show that we're right.

[00:27:39]This is the ecclesiology they themselves accept other than in their own origin.

[00:27:45]So there's this sort of cognitive dissonance with how they could determine which is the right side for the Carolyn schism because they apply the cannons for that. what's the right side for the schisms in Ethiopia?

[00:27:58]You know, they applied the cannons for that. But when it comes to, well, how about if we apply this to Jacob Barai, all of a sudden it's contradictory.

[00:28:07]And I think if they're honest, and there's actually a heography of Jonath.

[00:28:12]So that's because he's a saint for them where Jonath's ass, and this was written in the same decade he died. So this is not like some much later ahistorical invention. Jonatel is asked, "How could he be doing this in violation of cannon?" So remember, this wasn't him ordaining bishops. It was him ordaining priests. A little like a step lower, a little less bad.

[00:28:36]And he said in in times of trouble, we cannot be so wooden to have to follow the cannons.

[00:28:44]And that's a paraphrase, but you'll find probably what was really said a little worse than that, >> right? And so it shows you that they were self-aware that this was exactly what was occurring. And the justification ultimately is like what I was referring to before. They're wrong and we're right and we we can't follow the rules in order to fix this. So we're justified in breaking the rules.

[00:29:08]>> And I forget which letter St. Cyprian, but I'll end it with this.

[00:29:11]>> Yeah, go ahead.

[00:29:12]>> St. Srian pretty much literally says the side who started it is wrong. So, so if you were the one who broke the cannons and started it, it's pretty obvious way of showing, well, you're to side with the void orders.

[00:29:24]>> And this is a common thread that you find with most schismatic groups, right?

[00:29:27]The justification is always, well, the situation justifies us breaking uh the canonical norms. The situation justifies us breaking what the Senates have laid out. I mean, especially when it comes to uh what what makes and what is and is not a valid ordination. Um like this is this is something that is a common thread, it seems to me, throughout history. And you mentioned this kind of setting up parallel jurisdictions. That should be a massive red flag when one bishop is basically setting up an entire Senate out of thin air. It's just >> Yeah. I mean, if we did it, they'd be laughing at us. Like imagine Justinian found one bishop and that's what the whole Byzantine Orthodox church came from or the whole just pick the jurisdiction the whole uh Antiocian Orthodox Church of today come from.

[00:30:12]They'd be like look at this inospicious origin. But I'm not making this up. This is literally how the Alexandrian church of the Coptic Orthodox today began. And to be fair to myself, I'm being somewhat uh judicious. Yes. and saying they had one cananan bishop. It's not altogether clear he was cananical. It's just I don't have any explicit proof he wasn't in John of Ephesus. So I'm replying I'm relying upon their own sources to determine this question. Um there's a good chance that that bishop also wasn't consecrated. All John Ephesus said that that one bishop um was li was already liable to some sort of punishment. And so to me that means he was probably he violated whatever cannon he's being punished for it. And uh but that to me implies that he's probably cananical. So it's never stated but it's an inference that I draw which I think is justified.

[00:31:10]when it shows you I'm trying to be very fair like you know the word charity has been ruined sadly but I am trying to be fair at the sources where I think the most >> obvious interpretation of the only source we have on the event um is that there was one canatical bishop whether he was >> um at that time censured because here's something that a lot of lay people don't understand even a lot of clergy don't super well understand but bishops do because it's their job to understand this um which is right Just because you have the power to let's say re receive a a translation like a priest or the power to um receive a to consecrate a bishop like bishops could consecrate bishops but they can't do so without their cinnids right we it's not like uh it's Pokemon cards and that's the energy power that you have with it or something weird like that it's you need the consent of the cinnid to do anything and so anyone who has that very obvious understand ecclesiology again a lot of lay people When you look at these historical senates and you see there's a side with no consent of the local senate and it's extremely obvious that's a dead giveaway.

[00:32:17]>> Mhm. Let me just address this one super chat here. Gregory sends in Alexa play schism by tool.

[00:32:24]>> There we go. We we got we have an old soul there like me.

[00:32:28]>> Yeah, there you go.

