Qui habitat in adiutorio altissimi Videos

It's not as much eastern, but more of ancient. Ancient repertoire, even in European lands, had more use of the pentatonic (or the least non chromatic) scale. The chromatic scale was a later innovation, however only used extensively for most music in Europe. Middle Eastern and European repertoire were basically nearly the same before the chromatic scale was adopted to vary melodies more often in a piece in Europe. Old Roman chants, such as this one, are remnants and the evolution of what was ancient Roman music, hence its more ancient vibe.

+Guilherme Gueiros That is the best answer for the feel we have as we listen... it is not even an action of listening, but more a state in which we feel or are at this moment... Thank you!

+Mudd Poodle because this is unlinke any other music or that time, not inspired by different form of demon worship. To clarify - just check the lyrics of those chants, just the words translated will bring you peace of mind and reconceilence.

+Espen Farstad i mean that sound waveforms dissipate as it travels, but beyond the point that reaches silence. it doesn't mean that sound extinguishes itself. according to scientists it remains travelling, but in other dimensions, deeper and deeper into silence.

+Guilherme Gueiros Wait, what exactly do you mean by this?

Man that's cool!

+Mudd Poodle another thing is that every sound ever generated in our planet still navigates somehow the orbit. they don't extinguish yet remain vibrating on other dimensional dynamics..

I can agree with that! :)

Yes, in the traditional Roman Catholic Churches of the Latin Rite

+MetalSoHard they are in the churches

This and other old Roman Chants, would not be in Romania,as they are Roman Chant for the Latin Rite, and this specifically is the gradual for Christmas day. Romania is Orthodox; they would the liturgy, practices of the Orthodox Church and sing in in the vernacular.  As everyone will note from the title, this is Latin: " Qui habitat in adiutorio altissimi is the tract for the first Sunday of Lent.

+Bill Harington wow! that awesome I want to visit Romania one day!

+MetalSoHard They are still in byzantine, and here in Romania we sing these kind of chants every Sunday. God's gift

As I said, separations after a council happened so often. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, not some enemies of a random council. God bless you.

+Oliver GieseSorry you hold to that view, but I hold firmly to the Barque of Peter, not the "Johnny-come-lately" Protestant heresies, with many of their sects being genuine loony bins for those who despise Christian Truth.  However, it's the anti-popes of the V-II Sect that are in schism, and worse.  Remember the words of Pope Pius IX in the "Syllabus of Errors":  CONDEMNED Proposition 60:  "Authority and moral rectitude is the sum total of numbers and material forces".  Just because the overwhelming majority of so-called "Catholics" have fallen for the V-II scam, doesn't make it RIGHT!  That's the problem with modern society in general; i.e., if polls show support for a position, no matter how abominable, then they must be on the right side of history.  Bollix!

+Oliver GieseCorrect Pius X not XII thanks for picking that up. But yes it is contrary to the Church prior to 1962; a clear and wide rupture with what was taught prior to John's disastrous council.That event contradicted what the Church past taught replacing it with false ecumenism, religious liberty, and desire for relations with muslims, jews and protestant heretics rather than missionary conversion to save their souls.But the ultimate contraction was with the Church is Paul VI's protestant "memorial meal" liturgy rather than immemorial sacrificial act of the Mass, which God willing, the Novus Ordo will go to the dust bin of history with Paul VI

+GasconyKid Those are very bold accusations without any proof. With all due respect, but you sound like an Protestant to me.

+Latin Mass Choir It isn't. God Himself says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

+Latin Mass Choir Vat 2 is in complete coherence to any rightful council before. Pascendi was written by Pius X., not by Pius XII. Don't be angry, but you are just another group that separated from the Truth. It happened after nearly every council, from the Ethopians at Chalcedon to you at Vat 2. Nevertheless, God bless you and your familiy. Pax domini tecum.

+Plethrin We will never acknowledge, much less respect, Vatican II or the anti-popes that promulgated that Robber Council, particularly the notorious and publicly manifest heretic and apostate from the Christian Faith, Francis the Fraud, Chief Brothel-Keeper of the homo-friendly Novus Ordo Sect, which is not even remotely "Catholic".

What if Vatican II is wrong? - for it conflicts and openly contradicts with much of the teachings of Pius IX, X, XI and XII as well as Leo XIII.  Reading Pius XII's Pascendi shows how much error was in Vat II, particularly around the liturgical reforms and Holy Pope Pius warned us of the impending revolution in his encyclical   Pascendi.                                                          So who do you follow: tradition of the Church and previous Holy Fathers spanning 2000 years, or Vatican II and its novelty dressed up as teaching?

+Dux Domagoi clergy can still celebrate tridentine mass, you must not be a "lukewarm catholic" if you are catholic then you must believe the infallibility if the pope, you must respect vatican II 

The one I'm joining does both English and Latin chant. If the Church says its alright then I stand beside her authority.

