A lifetime of searching for the truth, misled several times by my ignorance, pride and selfishness. Two years ago, on my knees and face to the ground in otter despair,… I asked Jesus, to show me his true original truth passed down from his Apostles, Saints, and fathers. After realizing my entire life lived as everything lower than a sinner, crying to God for hours in repentance, on my face begging for his forgiveness … God is good to us, in his sweet patience and mercy, Jesus led me to a small Orthodox Church. The Liturgy was in Slavic, I did not comprehend, but my heart was filled to overflowing, every spoken word, every song I would hear, warmed my heart and uncontrollable tears poured down my face. At that moment, I knew. In April, I was graciously baptised in the Glorious Church of Jesus the Christ. My pilgrim is the everlasting way of Christ. May your journey lead you to the heart of our Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us !
Thank you! May God Almighty bless you and yours as well. I myself am a convert to Orthodoxy from Catholicism (and previously from Protestant LOL). I found there were too many inconsistencies within the Roman Catholic faith ... e.g. 'doctrinal development' (if Christ's church and the faith is complete, this is not necessary, but according to Rome it is) ... the RC concept of original sin (Orthodox very different), the 'immaculate conception' is a perfect example of this ... the pope's historic role as "first among equals" compared to the recent (less than 200 years) RC idea of papal infallability ... the RC's lack of honoring tradition (too many changes to the faith, Vatican II is bad) ... the idea that during confession the priest forgives you (RC) whereas in Orthodoxy the priest prays with you to ask for God's forgiveness ... the RC view of Christ as a "judge" vs. Orthodox view of Christ as "healer/doctor"... the list goes on. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and faith as it is today is not the same as it was 1,000 or even 500 years ago. Compare the Council of Trent declarations to the new doctines of faith -- you essentially have two different religions. Orthodoxy, on the otherhand, remains the same. Go visit an Orthodox Church -- you will be amazed by the sense of love and feeling of the Holy Spirit truly being there. No doubt, upon researching the differences, you will want to convert too! 🙏☦
@@Utube-Enlightenment Interesting because I find the lack consistencies within the Orthodox Church to be an issue. Because there is no magisterium in Orthodoxy, it’s difficult to get an official position on various aspects within Orthodoxy. For example, do Catholics have valid sacraments? Do other Christians have valid baptisms? These answers will vary. Moreover, if there is an issue within Orthodoxy such as the current situation of the Russian Orthodox Church invading Africa, trying to take over Orthodox churches there, and of course, their position of supporting the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine by calling it a “holy war” then there is no governing body to condemn such acts. To me, it seems like if disagreement ensues between churches in the Orthodox Church then all that continues is disagreement. To be clear, if you ask any Catholic priest who forgives sins, they would say God. I’d also recommend carefully and prayerfully considering the official teachings of whatever denomination you find yourself in before jumping around especially if emotions are involved. Therefore, while I desire you to become Catholic (again), I think it’s best you remain Orthodox at this point. I recommend you listen to what Catholics say about Catholicism just as I listen to what the Orthodox say about Orthodoxy. At any rate, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you abundantly as you continue you on your faith journey!
The more I listen to Fr Paul Truebenbach speak the more my feeling with converting to orthodoxy has grown. The only thing I need to figure out is what church to attend, as there is so many Orthodox churches around me.
I want to fly over there to learn from you 😂. I really appreciate your dedication to study. I go to a non denominational church and I study the Bible on my own time. I have so many questions that no one at my church has ever even thought of. I am afraid to ask questions at my church because I feel like it will make some of them lose faith because I can bring up things in the Bible that we cannot fully understand or accept.
Although I am not a priest, I am studying for the diaconate and converted over 20 years ago. If you would like to have discussions by email or phone, we can find a way to connect. If not, perhaps reach out to a local Orthodox priest. You will be surprised at how well informed yet humble they all are.
I'm Episcopal and finding a similar issue - there are just not many boundaries right now in the denomination. Everyone just decides what they want to believe and use their own interpretation of scripture. For example: one day my Priest stated that Mother Mary was/is not a virgin. After I picked myself off the floor, I tried to point out that as Episcopalians we recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday. The Nicene Creed clearly states that Mary is a virgin. My Priest started a disjointed argument about how we don't have to hold to Apostolic Succession. Worse, my fellow church members then made fun of me for not knowing how biology works. It's the Wild West. I don't think it is leading anywhere good and am looking at options to leave. What is next? They start questioning the resurrection because typically people do not rise from the dead? It reminds me of the book of Judges: every man did what is right in his own eyes. I will likely end up Orthodox or Catholic.
They couldn't believe Jesus is God either because that goes beyond biology! Wow. I'm so sorry about all of it. We are Orthodox Catholic, just not under the Pope. 😅
Prayers for your discernment and I’m very glad you ended up on this video. Study the early church fathers, especially the apostolic fathers to help guide you in your discernment. I’m Byzantine Catholic. Our church retains eastern tradition but is in union with Rome. It is my sincere hope and desire that all Catholic Orthodox brothers and sisters will be unified. These times we are in are sinful, prideful, and dangerous. We all need each other and our Faith foundation.
@@LeiaShilobod We can't be unified because Rome broke off from the Church, didn't repent from the heresies and created more, and then created the Unia to replace the Church. I won't even get into the specifics of the bad history of the Orthodox and Unia. But it's not something that can be solved without Rome coming back into the fold as it was before the split started. It is important to be honest that it just isn't possible.
This is a great interview, with great questions. I was especially intrigued with the excellent question regarding when the laity can rebel against their bishops. The schism between the West and the East is grievous, I hope one day it can be overcome.
The writings that Father Paul recommends in the video are the following: * Article by Doctor David Ford about the Photian Schism [timestamp ~8:05] , I believe is "St. Photios the Great, the Photian Council, and Relations with the Roman Church" by Dr. David Ford. It is a good read, very well researched and referenced. I recommend it as well. Can be found by searching on net. * Saint Photius the Great, "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" [timestamp ~11:50]. Can be found by searching on net. * "Apodictic Treatises on the Procession of the Holy Spirit" by St. Gregory Palamas [timestamp ~11:55]. This is a book of 358 pages and may be found at bookstores.
Thank You Father Paul, things are out of Balance in the Catholic Church and it breaks down to the pit of my Heart 💔. People need to Understand the Truth of their religion and deny when things do not correlate the True Religion.
Good news today 7/12/24 The Holly Orthodox Romanian Sinod has proclaimed saints a group of monks and priests that serve the church in time of comunist regime among Father Ilie Cleopa 2 Dec. Father Arsenie Boca 28 Nov. Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloaie and many others 16 total.
@@donhaddix3770 The Holly Spirit work in and through this saints when they were still alive and in prison for their belief in Christ but what you’ll know about this? The show at your so-called church never stops.
Would you mind sharing your story? I'm intrigued. I first came to faith through evangelical preaching and tracts. I'm now going to Divine Liturgy on Sundays.
Please, father! Can you explain to us the history of de Holy Sign of the Cross? And a comparison between orthodox way and roman-catholical way. Thank you! May God bless you!
There is no official history of making the cross on yourself. Some oriental Christians do it left-to-right as well as the Latins. Some venerate the ΜΡ ΘΥ icon before ΙΣ ΧΣ as well. These are not meaningful differences, only local variations of practice.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972Actually, right to left has theology behind it in the Orthodox Church. That's why we can't go left to right. It isn't cultural. The original sign of the Cross was tracing an equilateral cross on the forehead with a right index finger or thumb, then moved to full body which the Orthodox still do and it was right to left. The RCs changed to left to right and only make a Cross to the heart area which inverts the Cross.
@@LadyMaria absurd demonization of sincere Latins. How do you explain oriental Christians doing the same. You don’t know, you just make up scary nonsense.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972Um, it isn't a demonization. If you actually paid attention and looked at how they make the cross, it's upside down. It isn't intentional, but it's done that way. Pay attention. Orientals have had some RC influence that trickled in. For example the Ethiopians believe in the immaculate conception but the Coptics don't. Try not to ad hominem people. If you do again, I will mute you.
@@LadyMaria ad hominem people? To mischaracterize the piety of hundreds of millions of Catholics as demonic is hateful. If your ‘moderation’ can’t tolerate a just critique of that error, I don’t care if you silence my voice because the discourse here you encourage is immoderate and unchristian.
I would love to hear the fathers of this pages opinion on modern day wars, particularly on Putin and the Russian governments invasion of Ukraine. Much love from Canada💚
Amen Father! With God, anything is possible. I pray for the reunification of all Catholic Orthodox brothers and sisters. It does seem like an impossibility. The Western Church could so benefit from the deep living of the Faith engrained in the Eastern Church. May God unify his people. Finally, though it’s unlikely you’ll read this, I’d like to say as a Byzantine Catholic, that I’d venerate an Orthodox saint so called Catholics heretics. Saints are not perfect humans. But they were living brothers and sisters who exemplified Jesus and their lives teach us well. Clearly they believed they were right in their declarations. Only God is judge.
Thank you for this - we follow Christ and I am increasingly calling myself a follower of the Way. Institutional religion is in a poor way. The Gospel is made so complex.
I was baptized as a Catholic in my childhood (now Orthodox) in Brazil. I still remember the Catholic creed in Portuguese and it doesn't say that the Holy Spirit proceed from the son. I think it has changed a while ago. It just says "creio no Espírito Santo". Translated as "I believe in the Holy Spirit". And that's it.
What else did Rome have? Vast Relics of the Saints, why? They were martyred there and possession of relics were tangible examples of authority or maybe a better word is legitimacy. But that claim began to diminish rapidly after 312 when churches were allowed to operate legally and relics began to be exported from Rome and other places to sanctify new communities and alters.
Why always “Eastern Orthodoxy” why not just “Orthodox Christian”? Ought we not demonstrate our catholicity, even in our language? I feel we give incorrect impressions by using the language of academia, like saying “Oriental Orthodox” gives the impression they are Orthodox.. and thus loses its meaning
Its to distinguish us from the Orientals, who call themselves Orthodox. It is also sort of the reason we don't call ourselves Catholics to other denominations even though we are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, to not confuse us with the denominations.
@CzarLazar1389 Thanks for your response. I’m not understanding why would we sacrifice our own language due to the misunderstandings of others, which only actually further confuses people on the outside because they think the “Orientals” and “Eastern” Orthodox are in communion/the same, particularly since the words literally mean the same thing.. It seems to me to contribute to branch theory ideology, and I say this based on much experience with various inquiring Protestants and agnostics. Further, it makes people think we are only of a “eastern flavor” which leads to the rise of this desire for “western rite” Orthodoxy or worse, that Orthodoxy is not for the west. Again, this is my personal experience with many inquirers.. The official name of the Church is Orthodox Catholic, I don’t see why we wouldn’t just use that instead of what the academics and other faith communities want to call us..
Rome was seen as the see of Ss. Peter and Paul and the honor it was given was due to this double apostolicity. The focus on St. Peter alone is a later deviation.
Since the orthodox claim that the Catholic Church has broken from apostolic succession do they believe that the sacraments of the Catholic Church are invalid? What about the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic being held inside Catholic Churches? Do the orthodox believe Christ is not present?