[00:32:31]Yeah, there you go. Perfect. Thanks, man. Yeah, if you guys want to support the show, feel free to send in a super chat. I will be we'll be answering questions towards the end. Um if you want to jump in line, that's one way you could do so. Or if you just want to support the show, I appreciate it. So I think with the the the Coptic question here, I think we have that pretty pretty well covered. I mean, we could do an entire show, I think, breaking down the intricacies, but that's a good yes overview of it. You have one potentially canonical bishop basically ordaining an entire cinnid out of thin air in opposition to what the canon state are the norms for these ordinations. The subsequent bishops that are be or subsequent clergy that are being ordained uh from him would therefore not be canonical. He's setting up a parallel kind of jurisdiction uh this type of deal. So this is your CA classic cut and dry schism schismatic uh uh parallel jurisdiction setting up which as we were looking here um in the the cannons that we were citing earlier literally I mean the cannons are very clear you cannot do this. So um >> and it's cannons they accept. It's not it's not like picking something that only we hold to which right we might if we were talking to Protestants right now or Protestants schisms these ourselves >> um citing these cannons are relevant to them. They don't accept these cannons.

[00:33:54]You know, show me from the scriptures.

[00:33:56]Um, you know, like I was referring to before 2 Chronicles 13:9, "Have you not cast out the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and have made priests for yourselves in the matter of the nations of other lands?" Right? Who's aside doing that? Right? It's not the people with the original priesthood. Um, but with canons like we have it spelled out in the intricacies of how you're supposed to do these things and what what are the results can of not doing that and it should really put the issue to rest. It's to me some respects much easier than a lot of these christoologgical debates what really happened with Ebis and these are all fun things to have. I've had all these discussions um but the cananical discussion is extremely important because they still hold and apply these same >> cannons.

[00:34:43]So I think this would be a good segue to maybe dive into the question of the Assyrians. Uh I think that'll be a logical next step and then maybe after that we can do the Roman Catholics. The Assyrians in some respect easier and I'll just say that the Assyrians are it's a kind of tragic story because they got pretty much if you know the saints lives up until the 4th century the horrible persecutions. Finally, there's uh a king of the Sassinids or the Parththeians. I forget which one was is first and second, but the Persian Empire of the time. There's a king that tolerates Christianity and allows them to have cinnids and they're an extension of the Antiocian cinnid. They're far away, so they have their own metropolitan um in uh in Satifon.

[00:35:32]and they essentially accept the cannons of na and then some and they are pretty well um on their way to just being kind of a normal tolerated church but then um it kind of develops very quickly into a bad direction in 424 there's a senate of the dojo do is the metropolitan of Satophone and essentially they make it where you cannot you cannot appeal to the patriarch of Antioch um anything that Doosho does wrong. Um Dooo says he he sits on the seat of essentially the seat of Peter and all that stuff. It's it's actually the papacy before the papacy if people actually read this. And all this is done without the permission of the patriarch, the majority of the Antioch sinned. So it's not that it's impossible that ecclesiastical arrangements could change. They just required a consent of the church. So for example um Cyprus was arguably under Antiocian jurisdiction and then during Calcedon it was accepted that they would become autonomous and um and there's other traditional reasons with that. there's the relics of Barnabas there and I don't want to bore people but we could change jurisdictions like you know um and we could give jurisdictions autofily but it requires the consent of the church and that includes the local jurisdiction and this just did not occur with the Assyrians so they go into schism um they do not commemorate the patriarch of Antioch they do not take part in what the rest of it does but there's a very big difference between this and said the non-caledonian schism which is their schism is is clearly regional and tied to the Persian state and so for that reason the ecclesiastical prerogatives they take upon themselves that they can't uh you can't appeal um their decisions and things like this um are going beyond the cannons even by their admission and the senator dooo it says the the patriarchs of the West are judged by their fellow patriarchs, but it'll no longer be so here. So, they even admit this is how things work in the whole church, but we're just going to do it different.

[00:37:51]>> Mhm. Um and so in their case they're almost more like the Armenians. So they stopped commemorating but the difference is they were always part of while the Armenians were arguably part of a shifting jurisdiction in Asia Minor. The um the Assyrians were essentially became large group of non-commemorators and they just slowly um started degenerating from there. or their bishops started marrying and things that were just different um in the church um than there previously was.