+Joshua19True -  but there are very few of those that have not been infected by Novus Ordo mentality and the corresponding musical banality.

Or just go to a monastery during the hours

They are bringing these chants back, you need to find quality Latin Mass parishes, for only there will you hear this ancient chant.  There and only there are there scholas who can sing this music, with the accompanying do/ re / me drone undertone and the embellishing melismas. The critical part in resuscitating any Old Roman chant in a parish is that you need quality singers = good MALE voices and men who have a reasonable knowledge of Latin;  but it is a damn side better that Frank Anderson's dreadful Novus Ordo crud music.

I believe so as well ! But, this is not a reason to accept whatever churchmen do and say, particularly when it contradicts what the Catholic doctrine teaches : Archbishop Lefebvre always followed this principe. Accepting what bears good fruits and is correct to the Faith ; rejecting what is heterodox ( what is our criterion of judgement ? The 20 dogmatic councils, and the offcial teaching of the Popes before Vatican II ). Did we have to follow the scandalous behaviors of Popes and prelates in the Xth or in the XIV-XVth centuries ? NO.

+Raphael Archangelus i love the traditional latin mass or "extraordinary form." however, i don't find ordinary form so appalling like it seems many of you do. haha. i trust Jesus when He said He would be with the church always, until the end of the age. matt 28:18-28 and i believe that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is still very much the pillar and foundation of truth 1 tim 3:15. it's important we trust in the guidance of the holy spirit. john 16:13

+Jordan MallettThe "New Mass" can be largelly invalid, by the simple fact it was a "24 hours hand-made Mass" with the goal to please protestants, and it allows the priest ( or the guy who pretend to be so ) to do whatever he wants with the Liturgy and Sacraments. Sacraments are not toys in the hand of the priest ! Just compare the old Mass ( in fact eternal Mass ) or the Orthodox Mass with the new one of 1969 and you will understand what I mean. Did our Lord please to Pharisees ? No. Our Lord never condemned the greatness and richness of the Temple of Jerusalem for the glory of God, but the use of this Temple by people who didn't care about Him and His people's spiritual needs.Don't forget that just after the Pharisees ( moralist legalism ) there are the Sadducees ( "liberal" ) condemned by Our Lord.

+Raphael Archangelus  Still the Catholic church, If we know Jesus best he's definitely not about traditions and rituals.. that's why the Pharisees feared him. Novus Ordo is supposed to represent a simple and more humble way of celebrating the Mass which I personally think Jesus would prefer. Yes rituals and traditions are nice but we do live in a modern world and the Church had to change, it's not a blasphemy because the sacraments are still celebrated and the gospel is preached which all that matters and there are churches that celebrate in the Tridentine form, God won't condemn his faithful regardless of which mass is celebrated, it's stupid to argue over things like this... when you look at reality there's a whole lot worse going on than this

+Dux DomagoiThe Church of Vatican II is a caricature of the Roman Catholic Church ( the one of the 20 previous dogmatic councils ) : this is the modernist new religion denouced by popes Pius IX ( Syllabus ), Saint Pius X ( encyclical Pascendi ), Pius XI ( Quas Primas, Mortalium Animos ) and Pius XII ( Mystici Corporis, Mediator Dei ). The new modernist religion ruled by Francis is a kind of tumour growing on the Body of the Church and giving poisonous fruits. Kyrie Eleison !

+Mordecai Wayne By saying that you are pointing out that you do not believe in Church authority and the divine guidance that the holy spirit provides to Gods holy church. 

Sadly, the Roman Catholic got rid of the last remnants of tradition in the early 1960s (Vatican II) and effectively created a new religion - one devoid of true beauty and transcendent majesty. The liturgy you see today has nothing to do with true Catholicism.

+. Nzhdeh Actually, as inheirs of the Roman Empire, Byzantines conserved the original Christian chants.

It is beautiful music

+. Nzhdeh How is it not? I don't know, but-.. I thought all chants made in latin were categorized as Gregorian?

Pekne, mysteriozni, skoda, ze tak kratke. :)

I am glad you found my explanation clear and englighenting. I, too, have been a warm enthousiast of this early and delicate polyphonies, or rather heterophonies. I, too, wish you all the best! :)

Wow, thank you very much for your clear explanation. I appreciate this very much. The chants go deeply and are very soothing. Wishing you all the best!