Mathew 1:18 : "...[Mary] was found with Child of the Holy Ghost". How could the Holy Ghost proceed from the son when the father sent the Holy Ghost to beget him? The Filioque is Fili-NO-que.
Do the orthodox believe that the redemption that came from Christ’s sacrifice only remains within their church since they believe that they are the only ones with legitimate apostolic succesion?
The foundation of Orthodox concept is the Monarchy of God The Father. Some Protestants, especially Evangelical treat Christ almost as friend and the role model. "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? " Mathew 20 verse 22.
It goes beyond that into the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit. We can agree on the temporal procession (in time) at Pentecost, but not the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit being the Father and Son.
@@LadyMariathat’s illogical, you are arguing that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the son for a limited time! Truly the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son now and forever.
@@patricksee10 If you claim that the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son then you have subordinated the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit at Pentecost was sent by the Father through the Son. That's temporal procession. The Father is the eternal Source of the Son and Holy Spirit -- the Son is only begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Each Person of the Holy Trinity has one unique faculty that the other two Persons do not share, they share everything else. For two Persons to share something that the third Person does not subordinates the third Person. That means that the Holy Trinity is no longer balanced or co-equal. At any rate the Filioque and its theology was anathematized at the 8th Ecumenical Council of AD 879. So it's pointless to argue.
One rule which I use regarding Archbishop's and Bishop's. Is this have they changed the Liturgy or any of the sacraments. If they have then that's when I'll will depart from that Church. If the liturgy does not follow that which St. John Cystomous has written or St Basil has written then I will simply leave. Some Bishop's have said or done things which are not necessarily Orthodox. Since criticism of a Archbishop or Bishop is against the canons of the Church. I'll obey such a Canon and agree with it as this can cause schism and scandal. I have seen this happen and unfortunately this is exactly what has happened.
John 3:14 KJV "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the SON OF MAN (CHRIST) be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believes in HIM should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved. 18 He that believes on HIM is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD." 36 He that believes on the SON has everlasting life: and he that believes not the SON shall not see life; but the wrath of GOD abides on him. John 5:23 KJV “.......................... He that honors not the SON honors not the FATHER which has sent HIM. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears MYWORD, and believes on HIM that sent ME, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Romans 8:1 KJV “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in CHRIST JESUS, who walk not after the flesh (works), but after the Spirit (grace). Note: A true Christian is not condemned and has everlasting life therefore if you do not know where you will immediately go when you die then you deny what CHRIST said therefore you deny CHRIST.
Regarding Bishops: when bishops told their churches to stop services, stop using one spoon, stop venerating/kissing icons, listen to the government mandates. Then what? Can you speak on these matters please
Ways of receiving Eucharist have changed numerous times over the millennium. It's not a hill to die on, the council of trullo forbade the use of any spoons or instruments in receiving communion.
A rather sad time all around, wasn't it? That might not be discussed here, since these are clips from what must have been quite a long but remarkable interview.. I am impressed all over again each time a new segment is posted. Let us, i suppose, learn what each of us can learn from those days, and pray for wisdom to face whatever is most-surely headed our way again from some place at some time.. And just fervently, fervently pray for each other and all those bearing the weight of watching over our souls.. I am deeply grateful that those burdens do not rest on me..☦📿💝📿☦
A rather sad time all around, wasn't it? That might not be discussed here, since these are clips from what must have been quite a long but remarkable interview.. I am impressed all over again each time a new segment is posted. Let us, i suppose, learn what each of us can learn from those days, and pray for wisdom to face whatever is most-surely headed our way again from some place at some time.. And just fervently, fervently pray for each other and all those bearing the weight of watching over our souls.. I am deeply grateful that those burdens do not rest on me..☦📿💝📿☦
Put your heart where God is. The human factors are merely irrelevant to your faith and salvation. One spoon vs many; kiss icons is personal as if it makes you feel better and closer let it be; etc … Self focus is enough
I guess what the intent of my reply is where is the accountability? Especially to those in the church who chose sides during Covid, and the divorces from Covid where the hierarchy chose not to intervene. Yes, a sad time indeed
3:00 wouldn’t that also be an argument for people to use with the holy scripture? Because many orthodox say, that the new testament canon was decided in the 4th century and use it as an argument for the importance of holy oral tradition in contrast to sola scriptura. So they could argue, that the church had the scriptures already way before that.
It was in response to the heretical canon of Marcion and other heretics, the Church is the authority by which the faithful discern what is and isn’t scripture when confronted by different canons which cause confusion, there were many gnostic gospels and writings which are spiritually destructive and cause a lot of confusion about Christology, soteriology etc. The Church clarified what it already had, however, in the absence of such an authority there is no basis to rebuke somebody who claims that a different gospel should be a part of scripture
The brother is right in presenting his pint of view, however, he’s wrong to speak on behalf of the Church of Rome. This same theme must be discussed from the stand point of Rome.
3:15 the idea that bishops got together and made up the doctrines, they ‘decided’ this and that about God… this sounds like what Roman Catholoc ecumenical councils do as a matter of course. Father, can you speak to this?
Many have misconceptions of the reasons for councils. In both Catholic and Orthodox churches councils are called when accepted teaching is rejected and there is a need to clarify as best as humanly possible the correct teaching. The one exception has been the Second Vatican Council, which came about not due to any rejection of teaching or heresy, but the churches pastoral needs and concerns for the faithful and how the church is to engage with the modern world.
Conciliarity of the Eastern Orthodox Church is driven by the Apostolic Council as described in (Acts 15). Original meaning of the word "catholic" is "conciliar"... so that when we recite Creed saying "we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church", we actually say "we believe in one, holy, conciliar and apostolic Church", but these days somehow other meaning has been adopted. Paradoxically, Latins call themselves "caholic", namely "conciliar", despite the fact that they have rejected conciliarity with the proclamation of the Pope as highest ecclesial authority, over the councils as well. Weird world we live in.
In Orthodox Christianity, there is no official process for determining sainthood like there is in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, it happens organically. A person who is a "saint" (which means "holy"), is basically a person who has cooperated with God's grace to the extent that his or her holiness is beyond doubt. In the Holy Scripture, the word saint is used to refer to those who have been set apart for the service of God, consecrated for his purposes. As such, if you are a member of the Orthodox Church and truly trying to live "The Way", you yourself are a saint. [source: OrthodoxWiki]
@@donhaddix3770 I would generally agree with this statement. Yes, only God Almighty truly knows what is within our hearts and how we have lived our lives. Still, there are certain people who's dedication, faith, works, and acts of love does seem to make them stand apart from the rest of us. In this regard, one could consider them a saint (more or less what I consider a role model). We are all sinners, none of us is perfect, even the saints.
@@donhaddix3770 Of course I don't. Only God does. It seem like there is a disconnect here, or we are misunderstanding each other. Did you not read what I said? To quote myself (because you appear to miss what I am saying): "Yes, only God Almighty truly knows what is within our hearts and how we have lived our lives."
Is my Roman Catholic baptism valid? There wasn’t an Orthodox priest to be seen for hundreds of miles when it happened (St Aloysius RC Church, Hebburn 1955). Lord Mark of Ephesus would have said yes. Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople would have said no. Who is right?
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 But if I want to join the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, then it is Chrismation only. Is the Archbishop a heretic? I'm confused.
@@david_porthouse it doesn't have to do with heresy, it has to do with disciplines and normative practices of the Church. Go get baptised somewhere. They exception is not the rule, and there is no such thing, should never be any such thing, as a general, standing practice of always chrismating people from a specific group. Christmation is the exception for exceptional cases, not the rule. The rule is and always has been Baptism.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 Well I could join the said Archdiocese in England and be received by Chrismation, and assume that my baptism was therefore valid on the grounds of lack of any alternative to the RC Church. On a visit elsewhere, such as Mount Athos, I discover that it is considered invalid. I have to say that this sort of muddle doesn't impress. If you ever thought my RC baptism was invalid, then why the lack of missionaries in Northern England back in 1955?
@@david_porthouse tiresome. you're not seeking answers, you're seeking quarrelsomeness and to play 'gotcha' with me. you're RC baptism was not valid, period. That is a fact. Rome is a pit full of darkness and delusions and lies. Take that to the bank. Goodbye.
Very good exclamation however why do they not evangelize? His explanations are great! Yet the E.O. Church appears to be absent from reaching out to the lost. Hopeless. Homeless. They stay within the 4 walls of their beautiful buildings. And fail to get out where the sinners are. How about breaking the stained glass barrier?
One of the ideals of Orthodoxy is that we tend to focus on correcting ourselves to live according to Christ and not focus on others. We believe it is normally best to "live by example" and if others ask about our faith, the response is typically "come and see" (an invitation to come to Divine Liturgy and witness how we worship). That being said, I wholeheartedly agree. While, Orthordox Christianity is the world's "best kept secret", we as Orthodox Christians should be more active in "promoting" our Faith to a world that seems to not know it exists.
@Utube-Enlightenment then please explain to me why prior to Christ's ascension He commanded the Church to GO!!! Preach the Gospel! Read Romans chapter 10. Verses 1_17. And please read Acts chapter 10 the entire chapter. Faith to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God . Christ commanded His disciples to wait for the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. ACTS CHAPTERS 1 AND 2 HOWEVER ONCE THE CHURCH RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT IT WAS (GO TIME). TIME TO GET OUT WHERE THE SINNERS ARE. TO REACH OUT TO THE LOST AROUND US. THIS IS KNOWN AS EVANGELISM. WITHOUT GOING OUT TO WHERE THE SINNERS ARE WE WILL NOT FILFULL CHRIST'S COMMISSION. SEE. MATTHEW CHAPTER 28.18..20. AND MARK CHAPTER 16. VERSES 14...20. REACHING OUT BEYOND ONE'S STAINED GLASS WINDOWS IS AN ABSOLUTE
@@patrickadams2864 I do . . . every day. Your point? Please read my response to you, as I was in agreement. Forgive me, but I am confused by your response and what you are trying to imply.
@@patrickadams2864 "breaking the stained glass barrier" implies that beautiful things are keeping us from sharing the truth of Jesus Christ. This is not true. We do evangelize - often one by one. We don't do big festivals to try and "win souls". What you win someone with, is what you win them to. Orthodoxy is being evangelized - slowly, carefully, intimately. Just as we have always done, since the beginning. That's why there has been an explosion of converts - myself included!
If the East and West slowly grew apart in tradition for hundreds of years before the issues became noticed, why did the Holy Spirit allow the two to drift apart as opposed to guiding them towards the same truth? I suppose one could argue that one group deliberately ignored the guidance of the Spirit but that doesn't seem reasonable given the "slow drift in tradition" that wasn't noticed for hundreds of years.