[00:38:26]There were attempted unions of the Assyrians um which may imply that there was some recognition kind of like with noations and others that uh the form of their orders were correct and could be recognized. And to be fair to them, um, you could say, well, maybe according to one interpretation in the canons, maybe they're not totally void.

[00:38:48]But where I land on this is they are, and the reason is because they were inarguably part of the Antioch incided.

[00:38:56]And as we just read in the cannon of Antioch, so these were the cannons on the books since the year 338 before any of this occurred, which is only a council held in the presence of the Metropolitan Bishop Mayor Dana Bishop.

[00:39:08]And that's the patriarch of Antioch.

[00:39:10]This how this cannon is interpreted.

[00:39:12]That's who it's talking about. And it's imperative that that can't happen, right? They they are far away in the Persian Empire. That a majority either be president or take part in election by letter. Anything takes place contrary to these decrees is nullified. So if they go into schism and then start consecrating more bishops out the rest of the of the cinnid, they're actually violating that 19th cannon of Antioch, which means what they do is nullified.

[00:39:36]>> And so like this is why historically like this happens a lot with debates with let's say particularly true Orthodox, but it could happen real talks about this more than the average jurisdiction be like canon 15 of 861, which again this doesn't apply to Assyrians, doesn't apply to non-caledonians, the sites we talked about. So far it's Eastern Orthodox cannon because it's within our own church and after their schisms. Um these cannons talk about non-commemoration. If there's a bishop that preaches her bald head in the church, it means very obviously not that like you have to look at what he wrote upside down and go sturd. No, it has to be clearly wrong.

[00:40:15]That um you're not supposed to commemorate that bishop. And so it's almost like here's how you deal with a wound. The cannons aren't set up with well what if this wound lasts like forever lasts for centuries and centuries and centuries. And so this oftentimes if you're decide who thinks they identify that bald-headed heresy we'll say well we can't follow that those other cannons because they don't address this situation that happened to arise. Um, I would just say I think the testimony of history always lands against these rigorous. There's always something they went too far with. The Donatists, their ecclesiology, the Novationist. Um, some of the weird stuff, the rigor rigorous when it comes to sort of uh social issues where they clearly went too far that murderers and adulterers can't receive forgiveness.

[00:41:03]Like what was Christ doing when he received the adult the adulterous woman?

[00:41:07]Um, the idea that the church can't do this, but Christ can. It's um they they clearly have some good intentions, but they clearly go too far. And so with the >> um with the Assyrians, you could justify it with notorianism, but their schism really started before that because it was political ultimately. And their continuence of not just going to schism, but then continuing to perpetuate and ordain bishops that the consent to the cinnid um violates the cannon and that would render them invalid. Mhm. Yeah, absolutely. And I I I agree what you're saying with uh with these groups eventually going too far as far as the rigorous and things like this, but why don't you give us a summary if you were going to give a bullet point for those that are watching. What is the what is the killshot evidence that would show that the uh Assyrians um uh you know are are schismatic? I mean obviously the setup of parallel jurisdictions but give that in like a brief a brief summary just in case anybody is >> in in their case they didn't really set a parallel jurisdiction and in their case they didn't officially leave communion I think it's the late fifth century but the bullet point is this the ordained bishops at the consent of the cited without the consent of the patriarch uh according to the canon we just read canon 19 of Antioch that anything done that way is invalid if you can't you said oh well there's a border and they can't take part in the election, then you take part by letter.

[00:42:32]Um, so the canon actually says how you do it. If you can't get there physically, they did not follow this cannon. And so, um, this renders their holy orders void.

[00:42:42]>> So, it's not so much setting up a parallel jurisdiction in this instance.

[00:42:46]It's more so them not following the canonical norms for these ordinations.

[00:42:49]>> It would be more like a third John situ situation, right? You have a Datotrophies that sets himself apart.