+Marcel Berkien Dear friend Marcel, this kind of chanting has been long the way Eastern Orthodox Church has been practising and never ceased to practice in the sacred service. The story is quite clear; After Charlemagne reign (~8th c.) the two parts of the then Christian Roman Empire (Rome and Constantinople) begun to split more and more. Music did so too, and the western church around the 11th c. adopted the Organum practise based on chanting fashion like this one here (hymn melody over a continuous drone bass), through the centuries and the Organum fashion from simple heterophonies developed to intricate and elaborate polyphonies. As a Greek Orthodox myself, I assure you that this kind of chanting is still alive in current servises both in ordinary churches and monastic communities, such as Mount Athos. Not to forget, here and in other Ensemble Organum recordings too, one can hear and enjoy an active Greek Orthodox chanter in Athens, Lycourgos Aggelopoulos. Kind regards!

+Tomi Matias Pyykkönen Per Cor MARIAE

@ all :also um zu erläutern. ich habe auf den bildern diese zeichen gefunden und bin mir sicher damit macht sich der user strafbar, aber wenn ihr es downloadet seid ihr ebenfalls strafbar und könntet zur kasse gebeten werden.gruss chris

+Agnes Philomena born for combat? what about turning the other cheek?

+RyanFGNM You call the Protestant church a "man made church". Christ did not create the Catholic church. At best, his apostles did. Are you saying that they are not men? Are they the sons of God? Divine? And the Catholic church in it's modern iteration looks nothing like the church the apostles created. Their church was an underground movement created under the Roman Empires eye. It was more like what you see in Eastern churches today. At what point does it become apparent that it's a wholly different animal than the Church created by men who personally knew Jesus? If I buy a car and proceed to change every single piece on it to something different, is it still the same car? Just because it has the same VIN? In the eyes of mans laws, yes, but in reality? No. Your only continuity comes from a line of mortal men that you placed in charge and called "holy". Are they really? Are you so sure about that? They are men. Born into sin. The Protestant church is made up of humans too, but they don't make the mistake of treating mortal humans as if they were divine, A "holy man", because another "holy man" said he was, speaking in Gods name. A man who was appointed by another man, and so on, for thousands of years. But The Church Can Do No Wrong, because they speak for God, right? Those aren't just ordinary men, they are now HOLY men. Even when they are caught in sin and involved in corrupt activities, right?And it's funny how at the top of this line of comments, someone pointed out that "he who curses the Jews shall himself be cursed", apparently to prove the wickedness of Islam. But the Jews were the bitter enemies of the Catholic church for the last couple thousand years. The Church repressed and murdered Jews in the name of God. Are you "un-cursed" now because you've found a more immediate and threatening enemy? This is what comes of men pretending to know Gods will. Any men. Anyway, God created Israel. Told them they were the promised ones, his people. But the screwed up, and he sent Jesus, and thus was born Christianity. So if the Jews could be Gods people, and piss him off so bad that he causes their supersession and eventual fall, then why are you so sure that the Catholic Church is forever. There was schism; maybe that was Gods way of superceding a corrupt organization that he was unhappy with. Nothing happens without Gods say-so, I know that much. Maybe he simply allowed it to happen, and it was the Devils work. Or maybe the Jews are STILL his favorite people. I guess we'll all find out on the other side. Because for every argument you make, there is a counter argument some Protestant bible scholar thought of. But I'm sure they are all just blithering idiots who can't read, because if it so clearly says we all have to be Catholic in the Bible, I'm sure we all would be Catholic if they had read that same part. Or we could just hurry the whole thing up and start killing each other over it; after all "Catholic's are born warriors" (Pope's words, huh?) I guess they must have got that from following the example Jesus set, huh. Because, we all know how big Jesus was on kicking ass and being violent and holding a grudge towards people who don't agree with him. "Join my church, or get an ass kicking, BITCH!!!" Is that how it was? I must have forgot that part. Was that before or after "love one another" and "love thy God"? Seems to me those were the two points that he stressed in order to be saved. I forget him saying anything exhorting his followers to be "warriors" or anything even resembling that. Oh...that's right, the POPE said that, and he speaks for God. Jesus must have just left that out by accident, so he's saying it FOR him. Because, it's not like he's just a man, or anything like that. What's the word..."infallible", that's right. Divine. His is the Word of God. Makes sense.

+Green Hoof Matthew 16:18, Jesus says, "...upon this rock I will build My church..." so how do you says "Jesus did not build the church of anything..." And people leaving the Church does not disprove the Church: Matthew 7:14, Jesus says, "...strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

+Green Hoof  And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18) And you clearly have a poor understanding of the Holy Bible.

+Green Hoof Satan believes in Christ, does that make him Christian?

+The Rebel Wolf The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that anyone can baptize, even a person not baptized. Please refer to it to teach and share the truth. A gift from Pope John Paul II.