To add on to the filioque clause and it's inaccuracies, it does also say in the Nicene Creed that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born to the Virgin Mary. That being said, how could Jesus Christ have the Holy Spirit proceed from him ever if he had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit that's the only begotten son of the father that's a great apology for the Orthodox faith and its own defense against the filioque clause
Eastern Catholics are Eastern Orthodox who, because of political pressure, accepted Rome's rule. So they became something which is neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. Here you have Saint Gregory Palamas venerated as Saint even though he rejected Catholicism. The problem with Catholicism is that they took everything they could as long as they obeyed Papality. This is why you can have here Creed without Filioque, Charismatic Catholics and Rad Trad Latin Mass Catholics. Some Catholics see Latin as some Holy Language (Catholic exorcist said that devils hate Latin, for example) while others pray coombayah and mumble all kind of stuffs and call that Holy Spirit. I feel that Catholicism is on a downward spiral until it will crash. You just need to read some history (especially recent history related to the Catholic Church). I do feel sorry for Traditional Catholics as I get that they feel that they Church is becoming more world-like. And I feel that people who run to Eastern Catholicism to avoid the Vatican II modernisation of the liturgy prove again that Eastern Catholicism is not real Catholicism.
Father has the filioque wrong. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The persons of our God are distinct. The son does not cause the Holy Spirit any more than the Holy Spirit causes the father. The Orthodox and Father among them are confused on this issue, the various interpretations of St Maximus notwithstanding.
@@patricksee10 You are blaspheming Holy Spirit that led Latins for the first 1000 years in truth, before they fell off of the Church and became heretics. Ever since you are, as our Metropolitan of Piraeus had said, "not church, but heresy".
"You shall not make to yourselves curls and round rasures." Nor may men destroy the hair of their beards, and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the law says: "You shall not mar your beards." (Leviticus 19,27) For God the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is unsuitable for men. But if you do these things to please men, in contradiction to the law, you will be abominable with God, who created you after His own image. - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (Book I), Section 2, Commandments to Men
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.....
Church Easton's Bible Dictionary - Church Church [N] [S] Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., "the Lord's house"), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship. In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the "Church of England," the "Church of Scotland," etc. We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament: • It is translated "assembly" in the ordinary classical sense ( Acts 19:32 Acts 19:39 Acts 19:41 ). • It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church ( Ephesians 5:23 Ephesians 5:25 Ephesians 5:27 Ephesians 5:29 ; Hebrews 12:23 ). • A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an ecclesia ( Romans 16:5 ; Colossians 4:15 ). • All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church ( Acts 13:1 ); so also we read of the "church of God at Corinth" ( 1 Corinthians 1:2 ), "the church at Jerusalem" ( Acts 8:1 ), "the church of Ephesus" ( Revelation 2:1 ), etc. • The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world ( 1 Corinthians 15:9 ; Galatians 1:13 ; Matthew 16:18 ) are the church of Christ. The church visible "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children." It is called "visible" because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of "wheat and chaff," of saints and sinners. "God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church." A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is "the kingdom of heaven," whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in Matthew 13 . The children of all who thus profess the true religion are members of the visible church along with their parents. Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man. They go along with their parents ( Genesis 9:9-17 ; 12:1-3 ; 17:7 ; Exodus 20:5 ; Deuteronomy 29:10-13 ). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, at the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, announces the same great principle. "The promise [just as to Abraham and his seed the promises were made] is unto you, and to your children" ( Acts 2:38 Acts 2:39 ). The children of believing parents are "holy", i.e., are "saints", a title which designates the members of the Christian church ( 1 Corinthians 7:14 ). (See BAPTISM .) The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ). The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible. • Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged ( Isaiah 49:13-23 ; 60:1-14 ). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" ( Romans 11:18-24 ; Compare Ephesians 2:11-22 ). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing ( Acts 2:47 ). • Its universality. It is the "catholic" church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world. • Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an "everlasting kindgdom."
@@donhaddix3770 Paul reveals below how a person comes into a New Covenant relationship with Christ. A person must "hear" the Gospel and then "believe" the Gospel, and then be "sealed" with the Holy Spirit. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
The Church is one but groups split off of the Church like the Roman church did. The term Jehovah is wholly Western. It is anglicized guesswork on how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton YHWH. It is round about blasphemy to claim that's the name of God.
I count early church history as being Jesus and the disciples up until the bishops started colluding with the Roman emperors. State religion corrupted a lot.
What you mention is what secular scholars refer to as the "proto-orthodox" christians. Still, if you believe that Christianity was corrupted after this time, then you may as well disregard the entirety of the Holy Bible ... that was put together and canonized 382 A.D. (this also points to one the great rational errors of protestants ... they acknowledge the "holiness" of the Bible, yet deny the authority or truthfulness of the very organization that declared the books we know now as the Holy Bible to be divinely inspired).
I think we look hypocritical when we preach unity and we can’t find a way to reconcile with our Catholic brothers and sisters or for that matter each other. Look how many orthodox churches aren’t in communion with each other. It just makes me sad. Christ wouldn’t want this.
How would you reconcile with the unrepented heretics.? On one side we ought to keep Lord's Bride "holy and without blemish" (Eph 5,27), on the other we deal with the stubborn servants of chief liar as every heresy is result of his work. Enlighten us... EDIT: Methods of Inquisition are off limits.!
@@johnnyd2383you calling whom a heretic? If you mean Catholics, not the conciliar opinion of the Orthodox. You need to tone down your sectarian instincts.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed. Therefore, Latins are condemned heretics. You can either live with it or repent, which I recommend dearly to all followers of the old fart sitting in Rome.
We're all in communion. It's the hierarchs who aren't. Only those in the Church are brethren as that's the Body of Christ. If you mean brethren in Adam, yes. Rome left us so if they wish for communion the local church of Rome needs to come back, submit to the whole Church in Christ, after folding the Unia.
Apostle Paul: "... *Christ, our PASSOVER* lamb, has been sacrificed. So let us *CELEBRATE THE FESTIVAL... WITH the UNLEAVENED BREAD* of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:7,8).
Notice the difference in types of bread: ἄζυμα or unleavened bread was commanded for the Passover in Exodus 12:8. Look at Genesis 14:18, the offering of Melchizedek when he blesses Abram: καὶ Μελχισεδὲκ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον· ἦν δὲ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. Αρτους meaning leavened bread. ἄρτον is the leavened bread that Jesus broke during the Last Supper and so the one that is His body. Leavened bread is the bread of Melchizedek, Jesus Christ our God is High Priest according to Melchizedek. The bread of the Levites, of the Aaronic priesthood, is unleavened because it is imperfect, it does not represent the Kingdom of God. Matthew 13:33: Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three [a]measures of meal till it was all leavened.”
@@CharlesSeraphDrums 1. Josephus and Philo use the general word for bread (ARTOUS) to reference UNleavened matzah. 2. When the temporal CONTEXT is the Mosaic moed (ie, appointed holy time ordained by Law) of UNleavened Bread, then the general word "bread" (ARTOUS) necessarily means UNleavened matzah. 3. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but Christ is also bound by His declared mission to "fulfill" every "jot and tittle" of the Law; and in order for the Last Passover to be legal according to he "jot and tittle" of the Torah, it *must* be UNleavened. The Law literally cuts off anyone who eats leaven or even has leaven in his house during the week of Unleavened bread. 4. A Parable does not overturn a Law. The purpose of leaven in the parable you mention is that the influence if the Gospel spreads. Jesus also says, "BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:6) which was clearly the spreading authority of Jewish Patristic Oral Traditions over the Written Law of Moses [this Jewish Patristic Tradition was then called the "traditions of the elders" (Matt. 15:3; Mark 7:3) and later, after being written down, called the "Pirkei Avot"/ "Mishna"/ "Talmud"/ "Oral Torah"/ "the whole law of Moses"]. Those Jewish Oral Patristic Tradition caused men to disobey the written Torah. The Church also formed its own Talmud (or alleged Apostolic Oral Traditions in Conciliar decrees) which contradict the Written Law, just as a leavened Passover is explicitly declared to be a transgression of the Written Law, but not of your Traditions. 5. If you're going to exalt a Parable into equality with a Law then why not exalt Apostle Paul's words, that say: "CHRIST, OUR PASSOVER, has been sacrificed for us, so LET US *KEEP THE FEAST... WITH THE UNLEAVENED BREAD* of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:7,8)?
Tye...., perhaps not.. but i am glad you watched it. As you are learning on such site, there is much out there to help you and all of us.. Stay tuned!! ☦📿💝📿☦
I would recommend reading a book called 'the orthodox church' by the late Met. Kallistos Ware. It's an extremely good guidebook on the general history of the church and it's not too long either. You can probably find an audiobook version if you prefer those as well.
I grew up not knowing much past the death of the Apostles and knew a lot of Post-Reformation history. I'm sad that it happened that way but glad God brought me to Him.
@EasternChristian333 It's binding for Roman Catholics. And even if it isn't itself, Florence reiterates the Anathema and Rome considers that Ecumenical. It's one of many showcases of Rome enacting change and then declaring that they are "Unchanging".
LUKE 22:7 "Then came the day of *UNLEAVENED BREAD,* on which the *PASSOVER* lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the *PASSOVER* for us, that WE may EAT IT.”
Why still calling men "father"??? Please; no smug replies; just plain words if any. Jesus the "man of sorrow and acquainted with grief" : I feel certain he would not be chuckling mixed in with speaking sacred matters. I feel no need of icons and costly supposed "houses of God". "If any man speak, let him speak as an oracle (utterance) of God." Burden of proof of apostolic succession is upon whosoever claims that spiritual anointing to do true "binding and loosing" over souls. We are all either gathering with, or scattering against the Shepherd of souls; the holy Elect Flock. With or against; lukewarm not acceptable to the Perfect Judge...when we are weighed by him.