[00:42:54]But imagine that Datrophes wants to consecrate his replacement. You know, you can't do that. You're not you're not amongst the rest of the church. You need the consent of everyone. To quote St. Clement of Rome who's writing probably before send AD that um that presptors are ordained with the consent of the whole church. That this is ver that's very early. So th this is an idea that's again and again again in historical sources because again it's the apostles taught it.

[00:43:23]>> So I think this would be good time to move into uh Roman Catholicism. So how are how are they considered schismatic?

[00:43:31]>> Well th this is actually out of all of the sides they're the side that stands on the firmst ground when it comes to like the integrity of their own local senate.

[00:43:43]That said, them being schismatics is also abundantly clear because during the crusades and for centuries afterwards at the Union, they they created second altars pretty much everywhere >> and which would have violated this kind of Antioch. So like imagine, right, you invade the Levant, you're in Antiochan territory and you replace the patriarch of Antioch without the consent of the patriarch of Antioch in that it's right. It's so cut and dry. Which is why in Roman Catholic apologetics, they say, "Yes, those cannons are true, but they're always superseded by the direct jurisdiction of the pope."

[00:44:18]>> Right?

[00:44:19]>> Where's the canon direct jurisdiction of the pope? Well, it doesn't exist, but we don't need a cannon for it.

[00:44:23]>> So, in some respects, they shouldn't even disagree that they don't have cananical holy orders because they could say, "Yes, because the cannons don't specify our holy orders. We just don't follow the cannons." And we go, "Exactly."

[00:44:38]So it's more one of those situations where we have in some respects entirely different ecclesiologies. They have a papal centric ecclesiology and we have a a canananical um originalist sort of ecclesiology. This is why it's so important behind my head rise and fall of the papacy if you want the history of this in the first millennium. Um that's why it's so important that people realize there's just no written precedent for what happened in the Crusades. The written precedent begins in the 9th century. It's very very late.

[00:45:09]And um for those who maybe want a dumb down version, I did a little cartoon. I think it's the schism through the eyes of a family where it just like would we apply this thing where if the orthodox violate these cannons or some Roman Catholic bishop in some situation who's not the pope violates this cannon, it's immoral. But when the pope does it, it's suddenly not immoral. So it would be like saying, you know, with adultery, it it's wrong when the man does it, but not when the woman does it or and vice versa.

[00:45:41]Clearly, anyone that sets out a moral code that transparently contradictory and hypocritical, >> that doesn't come from God. That's all I could say. And if you and if you really want to dispute that, I don't think we could have a serious conversation.

[00:45:54]>> Yeah. But I think it's um this was something that I noticed even as a Protestant because I remember we did that show a little while ago going over your book rise and fall of the papacy and this was something that I had noted even back then. It does not seem like the Roman Catholics follow the ecumenical councils and their cannons uh in practice since really in reality all of them can be superseded by whatever the pope says at any given time. If their ecclesiology was present within the first thousand years of the church, ecumenical councils wouldn't even be necessary. you could just write a letter to the bishop of Rome and then the matter would be settled. But that's not the way things were handled in the first thousand years. This is why when they set up um when they set up researchers to go into do a study into the ecclesiology of the first thousand years of the church um the Cheddy document, the Alexandria document, all of these things that Leo actually has reaffirmed by the way in his recent statements has reaffirmed these two documents. So everyone's saying we can just handwave these uh that's nonsense. But these both basically admit that the ecclesiology, the first thousand years of the church is what we had in the east. Uh and this is a this is more of a development from their terms. But they're developing past basically the need uh for strict adherence to these cannons or by following the canonical norms of the first thousand years such as as you rightly mentioned Craig the necessity of having a subsequent council if they're going to say abregate something or maybe clarify uh uh previous cannons uh as we have >> it's not yeah it's not impossible that a jurisdiction change or even a responsibility change right the c The patriarch Continople didn't always exist, right? So, it's it's not impossible to change an arrangement, but it needs to be consented to.

[00:47:39]>> Yes.

[00:47:40]>> And and that and that's the problem here is that they unilaterally change an arrangement. And it's like Darth Vader, you know, uh I change the terms, pray I don't change them further. Um it's a joke in the movie, but it's this is clearly the sort of strategy um that's been laid out there. And it's and it's based upon ultimately what were forgeries and misunderstandings of earlier canananical documents. Um what we all now accept to be authentic. Um we know that the original ecclesiology church was never this papacentric ecclesiology.