+TheRoman Catholic Ok then.1. Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are both one entity(ουσία), but three different substances(υποστάσεις). Three in one and one in three."μοναρχία δέ, οὐχ ἣν ἑν περιγράφει πρόσωπον· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἑν στασιάζον πρὸς ἑαυτὸ πολλὰ καθίστασθαι· ἀλλ᾿ ἣν φύσεως ὁμοτιμία συνίστησι, καὶ γνώμης σύμπνοια, καὶ ταὐτότης κινήσεως, καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἑν τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ σύννευσις, ὅπερ ἀμήχανον ἐπὶ τῆς γεννητῆς φύσεως, ὥστε κἂν ἀριθμῷ διαφέρῃ, τῇ γε οὐσίᾳ μὴ τέμνεσθαι" (Gregory of Nazianzus)Father is not Son and Son is not Father and Holy Spirit is not Son either Father. It's one God with three substances(υποστάσεις in Greek). Father is the origin of the deity, he born the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit.2. The hierarchy is the same hierarchy of the ancient church tradition as we know it from the New Testament. Bishops, presbyters and deacons. Bishops are all equal. But some bishops have titular rights because of the apostolic traditions of their sees and because they had an important role at the defense of the heresies(like Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople)3. Bible is the Old and the New Testament. Bible is a part of the ecclesiastic tradition. First was the Church created by Jesus Christ at Pentecoste and after some years(let's say about 30) the New testament was written. First was the Church and after came the texts. But there is also a part of unwritten tradition. Also there are the texts of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. Both Bible and texts of the Fathers are parts of the ecclesiastic tradition.4. I don't think that Orthodox Church differs much from Catholic at the look of the Bible. We both differ from Protestants. They claim that all are written in the Bible and that the loyals are saved just by reading it. We disagree with that.5. I am not sure, but i think you just need unction, if you want to convert to Orthodoxy. I think your baptism is normally accepted because probably it was done in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.6. Of course Mary is the Mother of God, yes. We worship Mary and we pray in her name. But she has the original sin, as all humans have it after the fall. We do not accept immacluate conception.

+Ιωάννης Ένοχος Alright, so, I'll start with a list.1. What does Eastern Orthodoxy believe about the trinity?2. What are the Eastern Orthodox Church hierachy?3. What is the Eastern Orthodox view of The Bible? 4. How does it differ from Roman Catholicism?5. How does one convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?6. Does Eastern Orthodoxy view Mary as the Mother of God as Roman Catholicism does? do they view Mary as the Queen of Heaven & Earth as well?

+TheRoman CatholicI am all ears.

+Ιωάννης Ένοχος Greetings again, Orthodox friend.I came to ask you about the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy, because I am getting interested in them.

Your defense of the Roman faith is not based upon sound exegesis of Scripture. Sorry. Roman Catholicism does not align with what the Scriptures teach when it comes to soteriology & ecclesiology. The very opening of your statement begs the question: the Mosaic covenant priesthood continues? Where do we find that idea in Scripture? Actually, the Levitical priesthood is abolished. Christ is of a different priestly order. He is the High Priest, and all believers are called priests in the New Testament under the New Covenant administration. There is literally no basis in Scripture for a continuing priestly class/office in the New Covenant. Elder-Bishops and Deacons are the only two offices. There are no Popes, no cardinals, no archbishops, no archdeacons, no monks or nuns. Those are not offices which God has established in His Word.There are a whole host of problems with what you've said, either being ahistorical or unbiblical. Youtube is not a good mode for communicating debate. Suffice it to say, perhaps you ought to give the qualms of the Reformed Protestants consideration. On the other hand, I will never convert to Roman Catholicism until they repudiate the Council of Trent and all subsequent Councils, and recognize the central importance of the doctrine of imputation (among so many others). Cheers.

+TheRoman CatholicOf course we two are the old ancient Chruch. The undivided Church, the five ancient Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (Pentarchy). We have almost 1000 years of same tradition. But i 'm telling you, that historically you were the ones who disobeyed the canons of the Oecoumenical Councils. You added Filioque at the Symbol at 1014 A.D., you added papal infallability, you added Purgatory and many more doctrines thay were not existed at the ancient Church. So make the first step and remove Filioque from the Symbol officially. Pope must announce it officially. You catholics must push Pope to do that.But you do not do that. And you now have new heretics like protestants or anglicans that claim that are the true Church. Sorry, but you keep fuckin up the pure faith all the time and you divide people and you never alter yor stance and and new heretical "churches" are created because you never admit your anticanonical faults. That's the biggest problem...