Judas thought the same when Christ was anointed with expensive nard. Christians have always given God glory in His [Orthodox] temples whether house churches (houses given over to the Church for the purpose of Divine Services) or the catacombs of the 1st and 2nd centuries. They never skimped when they had means and especially when they didn't, and feigned faux piety. They helped people too. You say you don't see a need but I'm very much sure you have never looked into what you reject off hand. Even if you have, maybe you would listen to Orthodox Christians. I'm just being direct here. Apostolic Succession is an unbroken chain of laying on of hands of ordination, it's not hard to track. However, it is cut off when one leaves the Church (Ekklesia; People of God) and there is no invisible Church. Regarding using Father: My copy and paste: The Bible verse Mt 23:9 is copied and pasted, or mentioned/referred to, in nearly every Orthodox Christian comment section, sometimes without commentary, by Evangelical Protestants who do not rightly interpret Holy Scripture. That very literalist reading of Matthew 23:9 is dispelled by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, him calling himself a father of his spiritual children, especially St. Timothy, and saying there are other fathers. "Paul’s Paternal Care 14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church." (NKJV / OSB NT) Christ referred in the passage Matthew 23:1-36 to those who *lord* titles over others as the Pharisees did often and didn't practice as they preached others to do. It was not just an admonishment against calling a man 'father', but 'teacher' and 'rabbi' as well (doctors too), which I have never seen Evangelicals object to hardly. It seems to be a double standard as most are anti-Roman Catholic which sadly they lump us in with them. The title 'Father' our Presbyters use is not lording a title but it is a spiritual truth as they *are* the fathers of spiritual children just like St. Paul was over his flock. And it can be gathered that indeed St. Timothy and others called St. Paul 'father' as it would have been only respectful, him being their spiritual father to help them grow in the Faith, shepherded by them who were their flock. After all, the flocks were referred to as 'children' by the anointed Shepherds of Christ. And that's where we get it from. It is from the very earliest of the Church. Also, Christ refers in many places to fathers both biological and spiritual (the Old Covenant Patriarchs and Forefathers). Christ does not say when He refers to them as fathers not to call them such as they are *legitimate* fathers of children. It isn't just a haughty title being put on them. They do not lord titles over others as this vocation, fatherhood, is a reality both to biological fathers and spiritual fathers. If you like to understand this passage in the Holy Scriptures better, these two videos might help you, especially the second which goes into the Second Temple era usage of 'father': ruclips.net/video/j4F-xow3Vzg/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/JCDujtjiXT8/видео.htmlsi=7TAUIbhx8phy6ds6 May God bless you. ☦
The Filioque is a complicated issue, and we hear different things from different Orthodox about it. Metropolitan Kalistos Ware stated that after further discussion and understanding he not longer found it to be an issue. That how the church of Rome is expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit is correct. While the councils of Toledo and Hatfield are not considered to be fully ecumenical those local councils inserted the filioque as a response to Arianism and Monothelitism. It would be fair to say if Arianism never came about the filioque would have never come about. This is where the Orthodox need to take some responsibility. Arianism came out of and flourished in the east for 700 years. The Pope and St Athanasius fought against the Emperor and the eastern bishops to stop it. Curiously many of the church fathers did not have an issue, Hilary of Poitiers, Ephrem the Syrian, Epiphanius of Salamis, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Pope Leo I the great, Maximus the Confessor, along with several other Latin fathers. It was not a huge deal until Photios. In 2019 the NACCB suggested and supported the removal of the filioque which since we have no difference in understanding and Arianism while still existing is not the threat it once was. It seems to me that some Orthodox want to make mountains out of mole hills to keep our churches apart. Confusing messaging from the Orthodox on many issues.
The problem is that even though Ware said that, the fact of the matter is there is a big difference. The son as cause of the Holy Spirit is dogmatized in the RCC. The Orthodox Church does not hold to that belief. To say there is no difference is understanding is a blatant lie and quite frankly disrespectful to those who fought over it.
Metropolitan Ware is perhaps not greatest place for your scholastic Western phronema, please consult "Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind", by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou for a better understanding of why you are so confused by us.
@wjckc79 My point is that Orthodox are not in lock step with each other by any means. 50 years to try and convien the great council and in the end it fell apart. The Orthodox do not speak with one mind. This is what is confusing. Having a magisterium pays huge benefits.
@@Motomack1042 the Orthodox do speak with one mind. Stop regurgitating awful western polemics as gospel truth. Any issues with the Orthodox currently are issues that also can be seen in the first millennium Church.
@caseycardenas1668 actually you can identify two opposing Orthodox opinions about the filioque, a liberal view and a rigorist view. One see the controversy as a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding, in this view both east and west are at fault for failing to allow for a plurality of theologies. The other sees as a fundamental issue of dogma and cannot be dismissed as simply on of different theologoumena. Exactly my point, Orthodox need to move past the 1st millennium, these types of issues should have been resolved. Without the bishop of Rome to mediate these issues, they continue to fester and cause division. The division in the Orthodox world are an unfolding tragedy that challenges the Christian witness.
Actually, the See of St. Peter in the early times of the Church was seen as Antioch, Alexandria and Rome together. So yes, it was recognized as a See of St. Peter. Always has been. However, the city of Rome was the Seat of the Emperor at the time. When the Seat of the Emperor moved to Constantinople then that Patriarchate became second among equals.
@@LadyMaria exactly! the eastern chruches forgot to publicly assert this (very few christians in the west knows about this) while rome constantly claim peter which provides an impression of authority above all chrurches.... in fact the bible itself provides some proof that peter was a bishop of the eastern church.... Performing his office as bishop of the eastern churches through his epistles.... i believe, HIS LETTERS WERE ALL ADDRESSED TO THE EASTERN CHURCHES...
@@eldansambatyon I already gave the answer to that, that the Seat of the Emperor moved to Constantinople in the 4th century, as it was in the city of Rome before. Do a bit more study. Anyway since you are laughing and such, we'll part ways.
The confession of Christ made by St. Peter is the Rock, yes. We must take the entirety of the passage for interpretation, not a singular verse which is part of the issue with Protestant interpretation. Matthew 16:13-20 (NKJV/OSB NT) "Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ 13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ."
@@LadyMaria I see nothing in that entire scripture that counters the teaching that the successors of Peter are the head of the Church. There was only one Peter. You can argue patriarchs are one level lower as James and John, then the other 9 below them.
@@neilmiller617 it means that Jesus will build up Peter's confession or faith, not Peter himself. Yes, Peter was an important apostle because he was also the first to understand who Jesus really was. However, Jesus later also said that ALL apostles will get the key to heaven, not just Peter
@@neilmiller617 Dig into the history of the Church, not RC quote mines, and you'll see that your interpretation is incorrect as is your poor paraphrase in your original comment.
The Father's interpretation of the Filioque is very one-sided, naturally being he's a Orthodox priest, but the West did not mean the Filioque the way him & the East in general understood it, the West was dealing with a serious resurgence of Arianism which was the driving force for adding the Filioque, to begin with, but it wasn't intended to give the Son some lopsided force over the Spirit, it was thought of as breath travels back & forth on the words of a conversation, or how I've heard it described is the Father's love for the Son & the Son sending that love back to the Father...it really does seem like this could've been resolved, at the time, without splitting the church itself in half, a perpetually recurring division, at this point, I'm afraid to say I fear politics were involved in this calamity.
Oh... multitudes of Holy Fathers, ,in the past 1000 years, were "dumb" and did not understand the "correctness" of that heresy, but, your majesty does.? You are blasphemer of the Holy Spirit.
Saying that the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit is Father and Son is the issue. I've seen many RCs say that's what they believe in regards to the Filioque dogma. And yes it does subordinate the Holy Spirit.
The one Church follows the Canons of St. Basil on divorce, which Rome before its schism did as well. The break away Papal "church" allows annulments which is divorce with amnesia. It declares what was treated as marriage as not having been marriage because of a loophole at the time of the wedding. It is legalism to free one up to marry again by saying they're not marrying again and there's no limit to it. It always requires a civil divorce first and one only gets an annulment to claim they never married so they can marry again. The Eastern catholic churches under the Pope used to have divorce up until last century officially, now it's under the table.
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
The New Testament jesus in the Light of Old Testament is an impostor a Liar and some people also called him Lunatic and christian missionaries believe that the opposite word for Lunatic is God so jesus is a god
“First among equals” Means nothing If the Bishop of Rome has no special grace. “He’s equal” would be far more accurate, unless there’s something special about the diocese where Peter and Paul were martyred….
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Father Paul is SUCH a clear speaker, the church is blessed to have men like him in her! ❤
A lifetime of searching for the truth, misled several times by my ignorance, pride and selfishness. Two years ago, on my knees and face to the ground in otter despair,… I asked Jesus, to show me his true original truth passed down from his Apostles, Saints, and fathers.
After realizing my entire life lived as everything lower than a sinner, crying to God for hours in repentance, on my face begging for his forgiveness …
God is good to us, in his sweet patience and mercy, Jesus led me to a small Orthodox Church. The Liturgy was in Slavic, I did not comprehend, but my heart was filled to overflowing, every spoken word, every song I would hear, warmed my heart and uncontrollable tears poured down my face. At that moment, I knew.
In April, I was graciously baptised in the Glorious Church of Jesus the Christ.
My pilgrim is the everlasting way of Christ. May your journey lead you to the heart of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us !
What a powerful testimony, God bless you 🙏
Welcome home fam ❤
Glory to God 🙏🏻 welcome home 🥰🙏🏻☦️
Nicely put father with two great ingredients, love and simplicity
very wise advice from Fr Paul on our humility towards erring hierarchy at the end there. thank you all for this video ❤☦️
This Is The Way
oops disney accidentially planted the seed before they killed the mandolorian lol
@@_angl_
Dis is da wae my bruddahs
This is the way
Eat your heart out Mando.
This was very informative and cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had. Thank you Fr. Paul
Catholic here. May God bless my Orthodox brothers and sisters.
i’m also currently Catholic, but still much love to them
@claytonhall989 We have a lot to learn from our orthodox brothers and sisters.
Thank you, Clayton! ☦️
May God bless you!🙏🏻
Thank you! May God Almighty bless you and yours as well. I myself am a convert to Orthodoxy from Catholicism (and previously from Protestant LOL). I found there were too many inconsistencies within the Roman Catholic faith ... e.g. 'doctrinal development' (if Christ's church and the faith is complete, this is not necessary, but according to Rome it is) ... the RC concept of original sin (Orthodox very different), the 'immaculate conception' is a perfect example of this ... the pope's historic role as "first among equals" compared to the recent (less than 200 years) RC idea of papal infallability ... the RC's lack of honoring tradition (too many changes to the faith, Vatican II is bad) ... the idea that during confession the priest forgives you (RC) whereas in Orthodoxy the priest prays with you to ask for God's forgiveness ... the RC view of Christ as a "judge" vs. Orthodox view of Christ as "healer/doctor"... the list goes on. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and faith as it is today is not the same as it was 1,000 or even 500 years ago. Compare the Council of Trent declarations to the new doctines of faith -- you essentially have two different religions. Orthodoxy, on the otherhand, remains the same. Go visit an Orthodox Church -- you will be amazed by the sense of love and feeling of the Holy Spirit truly being there. No doubt, upon researching the differences, you will want to convert too!
🙏☦
@@Utube-Enlightenment Interesting because I find the lack consistencies within the Orthodox Church to be an issue. Because there is no magisterium in Orthodoxy, it’s difficult to get an official position on various aspects within Orthodoxy. For example, do Catholics have valid sacraments? Do other Christians have valid baptisms? These answers will vary.
Moreover, if there is an issue within Orthodoxy such as the current situation of the Russian Orthodox Church invading Africa, trying to take over Orthodox churches there, and of course, their position of supporting the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine by calling it a “holy war” then there is no governing body to condemn such acts. To me, it seems like if disagreement ensues between churches in the Orthodox Church then all that continues is disagreement.
To be clear, if you ask any Catholic priest who forgives sins, they would say God. I’d also recommend carefully and prayerfully considering the official teachings of whatever denomination you find yourself in before jumping around especially if emotions are involved. Therefore, while I desire you to become Catholic (again), I think it’s best you remain Orthodox at this point. I recommend you listen to what Catholics say about Catholicism just as I listen to what the Orthodox say about Orthodoxy.
At any rate, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you abundantly as you continue you on your faith journey!
Can you upload these as audios to Spotify? It's easier to listen to because you can turn your phone screen off and listen while you do other things
Also newpipe
Also would be great to listen to while walking or driving
I would like this as well.