[00:48:17]And um at this point in the apologetics world, no one's seriously dealing with these arguments anymore. And you know and quite frankly it's I'm personally at peace with that. you know, there's no response to Rise of Fallacy and other um detailed videos and things I've done on these topics. Um but this is why I just point people to we have an early cannon that all sides agree to.

[00:48:43]>> Mhm.

[00:48:44]>> Why why does then this one side violate it?

[00:48:47]>> Yes.

[00:48:47]>> And it's not that like we don't have modern popes calling the uni a tragedy and stuff like this. Again, I understand it's not infallible when they call something a tragedy, but you can't look at us like we have 12 heads for saying this is extra canananatical. Here's the precedent when that's kind of like the mainstream view of your own church and all your scholarship and ecclesiastics for what it's worth.

[00:49:08]>> What we're saying is the mainstream view of everyone. And so then the burden of proof would be to say, "No, everyone is wrong."

[00:49:15]>> Then you better have a good cogent argument, right? not that um you've opened the door just a crack and so then he could slam it open and and that that's what vindicates it. It's like no, you have you have to establish that this papal ecclesiology um justifies the violation of all other canananical norms that are ecclesiastical. Um because I want to point out what's the point of a cannon ultimately it's the rules the laws of ecclesiology. So, you would think if there's a papal ecclesiology, this would have some bearing in the laws of ecclesiology. The fact it has none um is very telling.

[00:49:54]>> Yeah. And this is why this is why when you run the epistemic argument, when you run uh the tag argument, this really only works with the orthodox uh worldview. Because if you were to look at our basis uh for making these statements, well, we're looking at the senates, we're looking at the ecumenical councils, we're looking at our system of canon law, and in our system of canon law, this is consistent with from the very beginning. And what we what we even say in our uh modern commentaries, well, pseudo pseudo modern, not that modern St. St. Nicodemus of the holy mountain uh says in the rudder he's this is a commentary on uh canon one of nika 2 states the sacred cannons of the holy apostles and of the ecumenical and local councils are to remain enforced perpetually. They are the voice of the holy spirit through the fathers binding upon the entire church. None may reject or enol them. They are established for the governance and salvation of the faithful and their authority endures unless an ecumenical council with equal divine inspiration decrees otherwise.

[00:50:52]So, we have methods in place for making these kinds of adjustments. They're in place within our canon law. You know what the system in place for the papal uh the papal system is? Whatever the pope says, if he wants to change it, he could change it whenever he wants to change it. This is why he made a recent statement this year saying that everything is subject to development.

[00:51:12]Everything is subject to change. Faith, morals, teaching, all of it. This was a statement that Pope Leo had made very recently. So when we want to talk about um when we want to talk about epistemology, how we know things, we want to talk about the basis upon which we are pulling from, the normative authority we're pulling from, we have a coherent system that's coherent since uh you know in the in the first thousand years of the church. So anyway, any any thoughts on that? Because it does seem like all of these other systems are far deviations from this. uh even especially if you were to look at Protestants uh you were to look at uh as you already mentioned Roman Catholic canon law so on and so forth these are all deviations and you mentioned even in the Coptic schism they've explicitly saying well we know that the cannons were set this way but we're just going to kind of do this thing over here >> it was the in that situation with Syrians but they're they're communing one another and the Syrians started the Coptic church so um same difference so to say >> um but I would say yes I would the side that has to develop an epistemology to even make sense of their history. So you have to have a novel epistemology so as to then um make the history work.

[00:52:29]I'm not going to be a philosopher of this. It just sounds to me wrong common sense wise, right?

[00:52:34]>> You know I at the end of the day I'm not a religious authority. I'm blessed to do history and evangelism and I'll just say I deal with the facts of history. Um, this way of thinking didn't historically exist. So, yeah, you can make it work this way now if you want to philosophically, but I just I just stick within the realm of history. This did not exist. Um what did exist was this shared understanding of these cannons >> and um basic moral ethics would be if there's agreed terms to a deal the side that breaks those terms is in the wrong.