+Noah Shepherd in the Old Testament, when God established His Covenant with the nation of Israel, He provided for a living, continuing authority in the Mosaic priesthood (see 2 Chr 19:11; Mal 2:7.) This authority did not end when the OT Scripture was written; rather, it continued as the safeguard and authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture. When Christ established His Church, the New Israel, He set up a living, continuing authority to teach, govern, and sanctify in His name. This living authority is called “Apostolic” because it began with the twelve Apostles and continued with their successors. It was this Apostolic authority that would preserve and authentically interpret the Revelation of Jesus Christ. This same Apostolic authority determined the canon of the Bible, and will preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ in all their fullness, and uncorrupted from error, until the end of time.Among the twelve Apostles St. Peter is clearly the head. Know Matthew 16:13-19 well: ” And so I say to you, you are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter, which mean “rock.” Our Lord says this rock will be God’s way of preserving the Church from corruption until the end of time.Our Lord knew St. Peter would be dead by 70 AD Therefore Christ must have intended the office of Peter to last until the end of time. St. Peter is given the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” This is an awesome gift. To nobody else does Christ give this ruling power. Reflect on this unique privilege. Why would Jesus would give this tremendous authority to St. Peter and not intend for it to be passed on? If the early Christians needed an authoritative leader, later Christians would need one even more. After all, many of the early Christians heard the Gospel from Christ Himself and knew the Apostles personally. After all the Apostles died, the Church would have even greater need of the power of the keys when enemies would try to corrupt the teachings of Christ.Although all the Apostles as a group were given the power to “bind and to loose” in Mt 18:18, St. Peter received this power individually at the time he was given the “keys.” Jesus would not have guaranteed to back up the doctrinal teachings of St. Peter and his successors unless He was also going to protect them from teaching false doctrine in their official capacities as Shepherds of the Church. Read Lk 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17. In the passage from St. Luke, Jesus prays that Peter’s faith would not fail; Peter in turn would strengthen the other disciples. In the passage from St. John, Jesus clearly makes Peter the shepherd of His Church. So St. Peter is the rock on which Christ builds His Church. He is given the “keys of the Kingdom” and he is made shepherd of Christ’s flock: solid biblical evidence that Jesus made St. Peter the first Pope.Now you might be saying, “where does the pope play into all of this?” Well, the popes are Christ’s vicars, the visible and earthly heads of Christ’s Church while Christ is the invisible and supreme head. Read Acts 15. This gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final. Some may claim that Acts 15 shows that James, not Peter, was the head of the Church. Since James the Lesser (not James, the brother of John) gives the concluding remarks at the council of Jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the Gentiles, they conclude that James must be the head of the Church. All I can do is tell those people to read the Gospels, where St. Peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the Apostles, whereas James the Lesser is not.Read the first twelve chapters of Acts, which describe the early Church in Jerusalem. Every chapter (except 6 and 7, which describe Stephen’s martyrdom) shows St. Peter in a leadership position while St. James appears only briefly, and never in a leadership role. In Galatians 1:18-19, we are told that Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion specifically to confer with Peter. He stayed with Peter 15 days. In contrast, Paul visited James only briefly during this time. At the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it was St. Peter’s statements that settled the serious doctrinal dispute that was the reason for the council. As we saw earlier, St. Peter’s statements silenced the assembly of presbyters and the Apostles (including St. James). We know from Church history that St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and, as Acts 21:15-25 describes, he was concerned for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who felt their ancient customs threatened by the great number of Gentile converts. This background explains why St. James made the concluding remarks at the council and asked Gentiles to respect certain Jewish practices. People are grasping at straws when they claim that Acts 15 proves that James, instead of Peter, was the head of the Church.Some have also cited 1 Peter 5:1 numerous times to claim that Peter was not the head of the Church. They note that Peter, in addressing some elders (Church leaders), calls himself a fellow elder. They therefore conclude that Peter had no more authority than any other elder. But this is just like the President of the United States saying, “My fellow Americans.” This would certainly not indicate that the President has no more authority than an ordinary citizen. As an Apostle, St. Peter certainly considers his authority to be greater than that of an ordinary elder. After all, St. Peter goes on to admonish these “fellow elders” (1 Pet 5:2-4) as one having authority over them. In calling them fellow elders, St. Peter is simply acknowledging the obvious: like himself, they are also Church leaders. To insist that Peter, as an Apostle, had no greater authority than an ordinary elder, shows how little is appreciated about what Scripture says about the great office of Apostle.Many people quote Gal 2:11-14 as well, attempting to show that Peter was not infallible and that Paul did not consider him the head of the Church. This position is not supportable. First of all, if they think Peter was not infallible, why do they accept his two letters as inspired and, therefore, infallible? We must accept that all the Apostles were infallible. After the Apostles, the popes individually and the bishops as a group in union with the pope, are infallible. St. Paul correcting St. Peter for weak behavior is no different from St. Catherine of Siena correcting weak popes in the Middle Ages. There was no doctrine involved. St. Peter himself had settled the doctrinal point at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul corrected St. Peter for being unwilling to confront the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Remember, St. Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem once St. Peter spoke. The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 AD, the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), stresses that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then lists all the bishops of Rome up to his time. St. Irenaeus presents this teaching as something taken for granted by orthodox Christians. For 250 years the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred; the Romans certainly knew who was the head of the Church! A Roman Emperor’s greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Nevertheless, the emperor Decius (249-251 AD), one of the harshest persecutors of the early Christian Church, made the following remark, “I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome.” Decius said this after he had executed Pope Fabian in 250 AD.