Turn phone screen off while the audio continues to play is in youtube settings
The more I listen to Fr Paul Truebenbach speak the more my feeling with converting to orthodoxy has grown. The only thing I need to figure out is what church to attend, as there is so many Orthodox churches around me.
You need to find a bishop who doesn't preach heresy and who is not an ecumenist. Then you will find a true bishop to be under.
Correct, essence is the same. Roles they assumed are different in order to bring about the salvation of mankind. thanks!
From the bottom up. Such a great statement. Thank you!
I want to fly over there to learn from you 😂. I really appreciate your dedication to study. I go to a non denominational church and I study the Bible on my own time. I have so many questions that no one at my church has ever even thought of. I am afraid to ask questions at my church because I feel like it will make some of them lose faith because I can bring up things in the Bible that we cannot fully understand or accept.
Although I am not a priest, I am studying for the diaconate and converted over 20 years ago. If you would like to have discussions by email or phone, we can find a way to connect.
If not, perhaps reach out to a local Orthodox priest. You will be surprised at how well informed yet humble they all are.
I'm Episcopal and finding a similar issue - there are just not many boundaries right now in the denomination. Everyone just decides what they want to believe and use their own interpretation of scripture. For example: one day my Priest stated that Mother Mary was/is not a virgin. After I picked myself off the floor, I tried to point out that as Episcopalians we recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday. The Nicene Creed clearly states that Mary is a virgin. My Priest started a disjointed argument about how we don't have to hold to Apostolic Succession. Worse, my fellow church members then made fun of me for not knowing how biology works.
It's the Wild West. I don't think it is leading anywhere good and am looking at options to leave. What is next? They start questioning the resurrection because typically people do not rise from the dead? It reminds me of the book of Judges: every man did what is right in his own eyes. I will likely end up Orthodox or Catholic.
Come home to the Orthodox, Catholic Church 😊
They couldn't believe Jesus is God either because that goes beyond biology! Wow. I'm so sorry about all of it.
We are Orthodox Catholic, just not under the Pope. 😅
Flee
Prayers for your discernment and I’m very glad you ended up on this video. Study the early church fathers, especially the apostolic fathers to help guide you in your discernment. I’m Byzantine Catholic. Our church retains eastern tradition but is in union with Rome. It is my sincere hope and desire that all Catholic Orthodox brothers and sisters will be unified. These times we are in are sinful, prideful, and dangerous. We all need each other and our Faith foundation.
@@LeiaShilobod We can't be unified because Rome broke off from the Church, didn't repent from the heresies and created more, and then created the Unia to replace the Church. I won't even get into the specifics of the bad history of the Orthodox and Unia. But it's not something that can be solved without Rome coming back into the fold as it was before the split started. It is important to be honest that it just isn't possible.
Glad to have discovered Fr. Paul!
This is a great interview, with great questions.
I was especially intrigued with the excellent question regarding when the laity can rebel against their bishops.
The schism between the West and the East is grievous, I hope one day it can be overcome.
The writings that Father Paul recommends in the video are the following:
* Article by Doctor David Ford about the Photian Schism [timestamp ~8:05] , I believe is "St. Photios the Great, the Photian Council, and Relations with the Roman Church" by Dr. David Ford. It is a good read, very well researched and referenced. I recommend it as well. Can be found by searching on net.
* Saint Photius the Great, "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" [timestamp ~11:50]. Can be found by searching on net.
* "Apodictic Treatises on the Procession of the Holy Spirit" by St. Gregory Palamas [timestamp ~11:55]. This is a book of 358 pages and may be found at bookstores.
Thank You Father Paul, things are out of Balance in the Catholic Church and it breaks down to the pit of my Heart 💔. People need to Understand the Truth of their religion and deny when things do not correlate the True Religion.
This was extremely interesting. Thank you.
Extraordinary detail !
Super helpful !!
I learned lots !!!
Thanks gentlemen .
👊🏼
Thank you for the videos 👍
It is always my dream and hope to see the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox church become one.
God bless orthodoxy ❤
Good news today 7/12/24 The Holly Orthodox Romanian Sinod has proclaimed saints a group of monks and priests that serve the church in time of comunist regime among Father Ilie Cleopa 2 Dec. Father Arsenie Boca 28 Nov. Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloaie and many others 16 total.
Fr Iustin Parvu?? He is definitely a SAINT!
only God says who is a saint, not a church
@@donhaddix3770
The Holly Spirit work in and through this saints when they were still alive and in prison for their belief in Christ but what you’ll know about this? The show at your so-called church never stops.
Without Orthodoxy, I would've never become a Christian.
Would you mind sharing your story? I'm intrigued. I first came to faith through evangelical preaching and tracts. I'm now going to Divine Liturgy on Sundays.
Same here
Me too!
are you born again?
Same!
i stand informed.
Please, father! Can you explain to us the history of de Holy Sign of the Cross?
And a comparison between orthodox way and roman-catholical way.
Thank you!
May God bless you!
There is no official history of making the cross on yourself. Some oriental Christians do it left-to-right as well as the Latins. Some venerate the ΜΡ ΘΥ icon before ΙΣ ΧΣ as well. These are not meaningful differences, only local variations of practice.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972Actually, right to left has theology behind it in the Orthodox Church. That's why we can't go left to right. It isn't cultural.
The original sign of the Cross was tracing an equilateral cross on the forehead with a right index finger or thumb, then moved to full body which the Orthodox still do and it was right to left. The RCs changed to left to right and only make a Cross to the heart area which inverts the Cross.
@@LadyMaria absurd demonization of sincere Latins. How do you explain oriental Christians doing the same. You don’t know, you just make up scary nonsense.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972Um, it isn't a demonization. If you actually paid attention and looked at how they make the cross, it's upside down. It isn't intentional, but it's done that way. Pay attention.
Orientals have had some RC influence that trickled in. For example the Ethiopians believe in the immaculate conception but the Coptics don't.
Try not to ad hominem people. If you do again, I will mute you.
@@LadyMaria ad hominem people? To mischaracterize the piety of hundreds of millions of Catholics as demonic is hateful. If your ‘moderation’ can’t tolerate a just critique of that error, I don’t care if you silence my voice because the discourse here you encourage is immoderate and unchristian.
Good stuff!
I would love to hear the fathers of this pages opinion on modern day wars, particularly on Putin and the Russian governments invasion of Ukraine. Much love from Canada💚
This is ‘The Way’
Amen Father! With God, anything is possible. I pray for the reunification of all Catholic Orthodox brothers and sisters. It does seem like an impossibility. The Western Church could so benefit from the deep living of the Faith engrained in the Eastern Church. May God unify his people.
Finally, though it’s unlikely you’ll read this, I’d like to say as a Byzantine Catholic, that I’d venerate an Orthodox saint so called Catholics heretics. Saints are not perfect humans. But they were living brothers and sisters who exemplified Jesus and their lives teach us well. Clearly they believed they were right in their declarations. Only God is judge.
To borrow from Wittgenstein, using words to describe God's nature is "a ladder to throw away once you've climbed it."
Thank you for this - we follow Christ and I am increasingly calling myself a follower of the Way. Institutional religion is in a poor way. The Gospel is made so complex.
I was baptized as a Catholic in my childhood (now Orthodox) in Brazil. I still remember the Catholic creed in Portuguese and it doesn't say that the Holy Spirit proceed from the son. I think it has changed a while ago. It just says "creio no Espírito Santo". Translated as "I believe in the Holy Spirit". And that's it.
Isso mesmo, a Igreja Romana fez essa alteração no Credo Niceno (algo proibido no Terceiro Conselho Ecumênico em 431)
you are confusing the baptismal creed with the creed of Nicea
Meus amigos onde encontro uma igreja no Brasil ? Em específico no mato grosso
@@rarewojak9135agradeço se vcs me ajudarem 🤝
What else did Rome have? Vast Relics of the Saints, why? They were martyred there and possession of relics were tangible examples of authority or maybe a better word is legitimacy. But that claim began to diminish rapidly after 312 when churches were allowed to operate legally and relics began to be exported from Rome and other places to sanctify new communities and alters.
relics are not magic, they are inventions of men
Would love to hear your perspective on Gnosticism
Concerning ecumenical councils:
If it had just been what the church always believed, why would there be debate among Bishops?
Who is the interviewer in this episode!
Why always “Eastern Orthodoxy” why not just “Orthodox Christian”? Ought we not demonstrate our catholicity, even in our language? I feel we give incorrect impressions by using the language of academia, like saying “Oriental Orthodox” gives the impression they are Orthodox.. and thus loses its meaning
Its to distinguish us from the Orientals, who call themselves Orthodox. It is also sort of the reason we don't call ourselves Catholics to other denominations even though we are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, to not confuse us with the denominations.
Where was the faith preserved until like 150 years ago?
@CzarLazar1389 Thanks for your response. I’m not understanding why would we sacrifice our own language due to the misunderstandings of others, which only actually further confuses people on the outside because they think the “Orientals” and “Eastern” Orthodox are in communion/the same, particularly since the words literally mean the same thing..
It seems to me to contribute to branch theory ideology, and I say this based on much experience with various inquiring Protestants and agnostics.
Further, it makes people think we are only of a “eastern flavor” which leads to the rise of this desire for “western rite” Orthodoxy or worse, that Orthodoxy is not for the west. Again, this is my personal experience with many inquirers..
The official name of the Church is Orthodox Catholic, I don’t see why we wouldn’t just use that instead of what the academics and other faith communities want to call us..
@TrollsFormers05 not sure what you mean by this. The faith has been preserved since the time of the Holy Apostles…
@@leopistis3560 Answer is "the east".
I'm always curious... Why is Rome seen as the see of Peter and not Antioch?
Rome was seen as the see of Ss. Peter and Paul and the honor it was given was due to this double apostolicity. The focus on St. Peter alone is a later deviation.
St. Cyril calls Rome, Alexandria and Antioch together in Harmony the "See of Peter"
Also, Rome was the economic power at the time, and was where Christianity become legalised
@@acekoala457 Pope St. Gregory the Great himself also calls those three sees as "one see of Peter".
@@acekoala457 in which document?
Since the orthodox claim that the Catholic Church has broken from apostolic succession do they believe that the sacraments of the Catholic Church are invalid? What about the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic being held inside Catholic Churches? Do the orthodox believe Christ is not present?
Mathew 1:18 : "...[Mary] was found with Child of the Holy Ghost". How could the Holy Ghost proceed from the son when the father sent the Holy Ghost to beget him? The Filioque is Fili-NO-que.
That’s not what the argument is about
Exactly what is the mechanism by which asceticism produces ‘true’ discernment?
Do the orthodox believe that the redemption that came from Christ’s sacrifice only remains within their church since they believe that they are the only ones with legitimate apostolic succesion?
The foundation of Orthodox concept is the Monarchy of God The Father. Some Protestants, especially Evangelical treat Christ almost as friend and the role model. "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? " Mathew 20 verse 22.
'Proceding from the son also' does that come from when Jesus said he would send the comforter? Is that where this belief comes from?