[00:53:13]It's not terribly complicated. Um you can't have it like I agree if you violate this rule you're invalid but if I violate it the people I consecrate aren't. Right? Like that doesn't make any sense, >> right? Um, but this is really the situation we're posed. So, which is why I really think for someone who's to seriously oppose or question, which is fine to do both, and I think people should question, they should look into these things. If you're going to seriously question this, it's incumbent upon you to then check the details of the history and find out they're true.

[00:53:48]I've made certain resources available for the Roman Catholic question. Um, they're above and rise fault of papacy.

[00:53:54]Um I did a interview in Gospel Simplicity um on the same book and it gets a lot into the Assyrian question. I have a whole show on the non-caledonian schism.

[00:54:05]I think it's called the non-calcedonian schism a history. So it come right up on YouTube. Lots of details there if um you want to follow up on nitty-gritty and it would be a comet to show that the details are wrong because if they're not then these cannons are very clear and as I detail the understanding these cannons aren't my own. These are the understanding the cannons of even our opposition.

[00:54:31]>> Absolutely. Um so I think we can move into kind of the last group here. I think this one will be a little more obvious, but we could talk about the Protestants and how they are schismatic.

[00:54:40]I mean, granted, this is kind of an umbrella term, >> but we can go to kind of, I think, the root.

[00:54:46]>> I I would say, you know, simply there are obviously a schism of a schism, >> right?

[00:54:51]>> Um, >> and I don't know if they care because they've radically redefined schism. I forget which like dry academic text I was reading and one of the footnotes was talking about the meaning of the word heresy because the idea was to show that uh when the nics are called heretics even the term heresy was a development in terminology and it lays out within the first and early second century the term heresy meant sex right these different groups uh that came up it only later came to mean like not meeting a doctrinal standard right and so for the protestant sense um by redefining what the scriptures actually condemn. Um though, interestingly, the new version of NIV with the terrible uh genderneutral language and inclusive language actually gets its translation right on Galatians 5:20. Um recognize uh they don't recognize our paradigm. And this is very important because um if they don't recognize our paradigm, what I'm going to say now doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is very simple.

[00:56:00]>> Um Luther started another church with the help of the German princes. Um and then they went and consecrated new bishops and priests for it.

[00:56:10]>> You know, it's when there was already an established albeit schismatic church, but at least one that wasn't didn't have a second altar. And one I would argue if it wasn't clear enough before that unlike the Assyrians, the West was under the patriarchade of Rome. So they didn't need the consent of people outside their patriarch to consecrate other bishops.

[00:56:32]So they're on the most solid ground for at least having something of a cogent cinnid that doesn't transparently violate cannons.

[00:56:39]>> Um despite starting a schism and creating parallel jurisdictions outside of their own jurisdiction, >> right? Um, and so I think more, which I know less of would have to be spoken of the Anglicans. Um, I think the Anglicans sort of have like their own version of the trail of blood. Like the Baptists say they're the original church and they find the Policans and all these groups had nothing to do with Baptists and they claimed they were the early Baptists from the very beginning.

[00:57:05]>> Um, hopefully you were never involved with that in Cleveland antiquity.

[00:57:08]>> Well, I mean I can I can I can answer that to a brief extent. Before but before I do that I'll >> about the Anglicans I just want to briefly say >> go ahead.

[00:57:16]>> Um and you could probably fill in more detail. I think the major issue is the Anglicans took part in earlier councils which recognized the papalist ecclesiology.

[00:57:29]>> So they agreed to those earlier albeit incorrect terms that existed in the west post the great schism.

[00:57:37]And as a as a result of that um they then break the deal and arrangement they made with Rome when they then refuse to commemorate the pope and then start consecrating bishops without the pope's consent. And so to me this shows what I said the moral issue of breaking terms that are agreed to and secondarily a change in a self-standing of their own rules which then happens three times in for the Anglicans right first where we're where the cannons of Antioch and these things don't matter. Um second breaking the papalist terms and then third taking this more Protestant new view of what creates an ecclesiastical body. Now, I know there's some like militant um I'll have one on Friday night um Anglicans um on this question and so I'll let them get into more detail than I have, but I I just want to say don't get me on the details because I said I don't know them, but this is what I'm sure of. They consented to the terms and the arrangements to ecclesiastical understandings of the papal west and then they stopped. That's the problem. And so to me that makes a clear schism. When it comes to the Lutherans, the Calvinists, they they literally make churches out of nothing.