+TheRoman Catholic I know precisely what I'm saying and stand by it. The Papacy is not an office of the Church set forth in Scripture. It developed via later traditions which do not comport with Scripture (inb4 bad exegesis of Matthew's Πέτρος passage). The offices set forth in Scripture are the πρεσβύτεροι/επίσκοποι (which are used interchangeably), and the diaconate.

+Noah Shepherd "both are heretical sects which departed from the apostolic faith" do you even know what your saying? Jesus Christ ESTABLISHED the Catholic Church, the 1st Pope of the Catholic Church in fact was Simon Peter, the Apostle.

+TheRoman Catholic​ they're not similar. Roman Catholic anthropology, harmartiology, and soteriology is completely different from Eastern Orthodoxy, not to mention the two conceptions of the Trinity. And both are heretical sects which departed from the apostolic faith as set forth in Scripture and as explained in the Westminster Standards.

+Ιωάννης Ένοχος Regardless of which Church we think is "Right" whether it be The Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, we can both agree our Churches started at the same time and that our beliefs between our 2 different Churches are actually very similar.

We are just talking. Many Christians are dissapointed from this situation of the Church right now and hope that the Catholics will unite with the Orthodoxs. But we must pepare the right circumstances for this to happen. We cannot unite under any circumstances. I am sure that everybody knows which Church is the true Church and who follows the rules of the Councils and the faith of the ancient Church and Fathers. Especially these people who have read the history of the Church. There is no hating from the Orthodox Church to the Pope. But as i said, although Pope is the first bishop between all, this fact had and still has nothing to do with Papal inafffiblility or with power to interfere over other sees or with political authority, as Catholics claim. Also Filioque must be removed from the Symbol, as an anticanonical act, as an addition to the true faith, according to the canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus 431 A.D."By the way, Purgatory is a later Western invention, and is not the universal belief of the ancient church. At all. Nor does it comport with the apostolic writings in the NT."So true my friend.

Ssttooop

+TheRoman Catholic​ many Eastern Fathers had no conception of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, or else rejected it. It's not that the East stopped believing in it. There were divergent theologies in the Nicene & Post-Nicene church that went on to influence the theological developments of the East & West.By the way, Purgatory is a later Western invention, and is not the universal belief of the ancient church. At all. Nor does it comport with the apostolic writings in the NT.

+The Rebel Wolf I literally have Schaff's Church History and the Ante-Nicene Fathers in the headboard of my bed. They did not all adhere to Vatican I Roman Catholicism, as that council claims.

Plz!!!

Would u guys stop FIGHTING

Ok you think we are schismatics. But we follow the Symbol and the rules of the seven Oecumenical Councils. You do not do the same from a long time ago.There is no Byzantine Emperor. Just emperor of the Roman Empire. The West part of the Empire fell at 476μ.Χ. The East Empire part continued to exist. So its just the Roman Empire.Pope was always first. We say now that Pope is first, but it's important how you interpret this word "first". He had just the titular rights between all the bishops of the Church. He always did. But these titular wrights have nothing to do with Papal inafffiblility or with power to interfere over other sees or with political authority. We follow the faith of the Church Fathers. The Bishop of Constantinople gained power and authority because Constantinople was the new big city of the Roman Empire. Thats why we had the rule 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.Also, you added with such an anticanonical way the Filioque to the Symbol. Church of Rome at first didn't accept it, but Franks pushed Pope and finally he accepted it at 11th century(1014). The Symbol of the Faith never changes and we cannot add or remove anything. Read the rule number seven of the Council of Ephesus 431μ.Χ.«Τούτων ἀναγνωσθέντων, ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος, ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν, ἤγουν συγγράφειν, ἢ συντιθέναι, παρὰ τὴν ὁρισθεῖσαν παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων, τῶν ἐν τῇ Νικαέων συναχθέντων πόλει, σὺν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι. Τοὺς δὲ τολμῶντας ἢ συντιθέναι πίστιν ἑτέραν, ἢ γοῦν προκομίζειν, ἢ προφέρειν τοῖς θέλουσιν ἐπιστρέφειν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, ἢ ἐξ ἑλληνισμοῦ, ἢ ἐξ ἰουδαϊσμοῦ, ἢ γοῦν ἐξ αἱρέσεως οἱασδηποτοῦν· τούτους, εἰ μὲν εἶεν ἐπίσκοποι, ἢ κληρικοί, ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐπισκόπους τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, καὶ τοὺς κληρικοὺς τοῦ κλήρου· εἰ δὲ λαϊκοὶ εἶεν ἀναθεματίζεσθαι. Κατὰ τὸν ἴσον δὲ τρόπον, εἰ φωραθεῖεν τινες, εἴτε ἐπίσκοποι, εἴτε κληρικοί, εἴτε λαϊκοὶ ἢ φρονοῦντες, ἢ διδάσκοντες τὰ ἐν τῇ προκομισθείσῃ ἐκθέσει παρὰ Χαρισίου τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου, περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἤγουν τὰ μιαρὰ καὶ διεστραμμένα τοῦ Νεστορίου δόγματα, ἃ καὶ ὑποτέτακται, ὑποκείσθωσαν τῇ ἀποφάσει τῆς ἁγίας ταύτης καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου· ὥστε δηλονότι, τὸν μὲν ἐπίσκοπον, ἁπαλλοτριούσθαι τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, καὶ εἶναι καθῃρημένον· τὸν δὲ κληρικόν, ὁμοίως ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ κλήρου· εἰ δὲ λαϊκός τις εἴη, καὶ οὗτος ἀναθεματιζέσθω, καθὰ προείρηται».You acted wrongly. Tell Pope to take away Filioque from the Symbol and to announce it officialy. That's a good first move. Also take away the papal inaffibility which it was voted at 1870. How dare to do that? Who Pope thinks he is to be infallible? Is he Christ or God? Thats the two biggest historical heresies of Pope, i think. The ecclesiastical rites are not a serious problem. We can unite, but you never admit your historical faults and your anticanonical acts that harmed the true faith. How can we communicate like that?