It goes beyond that into the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit. We can agree on the temporal procession (in time) at Pentecost, but not the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit being the Father and Son.
Rome is the Church of Charlemagne
comes from men
@@LadyMariathat’s illogical, you are arguing that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the son for a limited time! Truly the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son now and forever.
@@patricksee10 If you claim that the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son then you have subordinated the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit at Pentecost was sent by the Father through the Son. That's temporal procession.
The Father is the eternal Source of the Son and Holy Spirit -- the Son is only begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Each Person of the Holy Trinity has one unique faculty that the other two Persons do not share, they share everything else. For two Persons to share something that the third Person does not subordinates the third Person. That means that the Holy Trinity is no longer balanced or co-equal.
At any rate the Filioque and its theology was anathematized at the 8th Ecumenical Council of AD 879. So it's pointless to argue.
One rule which I use regarding Archbishop's and Bishop's.
Is this have they changed the Liturgy or any of the sacraments.
If they have then that's when I'll will depart from that Church.
If the liturgy does not follow that which St. John Cystomous has written or St Basil has written then I will simply leave.
Some Bishop's have said or done things which are not necessarily Orthodox.
Since criticism of a Archbishop or Bishop is against the canons of the Church.
I'll obey such a Canon and agree with it as this can cause schism and scandal.
I have seen this happen and unfortunately this is exactly what has happened.
John 3:14 KJV "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the SON OF MAN (CHRIST) be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believes in HIM should not perish but have eternal life.
16 For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved.
18 He that believes on HIM is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD."
36 He that believes on the SON has everlasting life: and he that believes not the SON shall not see life; but the wrath of GOD abides on him.
John 5:23 KJV “.......................... He that honors not the SON honors not the FATHER which has sent HIM. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears MYWORD, and believes on HIM that sent ME, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Romans 8:1 KJV “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in CHRIST JESUS, who walk not after the flesh (works), but after the Spirit (grace).
Note: A true Christian is not condemned and has everlasting life therefore if you do not know where you will immediately go when you die then you deny what CHRIST said therefore you deny CHRIST.
The Way the predecessor to the church.
The Roman Catholic Church already venerates saints that were out of communion and considered Rome heretical.
who determines sainthood?
@@donhaddix3770 a canonization requires papal approval.
Early Church History was written in Greek 🇬🇷🇨🇾☦️
Αλληλούια
Regarding Bishops: when bishops told their churches to stop services, stop using one spoon, stop venerating/kissing icons, listen to the government mandates. Then what? Can you speak on these matters please
Ways of receiving Eucharist have changed numerous times over the millennium. It's not a hill to die on, the council of trullo forbade the use of any spoons or instruments in receiving communion.
A rather sad time all around, wasn't it? That might not be discussed here, since these are clips from what must have been quite a long but remarkable interview..
I am impressed all over again each time a new segment is posted.
Let us, i suppose, learn what each of us can learn from those days, and pray for wisdom to face whatever is most-surely headed our way again from some place at some time..
And just fervently, fervently pray for each other and all those bearing the weight of watching over our souls..
I am deeply grateful that those burdens do not rest on me..☦📿💝📿☦
A rather sad time all around, wasn't it? That might not be discussed here, since these are clips from what must have been quite a long but remarkable interview..
I am impressed all over again each time a new segment is posted.
Let us, i suppose, learn what each of us can learn from those days, and pray for wisdom to face whatever is most-surely headed our way again from some place at some time..
And just fervently, fervently pray for each other and all those bearing the weight of watching over our souls..
I am deeply grateful that those burdens do not rest on me..☦📿💝📿☦
Put your heart where God is. The human factors are merely irrelevant to your faith and salvation. One spoon vs many; kiss icons is personal as if it makes you feel better and closer let it be; etc …
Self focus is enough
I guess what the intent of my reply is where is the accountability? Especially to those in the church who chose sides during Covid, and the divorces from Covid where the hierarchy chose not to intervene. Yes, a sad time indeed
3:00 wouldn’t that also be an argument for people to use with the holy scripture? Because many orthodox say, that the new testament canon was decided in the 4th century and use it as an argument for the importance of holy oral tradition in contrast to sola scriptura. So they could argue, that the church had the scriptures already way before that.
It was in response to the heretical canon of Marcion and other heretics, the Church is the authority by which the faithful discern what is and isn’t scripture when confronted by different canons which cause confusion, there were many gnostic gospels and writings which are spiritually destructive and cause a lot of confusion about Christology, soteriology etc.
The Church clarified what it already had, however, in the absence of such an authority there is no basis to rebuke somebody who claims that a different gospel should be a part of scripture
Christians had scripture before rcc or orthodoxy existed
The brother is right in presenting his pint of view, however, he’s wrong to speak on behalf of the Church of Rome. This same theme must be discussed from the stand point of Rome.
3:15 the idea that bishops got together and made up the doctrines, they ‘decided’ this and that about God… this sounds like what Roman Catholoc ecumenical councils do as a matter of course. Father, can you speak to this?
Many have misconceptions of the reasons for councils. In both Catholic and Orthodox churches councils are called when accepted teaching is rejected and there is a need to clarify as best as humanly possible the correct teaching. The one exception has been the Second Vatican Council, which came about not due to any rejection of teaching or heresy, but the churches pastoral needs and concerns for the faithful and how the church is to engage with the modern world.
Conciliarity of the Eastern Orthodox Church is driven by the Apostolic Council as described in (Acts 15). Original meaning of the word "catholic" is "conciliar"... so that when we recite Creed saying "we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church", we actually say "we believe in one, holy, conciliar and apostolic Church", but these days somehow other meaning has been adopted. Paradoxically, Latins call themselves "caholic", namely "conciliar", despite the fact that they have rejected conciliarity with the proclamation of the Pope as highest ecclesial authority, over the councils as well. Weird world we live in.
non biblical lies
If the bishops didn't "decide," why did they vote on it?
who determines sainthood?
In Orthodox Christianity, there is no official process for determining sainthood like there is in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, it happens organically. A person who is a "saint" (which means "holy"), is basically a person who has cooperated with God's grace to the extent that his or her holiness is beyond doubt. In the Holy Scripture, the word saint is used to refer to those who have been set apart for the service of God, consecrated for his purposes. As such, if you are a member of the Orthodox Church and truly trying to live "The Way", you yourself are a saint. [source: OrthodoxWiki]
@@Utube-Enlightenment only God knows who is a saint other than the apostes
@@donhaddix3770 I would generally agree with this statement. Yes, only God Almighty truly knows what is within our hearts and how we have lived our lives. Still, there are certain people who's dedication, faith, works, and acts of love does seem to make them stand apart from the rest of us. In this regard, one could consider them a saint (more or less what I consider a role model). We are all sinners, none of us is perfect, even the saints.
@@Utube-Enlightenment you don't know others hearts.
@@donhaddix3770 Of course I don't. Only God does. It seem like there is a disconnect here, or we are misunderstanding each other. Did you not read what I said? To quote myself (because you appear to miss what I am saying): "Yes, only God Almighty truly knows what is within our hearts and how we have lived our lives."
Is my Roman Catholic baptism valid? There wasn’t an Orthodox priest to be seen for hundreds of miles when it happened (St Aloysius RC Church, Hebburn 1955). Lord Mark of Ephesus would have said yes. Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople would have said no. Who is right?
If you were not immersed, then no, it did not have the proper form. That is the criteria set forth by many councils and the Holy Canon.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 But if I want to join the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, then it is Chrismation only. Is the Archbishop a heretic? I'm confused.
@@david_porthouse it doesn't have to do with heresy, it has to do with disciplines and normative practices of the Church. Go get baptised somewhere. They exception is not the rule, and there is no such thing, should never be any such thing, as a general, standing practice of always chrismating people from a specific group. Christmation is the exception for exceptional cases, not the rule. The rule is and always has been Baptism.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 Well I could join the said Archdiocese in England and be received by Chrismation, and assume that my baptism was therefore valid on the grounds of lack of any alternative to the RC Church. On a visit elsewhere, such as Mount Athos, I discover that it is considered invalid. I have to say that this sort of muddle doesn't impress. If you ever thought my RC baptism was invalid, then why the lack of missionaries in Northern England back in 1955?
@@david_porthouse tiresome. you're not seeking answers, you're seeking quarrelsomeness and to play 'gotcha' with me. you're RC baptism was not valid, period. That is a fact. Rome is a pit full of darkness and delusions and lies. Take that to the bank. Goodbye.
Very good exclamation however why do they not evangelize? His explanations are great! Yet the E.O. Church appears to be absent from reaching out to the lost. Hopeless. Homeless. They stay within the 4 walls of their beautiful buildings. And fail to get out where the sinners are. How about breaking the stained glass barrier?
One of the ideals of Orthodoxy is that we tend to focus on correcting ourselves to live according to Christ and not focus on others. We believe it is normally best to "live by example" and if others ask about our faith, the response is typically "come and see" (an invitation to come to Divine Liturgy and witness how we worship). That being said, I wholeheartedly agree. While, Orthordox Christianity is the world's "best kept secret", we as Orthodox Christians should be more active in "promoting" our Faith to a world that seems to not know it exists.
@Utube-Enlightenment then please explain to me why prior to Christ's ascension He commanded the Church to GO!!!
Preach the Gospel! Read Romans chapter 10. Verses 1_17. And please read Acts chapter 10 the entire chapter. Faith to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God .
Christ commanded His disciples to wait for the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. ACTS CHAPTERS 1 AND 2 HOWEVER ONCE THE CHURCH RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT IT WAS (GO TIME). TIME TO GET OUT WHERE THE SINNERS ARE. TO REACH OUT TO THE LOST AROUND US. THIS IS KNOWN AS EVANGELISM.
WITHOUT GOING OUT TO WHERE THE SINNERS ARE WE WILL NOT FILFULL CHRIST'S COMMISSION. SEE. MATTHEW CHAPTER 28.18..20. AND MARK CHAPTER 16. VERSES 14...20. REACHING OUT BEYOND ONE'S STAINED GLASS WINDOWS IS AN ABSOLUTE
@@Utube-Enlightenment please read your Bible
@@patrickadams2864 I do . . . every day. Your point? Please read my response to you, as I was in agreement. Forgive me, but I am confused by your response and what you are trying to imply.
@@patrickadams2864 "breaking the stained glass barrier" implies that beautiful things are keeping us from sharing the truth of Jesus Christ. This is not true. We do evangelize - often one by one. We don't do big festivals to try and "win souls".
What you win someone with, is what you win them to. Orthodoxy is being evangelized - slowly, carefully, intimately. Just as we have always done, since the beginning. That's why there has been an explosion of converts - myself included!
If the East and West slowly grew apart in tradition for hundreds of years before the issues became noticed, why did the Holy Spirit allow the two to drift apart as opposed to guiding them towards the same truth? I suppose one could argue that one group deliberately ignored the guidance of the Spirit but that doesn't seem reasonable given the "slow drift in tradition" that wasn't noticed for hundreds of years.