[00:58:53]>> So they're they're like just a worse version of what the Coptic Orthodox did.

[00:58:57]Um some don't even have bishops. They don't they don't even appear as historical churches. They don't have apostolic successors. They have no continuity whatsoever with the biblical church. Um but like you said, it's it's a catch. It's an umbrella for so many different kinds of ecclesiastical issues. Um, that's why I think the Anglican one is the most interesting and one that I think demands a serious demonstration that they have not broken up any sort of post schism arrangements ecclesiastically because from what I could tell um British accepted Florence and Leon and um for Lateran and a lot you know a lot of these western councils um that recognize papalism and that you know not being commun outside the church and things like this. So then how do you stop that without just pretty much reinventing your own ecclesiology again?

[00:59:51]Um I don't know.

[00:59:54]>> I just want to acknowledge Father Steven D. Young in the chat. Uh good to see you. Uh yeah, Josephus uses the term for Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. the heresies of Judaism to your previous point >> and this and this is common uh in and Pho also uses the term if I remember right. Um well that's cited with Josephus a lot in established term but just look in the New Testament itself whenever the term uh heresy or sect is used unambiguously right where you could actually ascertain the definition in isolation like St. Paul says I'm not among the sect of the uh what what you call a sect. Uh he responds to the Pharisees and the Sadducees when he's in trial. So like he doesn't accept being a Christian makes him part of a sect because remember sex is something he condemns with damnation.

[01:00:47]So it's what you call a sect, you know, um I I wish I had the passage memorized.

[01:00:54]He doesn't acknowledge it because the sect would be some other group. This is how the scripture unamiguously uses the term because that's how the term was used in the first century. The scholarship recognizes this. Joseph uses it explicitly this way. Um, and so that's what the scriptures condemn.

[01:01:12]>> I think onto your onto the Anglican point, I could just talk from my own perspective. Um, I for me I feel like it's pretty cut and dry that they're they are a schism from a schism because even if you were to look at the declaration that the king put out, act of supremacy 1534 is basically declares him as de facto head of the church. So he's taken over this position. He's taken ownership of all the monasteries in this in this declaration. and he's stating basically, hey, all of this all of this stuff belongs to mine, belongs to me. I am the new jurisdictional head.

[01:01:42]Uh, you know, with no no due process, uh, or anything along these lines, he's just saying, look, I'm the new guy. You guys can get out of my country. So, I mean, I this this seems pretty cut and dry, even if you were to look at this one document. So, I would be curious to see how they would try to defend such a statement. Um, this is why I was I was kind of um, anyway, I'll just I'll leave it at that. I think that the Act of Supremacy 1534 uh makes it pretty clear uh that they are a schism from a schism.

[01:02:11]This is actually like a >> I will say I'm I'm grateful that they're at least trying.

[01:02:15]>> Yes.

[01:02:15]>> Right. You know, because it's um we Orthodox have lots of problems and the Roman Catholics lots of problems, but the the Anglicans have is cataclysmic, you know, um the loss of their identity.

[01:02:29]So at least they are trying and I think this bodess well for their future that future Anglican um clergy will be more serious-minded and um it could be a second Oxford movement honestly.

[01:02:45]>> Yeah, potentially. I mean we can uh Yeah, I don't know. I think they should all just become orthodox.

[01:02:52]>> Of course I want I want you to be in every way which I am except these chains, right? So >> there you go.

[01:02:58]>> All right. Well, um I think we've we've covered Is there any group that we're that we're missing that you wanted to cover?

[01:03:04]>> I mean, I'll just say this, it wasn't clear enough before. We do have historical schisms that don't exist anymore. So, that's why we don't care about them. Mhm.