+Ιωάννης Ένοχος First of all the Eastern Orthodox Church is not false as such but merely schismatic from the Catholic Church. The main reason is that the Bishop of Rome was always the head of the Catholic Church and always had the power in Church law to remove and replace Eastern Patriarchs (though this ability was often blocked by the Byzantine Emperor) and thus breaking from the Pope was splitting from the Catholic Church (the Bishop of Rome described as the source of sacerdotal union by St Cyprian of Carthage in the middle of the 3rd century for example). Also the same Eastern Patriarchs that split from the Catholic Church were quite often in heresy historically speaking and had to be brought back by the Pope and also they were quite often puppets of the Byzantine Emperor. As for Councils being the deciding factor mostly it was a Council in union with the Pope as many councils of bishops (who were always the people with a vote in councils, it was never a popular vote) backed things like Arianism/Monothelitism etc. but weren't ratified by the Pope. In fact the Patriarch of Constantinople usurped a lot of power outside of his established boundaries of Asia, Pontus and Thrace by claiming authority over the whole Balkans, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and even southern Italy and Sicily and calling himself equal to the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch, this all being given to him by the Emperor not Council. Papal Infallibility was voted for by a Council, albeit a more recent one, though there were early mentions of Papal Infallibility and pronouncements made, even in the third century, possibly earlier, though admittedly it was less specific.While the Eastern Orthodox have undeniably kept Church practice the same more than the Catholic Church since the split they have changed their views on doctrine and morality by stopping believing in Original Sin and Purgatory (both voted for in the Synod of Jerusalem) and allowing contraception. Furthermore they insist everyone uses the Byzantine Rite which is ridiculous as it is only one of the original Rites still uses in the Catholic Church and more recently created than the Latin, Syrian and Coptic Rites.Also unlike the Catholic Church (with the Pope) they have nothing unique to say they are the one true Church, as opposed to the Catholic, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Churches, so that claim doesn't make as much sense, whereas a claim to be part of the true Church would

First of all, you interpret this quotation from Matthew with wrong way. It meas that i will build my church on this rock. Rock is the true faith to Jesus and it has actually nothing to do with Rome. How can you forget that Peter betrayed Jesus three times? Υοu do the same. Also Church has nothing to do with authority.St. Paul was the Apostle of the nations. He came into Rome too and converted the Roman pagans into christians.As i said, you separated yourselves from the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Chyrch of Christ, and became heretivs with your own will. Church will be always awaiting for you to get back and save yourselves.

+Ιωάννης Ένοχος Jesus Christ established the Roman Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox Church. Jesus Christ chose St.Peter the Apostle, the 1st Pope, as his rock and gave him the Keys of Heaven. St.Paul did not have this authority, and St.Paul founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was Jesus who founded the Roman Catholic Church, not Orthodox. No other Bishop had the authority St.Peters did, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell  will not overcome it.I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19 What authority did St.Paul have related to St.Peters, the 1st Pope?

+The Rebel Wolf The one and only church of Jesus Christ is the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. You Cathlolics, Protestants and Pope are heretics. You have separated completely yourselves from the Church since 1054.