The west fell into scholasticism and overreasoning, and departed from the church. The east has maintained its original essence. simple
To add on to the filioque clause and it's inaccuracies, it does also say in the Nicene Creed that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born to the Virgin Mary. That being said, how could Jesus Christ have the Holy Spirit proceed from him ever if he had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit that's the only begotten son of the father that's a great apology for the Orthodox faith and its own defense against the filioque clause
Eastern Catholics don't do filioque
Eastern Catholics are Eastern Orthodox who, because of political pressure, accepted Rome's rule. So they became something which is neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. Here you have Saint Gregory Palamas venerated as Saint even though he rejected Catholicism.
The problem with Catholicism is that they took everything they could as long as they obeyed Papality. This is why you can have here Creed without Filioque, Charismatic Catholics and Rad Trad Latin Mass Catholics. Some Catholics see Latin as some Holy Language (Catholic exorcist said that devils hate Latin, for example) while others pray coombayah and mumble all kind of stuffs and call that Holy Spirit.
I feel that Catholicism is on a downward spiral until it will crash. You just need to read some history (especially recent history related to the Catholic Church).
I do feel sorry for Traditional Catholics as I get that they feel that they Church is becoming more world-like. And I feel that people who run to Eastern Catholicism to avoid the Vatican II modernisation of the liturgy prove again that Eastern Catholicism is not real Catholicism.
Sadly, that is not only heresy on their side... therefore, omitting filioque does not make them Orthodox.
Father has the filioque wrong. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The persons of our God are distinct. The son does not cause the Holy Spirit any more than the Holy Spirit causes the father.
The Orthodox and Father among them are confused on this issue, the various interpretations of St Maximus notwithstanding.
@@patricksee10 You are blaspheming Holy Spirit that led Latins for the first 1000 years in truth, before they fell off of the Church and became heretics. Ever since you are, as our Metropolitan of Piraeus had said, "not church, but heresy".
The Roman Catholics already accept all Orthodox saints.
how come all the eastern orthodox pastors have beards?
"You shall not make to yourselves curls and round rasures." Nor may men destroy the hair of their beards, and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the law says: "You shall not mar your beards." (Leviticus 19,27) For God the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is unsuitable for men. But if you do these things to please men, in contradiction to the law, you will be abominable with God, who created you after His own image. - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (Book I), Section 2, Commandments to Men
In the likeness of Christ and St. John the Baptist who took the Nazirite vow.
they cannot be ordained if they don't have beards... lol
@@silveriorebelo2920 is that a joke or are you serious?
@@silveriorebelo2920 Yeah they can.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.....
What was the point of this comment? And im more than certain an Orthodox priest can answer all your questions
Church
Easton's Bible Dictionary - Church
Church [N] [S]
Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., "the Lord's house"), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship.
In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the "Church of England," the "Church of Scotland," etc.
We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament:
• It is translated "assembly" in the ordinary classical sense ( Acts 19:32 Acts 19:39 Acts 19:41 ).
• It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church ( Ephesians 5:23 Ephesians 5:25 Ephesians 5:27 Ephesians 5:29 ; Hebrews 12:23 ).
• A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an ecclesia ( Romans 16:5 ; Colossians 4:15 ).
• All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church ( Acts 13:1 ); so also we read of the "church of God at Corinth" ( 1 Corinthians 1:2 ), "the church at Jerusalem" ( Acts 8:1 ), "the church of Ephesus" ( Revelation 2:1 ), etc.
• The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world ( 1 Corinthians 15:9 ; Galatians 1:13 ; Matthew 16:18 ) are the church of Christ.
The church visible "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children." It is called "visible" because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of "wheat and chaff," of saints and sinners. "God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church." A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is "the kingdom of heaven," whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in Matthew 13 .
The children of all who thus profess the true religion are members of the visible church along with their parents. Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man. They go along with their parents ( Genesis 9:9-17 ; 12:1-3 ; 17:7 ; Exodus 20:5 ; Deuteronomy 29:10-13 ). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, at the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, announces the same great principle. "The promise [just as to Abraham and his seed the promises were made] is unto you, and to your children" ( Acts 2:38 Acts 2:39 ). The children of believing parents are "holy", i.e., are "saints", a title which designates the members of the Christian church ( 1 Corinthians 7:14 ). (See BAPTISM .)
The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ).
The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible.
• Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged ( Isaiah 49:13-23 ; 60:1-14 ). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" ( Romans 11:18-24 ; Compare Ephesians 2:11-22 ). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing ( Acts 2:47 ).
• Its universality. It is the "catholic" church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world.
• Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an "everlasting kindgdom."
@@donhaddix3770 Paul reveals below how a person comes into a New Covenant relationship with Christ. A person must "hear" the Gospel and then "believe" the Gospel, and then be "sealed" with the Holy Spirit.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
No to ecumenism. But having said that the orthodox church is divided into two factions. 😢Kyrie eleison emas. 🙏
I pray that the schism might bridge and that the truth might come out so that the church may join back together under Jehovah our Father.
The Church is one but groups split off of the Church like the Roman church did.
The term Jehovah is wholly Western. It is anglicized guesswork on how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton YHWH. It is round about blasphemy to claim that's the name of God.
I count early church history as being Jesus and the disciples up until the bishops started colluding with the Roman emperors.
State religion corrupted a lot.
What you mention is what secular scholars refer to as the "proto-orthodox" christians. Still, if you believe that Christianity was corrupted after this time, then you may as well disregard the entirety of the Holy Bible ... that was put together and canonized 382 A.D. (this also points to one the great rational errors of protestants ... they acknowledge the "holiness" of the Bible, yet deny the authority or truthfulness of the very organization that declared the books we know now as the Holy Bible to be divinely inspired).
I think we look hypocritical when we preach unity and we can’t find a way to reconcile with our Catholic brothers and sisters or for that matter each other. Look how many orthodox churches aren’t in communion with each other. It just makes me sad. Christ wouldn’t want this.
How would you reconcile with the unrepented heretics.? On one side we ought to keep Lord's Bride "holy and without blemish" (Eph 5,27), on the other we deal with the stubborn servants of chief liar as every heresy is result of his work. Enlighten us...
EDIT: Methods of Inquisition are off limits.!
@@johnnyd2383
Ummmm 🤷🏽♂
@@johnnyd2383you calling whom a heretic? If you mean Catholics, not the conciliar opinion of the Orthodox. You need to tone down your sectarian instincts.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed. Therefore, Latins are condemned heretics. You can either live with it or repent, which I recommend dearly to all followers of the old fart sitting in Rome.
We're all in communion. It's the hierarchs who aren't. Only those in the Church are brethren as that's the Body of Christ. If you mean brethren in Adam, yes.
Rome left us so if they wish for communion the local church of Rome needs to come back, submit to the whole Church in Christ, after folding the Unia.
Apostle Paul: "... *Christ, our PASSOVER* lamb, has been sacrificed. So let us *CELEBRATE THE FESTIVAL... WITH the UNLEAVENED BREAD* of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:7,8).
Notice the difference in types of bread:
ἄζυμα or unleavened bread was commanded for the Passover in Exodus 12:8.
Look at Genesis 14:18, the offering of Melchizedek when he blesses Abram: καὶ Μελχισεδὲκ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον· ἦν δὲ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου.
Αρτους meaning leavened bread.
ἄρτον is the leavened bread that Jesus broke during the Last Supper and so the one that is His body.
Leavened bread is the bread of Melchizedek, Jesus Christ our God is High Priest according to Melchizedek. The bread of the Levites, of the Aaronic priesthood, is unleavened because it is imperfect, it does not represent the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 13:33: Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three [a]measures of meal till it was all leavened.”
@@CharlesSeraphDrums
1. Josephus and Philo use the general word for bread (ARTOUS) to reference UNleavened matzah.
2. When the temporal CONTEXT is the Mosaic moed (ie, appointed holy time ordained by Law) of UNleavened Bread, then the general word "bread" (ARTOUS) necessarily means UNleavened matzah.
3. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but Christ is also bound by His declared mission to "fulfill" every "jot and tittle" of the Law; and in order for the Last Passover to be legal according to he "jot and tittle" of the Torah, it *must* be UNleavened. The Law literally cuts off anyone who eats leaven or even has leaven in his house during the week of Unleavened bread.
4. A Parable does not overturn a Law. The purpose of leaven in the parable you mention is that the influence if the Gospel spreads. Jesus also says, "BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:6) which was clearly the spreading authority of Jewish Patristic Oral Traditions over the Written Law of Moses [this Jewish Patristic Tradition was then called the "traditions of the elders" (Matt. 15:3; Mark 7:3) and later, after being written down, called the "Pirkei Avot"/ "Mishna"/ "Talmud"/ "Oral Torah"/ "the whole law of Moses"]. Those Jewish Oral Patristic Tradition caused men to disobey the written Torah. The Church also formed its own Talmud (or alleged Apostolic Oral Traditions in Conciliar decrees) which contradict the Written Law, just as a leavened Passover is explicitly declared to be a transgression of the Written Law, but not of your Traditions.
5. If you're going to exalt a Parable into equality with a Law then why not exalt Apostle Paul's words, that say: "CHRIST, OUR PASSOVER, has been sacrificed for us, so LET US *KEEP THE FEAST... WITH THE UNLEAVENED BREAD* of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:7,8)?
12 min
This was not very clear to someone who doesn't know the history of your church already.
Tye...., perhaps not.. but i am glad you watched it.
As you are learning on such site, there is much out there to help you and all of us..
Stay tuned!! ☦📿💝📿☦
I would recommend reading a book called 'the orthodox church' by the late Met. Kallistos Ware. It's an extremely good guidebook on the general history of the church and it's not too long either. You can probably find an audiobook version if you prefer those as well.
To understand the beginning of your own beliefs and how they developed over 2,000 years is to become wise. Take it slow and you’ll catch on
I grew up not knowing much past the death of the Apostles and knew a lot of Post-Reformation history.
I'm sad that it happened that way but glad God brought me to Him.
@@lindaphillips4646
I almost went to Protestant Seminary when I was a Protestant but it fell through.
I am now a Reader in ROCOR.
Bad doctrine is not knowing whether or not you are even saved 😅 How can you be Christian if you don’t even know if you are in Christ?
Apostle Paul:
*"... CELEBRATE... WITH UNLEAVENED BREAD..."*
(1Cor.5:8).
I love my orthodox brothers but I beg you return to the church Christ founded. Come back to unity. We need you guys now more than ever before.
Which church is that?
@@ratherboutside2 the church your church came from.
The Council at Lyons in the 13th Century Anathematized those who do not accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds Hypostatically from both Father and Son.
Yup. Latins go full bore heresy at every turn past the first millennium.
Heretical council. We have seen it before with the Robber Council.
@EasternChristian333
It's binding for Roman Catholics. And even if it isn't itself, Florence reiterates the Anathema and Rome considers that Ecumenical.
It's one of many showcases of Rome enacting change and then declaring that they are "Unchanging".
LUKE 22:1 Now the Feast of *UNLEAVENED BREAD* drew near, which is called the *PASSOVER... "*
LUKE 22:7 "Then came the day of *UNLEAVENED BREAD,* on which the *PASSOVER* lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the *PASSOVER* for us, that WE may EAT IT.”