[01:03:12]>> Um but we have the um novations where there was a disputed consecration of a bishop of Rome and then they went and consecrated bishops and uh North Africa and elsewhere in the world and got rest the world's condemnation for setting up second altars. They did so because um with innovations the issue was whether we accept um the repentance of the lapsed people that became uh that sacrificed to the pagan gods or the emperor and then the church would give a penance to bring them back into the church. They said no we cannot have apostates in the church. So these were the more trad people obviously and they the verdict history is against these people. Uh we have the same with the Donatest where they made the more specific argument that clergy that um that apostatized lost the grace of being clergy. And I want to point this out because I think that Donatist have the most sympathetic case like take whatever issues we have with Roman Catholics or true Orthodox or uh non-caledonians.

[01:04:21]The Eastern Orthodox are in fault at least in most cases. I'm sure we have one or two bad bishops out there doing stuff that's nuts of outright sacrificing the pagan gods. Um and so the church with we have an ecumenical cannon condemning the Donatist um landed on the side that no that's wrong that being being this horrible of a heretic doesn't invalidate the church.

[01:04:48]It doesn't say that these people shouldn't be censored or disciplined or anything like that. Um but that Donatism is itself a schism and the donatists use this as an excuse to consecrate a new bishop of Rome and new uh second altars throughout Africa though most of Donatism was in fact a regionalized ethnic schism. So most places where there were Donatist churches um there weren't let's say I'll say orthodox Catholic churches because it was just in a punic part of Africa where there wasn't Latin penetration. A lot of this was again ethnic schism. But that being said, the sort of modus operandi of we're the correct side, so we have to schism doesn't exactly have the sort of sides that you want to side with.

[01:05:33]>> Um there's other smaller groups. Um for example, there's the what are called Malaysians in Egypt. They were also the Cathari. They're they were purists. They were wrong. They were brought back in upon repentance. They were not allowed to have second altars. uh if they were a bishop they could be a core bishop but not a ruling bishop in the city because they were not going to have two altars in a city um and that's in a nine cannon but there was also uh the Malaysius of Antioch St. Malaysius and Paul Linus St. Malaysius was consecrated by I would say moderate semi-arans that essentially became nyene Christians with the majority of the cinnid while um Paulinus was the purist the Catholic that accepted Nika with the uh which was consecrated by Lucifer Kalieri who's a bishop from the west but was in exile for his adherence to Nika. So here's an example of someone who was in communion with a part of the church and I want to point out the correct part of the church with Nika but ended up being wrong on ecclesiology that Malaysius and then after Flavian who had the acceptance of the majority of their cinnid and by the way the council of council one so the majority of the church they're the ones who are vindicated were canonized not Pinus and this is very important because this shows a side where clearly we someone who's doctrally in the right and the rule and the fact that that goes in the favor of the side that's eventually canonized is they have the acceptance the majority of the Senate like the canon stipulate. So and by the way patriarch of Antioch so Paul Linus would have never had a valid consecration to begin with. He was never a bishop. So um I just think this brings some historical context behind we have historical examples who's right who's wrong and some very sympathetic examples and it just seems to me no reform or great opportance could be attained through schism as St. Nasis, >> right? Absolutely.

[01:07:37]I think that's a good way to tie kind of tie a bow on on that segment there. So, we've gone through the major the major schisms at least of the groups that are still here today. Not each and every single Protestant denomination. That would take literally like a whole year to go through. But, anything that you want to plug before we wrap up here, Craig?

[01:07:56]>> Um, I I came to plug just mission work.

[01:07:58]I want to encourage people to become missionaries and do missionary work. Um, if you want to join the prophet Daniel missionary movement, become either a missionary um, locally or overseas, orthomission.com.

[01:08:13]I know that the mission uh, mission work in Cambodia, Trinidad, and Philippines, they're looking for help. But also, people need to organize. And if you, for example, even speak Korean, you could do a lot of missionary work um, literally from you in front of your smartphone, the way you could reach people in Korea.

[01:08:31]So people need to organize and take seriously uh missionary work. Um if this has especially blessed you um we would really appreciate your financial contributions to the mission in Cambodia. Orthodox Christian theology.com/donate.

[01:08:44]Um and of course pray for me.

[01:08:47]>> All right. Well, thank you so much for watching. Until next time.