+Agnes Philomena wow

+Noah Shepherd I've already done the research.Look up Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, and all the other Church Fathers.

+The Rebel Wolf The early bishops held all Roman Catholic doctrines huh? Want to do some historical research and get back to us with that? That's nonsense.

+The Rebel Wolf You are 100% correct, Roman Catholicism is the OLDEST and most truest denomination of Christianity, the 1st Pope was in fact the 1st disciple of Jesus, St.Peters. The 1st 15 centuries of Christianity were Roman Catholicism, so I heard. Then during the 16th century, Protestantism formed. And many Protestants say that the Protestant church is the correct church of Christ, yet they seem to be forgetting of the 1st 15 centuries of Christianity, which was Roman Catholicism. I met a Protestant telling me how it was true Jesus told St.Peters to carry out his teachings and that he failed, yet he seemed to forget the Bible verse when Jesus tells St.Peters this: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it." which means that he would not fail.

+Agnes Philomena nor really. Salvation is OF the Jews = Lord is from their tribe (as promissed in the Old testament) . At the same he condemned them as nation/tribe multiple times in the Scripture. But he keeps always open for the individuals seeking truth (as also seen in the Scripture). Yes I agree about the true faith, but chosing my fruit to be peace, not judging Muslims and Protestants as not from Jesus. Ad Honorem Iesu

+عبدالكريم اسامة It would be easier to understand you if you spoke english.

+The Urban Wolf First off Jesus did not build the church of anything. His disciples did and to be honest, you realize one of the big reasons the catholic and protestant churches have lost so much people is because people like you arguing about what the true church is. A true christian is anyone who believes in christ.

و

+RyanFGNM And What did Jesus say What makes you born again ?Repent and be Baptized for the Remission of your sins. The Church is the only one who can baptize.Christ set up the Church to do all these things.

lol I find it amusing that you say Protestantism as if you have a bad taste in your mouth. I have read the new testament. An the apostles did set up churches but unfortunately as the years went on that leadership became corrupt. Jesus said that one must be born again. It is a personal relationship with Christ you need the Church can guide us on our path but it can not save us from damnation. If the Catholic Church is what works for you than by all means follow it.

+RyanFGNM Well I must say that Non Denominationalism is just as bad as protestantism.Christ Set up a Church. He Intended it to be a major part of the Christian life. The Church Teaches, Baptizes, Offers the Holy Communion, and provides a gathering of Believers. I simply must say that one can't claim Christ, but reject the Church, if one reads the new testament, you will find this to be the truth.

+Dorothy Potter Snyder Indeed mrs Dorthy we all hail from one human so in essence we are all related one way or another. I spoke about the arguing denominations that if those simple principles can be held then were doing alright. But if you hold anything of value of the good book it is clear we cannot make it on our own.

+The Urban Wolf Ah I do know this to be true. But the church is its people. I would have been a Catholic if it was not for the corruption that spawned the creation of the protestant movement. The church was good before that but the devil snuck in and corrupted it. My leader is Christ and he will be the one I will follow. I don't which ill will on any who hold the old church as true but I will remain non denominational. 

+RyanFGNM I will not count you as a close brother in Christ. I will explain in kindness.The Catholic Church is the Original Christian Church. Jesus established one church in Matthew 16. This Church was grown by the apostles, and they ordained Deacons, priests, and Bishops. Some of the early Bishops wrote texts that even protestants hold in reverence today. The point is that there Bishops were not protestant in any way, they held all Catholic Doctrines, and they were the ones to name the Church Catholic (Universal) in the first place. The Papacy was established by Christ to lead the Church. Although I don't use the term Papacy when adressing protestants, it seems to carry a taboo. So Christ had one Bishop be more prime. Peter was the first. Jesus knew that to have a stable Church, you need a present leader to guide the flock. Today, there has been an unbroken Chain of Bishops of Rome. I can go further into the Verses, History, and Early Fathers I can use to prove all of this.So I say to you, in kindness, why be a part of a man made Church, when the Church that Christ paid for with this OWN BLOOD is right here, waiting for you ?

+RyanFGNM And will you not hold me as a brother or sister if I do not believe? I say this in kindness, just wondering.

+Agnes Philomena I an other protestants like me simply do not hold the pope as our leader but I will count you as my brother or sister if we can agree that Jesus is lord and died for our sins.

What is the truth, then?Where would rather live right now, under an Islamic regime?If you curse the Jews, Holy Scripture says, YOU will be cursed.Catholicism is the truth. John 4:22 "Salvation is of the Jews."Jesus is true God and true Man. On this earthly level, Jesus live as a Jew.Islam is a heresy. Islam proceeds by savagery and murder. There many innocent Muslims as well.Catholicism is the one true faith. Protestantism was not founded by Jesus, but by those who broke away from the original faiths handed down by Jesus of Nazareth.