Not looking for a non-reformed view also anti-Jewish. Next.
*YEASTERN UNORTHODOXY* strikes again !
Why still calling men "father"???
Please; no smug replies; just plain words if any.
Jesus the "man of sorrow and acquainted with grief" : I feel certain he would not be chuckling mixed in with speaking sacred matters. I feel no need of icons and costly supposed "houses of God".
"If any man speak, let him speak as an oracle (utterance) of God."
Burden of proof of apostolic succession is upon whosoever claims that spiritual anointing to do true "binding and loosing" over souls. We are all either gathering with, or scattering against the Shepherd of souls; the holy Elect Flock. With or against; lukewarm not acceptable to the Perfect Judge...when we are weighed by him.
Judas thought the same when Christ was anointed with expensive nard. Christians have always given God glory in His [Orthodox] temples whether house churches (houses given over to the Church for the purpose of Divine Services) or the catacombs of the 1st and 2nd centuries. They never skimped when they had means and especially when they didn't, and feigned faux piety. They helped people too.
You say you don't see a need but I'm very much sure you have never looked into what you reject off hand. Even if you have, maybe you would listen to Orthodox Christians. I'm just being direct here.
Apostolic Succession is an unbroken chain of laying on of hands of ordination, it's not hard to track. However, it is cut off when one leaves the Church (Ekklesia; People of God) and there is no invisible Church.
Regarding using Father:
My copy and paste:
The Bible verse Mt 23:9 is copied and pasted, or mentioned/referred to, in nearly every Orthodox Christian comment section, sometimes without commentary, by Evangelical Protestants who do not rightly interpret Holy Scripture.
That very literalist reading of Matthew 23:9 is dispelled by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, him calling himself a father of his spiritual children, especially St. Timothy, and saying there are other fathers.
"Paul’s Paternal Care
14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church." (NKJV / OSB NT)
Christ referred in the passage Matthew 23:1-36 to those who *lord* titles over others as the Pharisees did often and didn't practice as they preached others to do. It was not just an admonishment against calling a man 'father', but 'teacher' and 'rabbi' as well (doctors too), which I have never seen Evangelicals object to hardly. It seems to be a double standard as most are anti-Roman Catholic which sadly they lump us in with them.
The title 'Father' our Presbyters use is not lording a title but it is a spiritual truth as they *are* the fathers of spiritual children just like St. Paul was over his flock. And it can be gathered that indeed St. Timothy and others called St. Paul 'father' as it would have been only respectful, him being their spiritual father to help them grow in the Faith, shepherded by them who were their flock. After all, the flocks were referred to as 'children' by the anointed Shepherds of Christ. And that's where we get it from. It is from the very earliest of the Church.
Also, Christ refers in many places to fathers both biological and spiritual (the Old Covenant Patriarchs and Forefathers). Christ does not say when He refers to them as fathers not to call them such as they are *legitimate* fathers of children. It isn't just a haughty title being put on them. They do not lord titles over others as this vocation, fatherhood, is a reality both to biological fathers and spiritual fathers.
If you like to understand this passage in the Holy Scriptures better, these two videos might help you, especially the second which goes into the Second Temple era usage of 'father': ruclips.net/video/j4F-xow3Vzg/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/JCDujtjiXT8/видео.htmlsi=7TAUIbhx8phy6ds6
May God bless you. ☦
EXODUS 12: 8
*"...THEY ARE TO EAT... UNLEAVENED BREAD...."*
Jesus: "... *UNLEAVENED BREAD...*
*...I... EAT...."*
(Luke 22:7,15).
The Filioque is a complicated issue, and we hear different things from different Orthodox about it. Metropolitan Kalistos Ware stated that after further discussion and understanding he not longer found it to be an issue. That how the church of Rome is expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit is correct. While the councils of Toledo and Hatfield are not considered to be fully ecumenical those local councils inserted the filioque as a response to Arianism and Monothelitism. It would be fair to say if Arianism never came about the filioque would have never come about. This is where the Orthodox need to take some responsibility. Arianism came out of and flourished in the east for 700 years. The Pope and St Athanasius fought against the Emperor and the eastern bishops to stop it. Curiously many of the church fathers did not have an issue, Hilary of Poitiers, Ephrem the Syrian, Epiphanius of Salamis, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Pope Leo I the great, Maximus the Confessor, along with several other Latin fathers. It was not a huge deal until Photios. In 2019 the NACCB suggested and supported the removal of the filioque which since we have no difference in understanding and Arianism while still existing is not the threat it once was. It seems to me that some Orthodox want to make mountains out of mole hills to keep our churches apart. Confusing messaging from the Orthodox on many issues.
The problem is that even though Ware said that, the fact of the matter is there is a big difference.
The son as cause of the Holy Spirit is dogmatized in the RCC. The Orthodox Church does not hold to that belief.
To say there is no difference is understanding is a blatant lie and quite frankly disrespectful to those who fought over it.
Metropolitan Ware is perhaps not greatest place for your scholastic Western phronema, please consult "Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind", by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou for a better understanding of why you are so confused by us.
@wjckc79 My point is that Orthodox are not in lock step with each other by any means. 50 years to try and convien the great council and in the end it fell apart. The Orthodox do not speak with one mind. This is what is confusing. Having a magisterium pays huge benefits.
@@Motomack1042 the Orthodox do speak with one mind. Stop regurgitating awful western polemics as gospel truth. Any issues with the Orthodox currently are issues that also can be seen in the first millennium Church.
@caseycardenas1668 actually you can identify two opposing Orthodox opinions about the filioque, a liberal view and a rigorist view. One see the controversy as a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding, in this view both east and west are at fault for failing to allow for a plurality of theologies. The other sees as a fundamental issue of dogma and cannot be dismissed as simply on of different theologoumena. Exactly my point, Orthodox need to move past the 1st millennium, these types of issues should have been resolved. Without the bishop of Rome to mediate these issues, they continue to fester and cause division. The division in the Orthodox world are an unfolding tragedy that challenges the Christian witness.
Too bad... you guys forgot to make the case that Peter was actually the bishop of antioch
Actually, the See of St. Peter in the early times of the Church was seen as Antioch, Alexandria and Rome together. So yes, it was recognized as a See of St. Peter. Always has been. However, the city of Rome was the Seat of the Emperor at the time. When the Seat of the Emperor moved to Constantinople then that Patriarchate became second among equals.
@@LadyMaria exactly! the eastern chruches forgot to publicly assert this (very few christians in the west knows about this) while rome constantly claim peter which provides an impression of authority above all chrurches.... in fact the bible itself provides some proof that peter was a bishop of the eastern church.... Performing his office as bishop of the eastern churches through his epistles.... i believe, HIS LETTERS WERE ALL ADDRESSED TO THE EASTERN CHURCHES...
@@eldansambatyon Well it had to do with the Seat of the Emperor why Rome had primacy of honor (not supremacy).
@@LadyMaria hahaha NOPE! you picked up some very false and twisted arguments from the past.... WERENT EMPEROR CONSTANTINE SEATED IN CONSTANTINOPOLE?
@@eldansambatyon I already gave the answer to that, that the Seat of the Emperor moved to Constantinople in the 4th century, as it was in the city of Rome before. Do a bit more study. Anyway since you are laughing and such, we'll part ways.
You are Peter and upon you I build my Church!
The confession of Christ made by St. Peter is the Rock, yes.
We must take the entirety of the passage for interpretation, not a singular verse which is part of the issue with Protestant interpretation.
Matthew 16:13-20 (NKJV/OSB NT)
"Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ."
@@LadyMaria I see nothing in that entire scripture that counters the teaching that the successors of Peter are the head of the Church. There was only one Peter. You can argue patriarchs are one level lower as James and John, then the other 9 below them.
@@neilmiller617 it means that Jesus will build up Peter's confession or faith, not Peter himself. Yes, Peter was an important apostle because he was also the first to understand who Jesus really was. However, Jesus later also said that ALL apostles will get the key to heaven, not just Peter
@@neilmiller617there were more than 1 apostle. In Acts 2, the 11 others stood up with Peter.
@@neilmiller617 Dig into the history of the Church, not RC quote mines, and you'll see that your interpretation is incorrect as is your poor paraphrase in your original comment.
The Father's interpretation of the Filioque is very one-sided, naturally being he's a Orthodox priest, but the West did not mean the Filioque the way him & the East in general understood it, the West was dealing with a serious resurgence of Arianism which was the driving force for adding the Filioque, to begin with, but it wasn't intended to give the Son some lopsided force over the Spirit, it was thought of as breath travels back & forth on the words of a conversation, or how I've heard it described is the Father's love for the Son & the Son sending that love back to the Father...it really does seem like this could've been resolved, at the time, without splitting the church itself in half, a perpetually recurring division, at this point, I'm afraid to say I fear politics were involved in this calamity.
Maybe initially it was like that, but in time, they adopted it as a separate dogma.
Oh... multitudes of Holy Fathers, ,in the past 1000 years, were "dumb" and did not understand the "correctness" of that heresy, but, your majesty does.? You are blasphemer of the Holy Spirit.
Saying that the eternal Source of the Holy Spirit is Father and Son is the issue. I've seen many RCs say that's what they believe in regards to the Filioque dogma. And yes it does subordinate the Holy Spirit.
I am surprised that the breakaway church allows three marriages? Jesus clearly taught a married man and woman are one flesh.
The one Church follows the Canons of St. Basil on divorce, which Rome before its schism did as well. The break away Papal "church" allows annulments which is divorce with amnesia. It declares what was treated as marriage as not having been marriage because of a loophole at the time of the wedding. It is legalism to free one up to marry again by saying they're not marrying again and there's no limit to it. It always requires a civil divorce first and one only gets an annulment to claim they never married so they can marry again. The Eastern catholic churches under the Pope used to have divorce up until last century officially, now it's under the table.
Hallelujah!!! I’m favored and blessed with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and also support the work of God and the church.
Oh really? Tell me more!
This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.
After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.
I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
Too many accretions since the first couple centuries and millennia. It ain’t the original church sorry
Why do these guys always look like craft brewers?
The New Testament jesus in the Light of Old Testament is an impostor a Liar and some people also called him Lunatic and christian missionaries believe that the opposite word for Lunatic is God so jesus is a god
No, Rome did not have any “special grace,” and I believe Father is unwise and wrong to share such an erroneous, purely personal opinion.
“First among equals”
Means nothing
If the Bishop of Rome has no special grace.
“He’s equal” would be far more accurate, unless there’s something special about the diocese where Peter and Paul were martyred….
Return to the G-d of Israel and forsake this Roman paganism.
Jews killed Jesus
We aren't Roman Catholics, so done.
@@LadyMaria every time you kiss an icon, that's paganism
@@andyontheinternet5777 Using your.."logic"..reading Scripture is pagan as pagans had scriptures. 😉
Jesus is not God!
Lord have mercy.
Absolutely, he is!!
Lord Jesus is Christ! Lord Jesus is God! I witness!
@@habtamueshetu2946
😂