For all those struggling I encourage Joshua shooping videos. He was an orthodox priest and he explains the anathemas they try to hide and he shows what’s in the mother of light prayer book. Calling the Theotokos our salvation only hope vine rock redeemer even!! That’s was it for me I knew it wasn’t where the Lord would have me as it detracts from Christ and puts the saints above him and his mother as more merciful then our Lord himself !!
I too almost became Eastern Orthodox before becoming Anglican about 15 years ago (having also been raised Baptist). My biggest issues (aside from my wife not going along with it at all) were: (1) downplaying of imputed righteousness and the substitutionary atonement; (2) denigration of Western saints/theology; (3) veneration of icons and prayers to Mary/saints.
It sounds like you didn't like the answers they were giving since it didn't match up to your prior beliefs. You shouldn't lean on your own understanding. Also I understand the issue of a priest not able to give you a good answer, but they are not theologians. You cant write off Orthodoxy because you had two bad experiences. It could be that the Orthodox view of the atonement is more mystical and not able to be put into words as succinctly as the anglican tradition is able to, this doesnt make it false just because it is harder to explain. Some of these issues take years to understand, and sometimes it takes a leap of faith to get into the orthodox life for these things to start making sense.
@NorthernWaters3 I’ve ended up in Confessional Lutheranism, and you have summed up my issues with orthodoxy almost perfectly. Orthodox will often say the legal/penal/substitutionary aspects of the cross are “western,” but as you point out, it is immensely Scriptural. Western theology and focus may indeed under-emphasize the resurrection as compared to the crucifixion, but I’ve heard many Orthodox say the Resurrection is more important. Another thing I would add is that I can’t find a comprehensive list of what I would be required to believe as an orthodox Christian. I know that itself is a western way of looking at things, but there’s no agreed upon list of church fathers that are binding, and the varying opinions in orthodoxy are almost as wide as Protestantism, especially on birth control, universalism, and even the way in which agreed upon doctrines are understood. Lastly, I understand the Scriptures are part of Tradition in Orthodoxy, which I can affirm to some degree with a lower case t. I’ve heard varying explanations about the nature of scripture, and again, we come to the issue of variance within orthodoxy. But I have come across the view that the apostles were able to write scripture because they were so fully cooperating with God’s grace, so whatever they wrote would be inspired. The same priest (granted on RUclips, but it was an ecumenical type interview) also argued that scripture is needed to point us to God’s grace, but ideally we could get to a point where we don’t need scripture. I think these views undercut the God breathed nature of scripture and it’s centrality. Even in Catholicism’s Scripture plus Tradition, scripture is still essential.
Fr James I wanted to thank you personally for pointing me to St James Anglican Church in Memphis. While back I asked you to help me with that. We’ve been going since beginning Trinity Sunday. Daughter who is 8 was baptized there on All Saints’ Day and wife and I were confirmed on December 6th by Bishop Peter Manto. Been a wonderful and indescribable journey. Thank you brother.
I love this video. I live in Murfreesboro and have visited St. Elizabeth and St. Rose! I grew up Episcopal and have been going to St. Patrick’s Anglican Church as of late. Thank God for youtube theologians like you who have helped those like me who prefer liturgy to stay grounded in scripture without jumping all-in to somewhere that the grass may only appear greener.
Missed the live but enjoyed the video. On the topic of both EO and Bible apps, Catena is great. Doesn’t default to NIV. Click on any verse, and it shows commentary from church fathers and saints.
I will say the continuing Anglican Church I went to 2 weeks ago, does not allow you to have communion unless you have been baptized and then confirmed. So some Anglican traditions are stricter
Good video. I've heard Ubi Petrus make the argument that re-baptism is simply left up to the individual parishes (and he'll say thats how it's always been in the history of the church), but to me that completely evades the dilemma that is going on with many EO churches claiming other EO churches are apostate for not re-baptizing converts.
I get this question a lot, and I have no idea why, haha. It recognizes fewer Ecumenical Councils, and is generally closer to Anglicanism than Eastern Orthodoxy is. We Anglicans also have great relations with the Coptic Orthodox.
@@barelyprotestant5365 that's interesting I didnt know that Anglicans and the Oriental Orthodox have good relations. Maybe you can make a video about that sometime. Just a thought. Merry Christmas
I was just wondering how you can have proper apostolic sucession if some of the Anglicans have women priests now? Does that create a problem if the women are not proper priests? Thanks for the video!
That is not how Apostolic Succession works. It works, first of all, through the Bishops; they are the branches passing down the succession. So while women's "ordination" is bad, it doesn't affect the Episcopate if it's limited to the Priesthood (not that they're actually priests). Even if women are "consecrated" to the Episcopate, their "lines" alone are ended (and they aren't in fact part of those lines to begin with). Because the standard is that 3-4 Bishops consecrate a Bishop, one would need to have a Bishop being "consecrated" exclusively by women in order for it to be a "dud" consecration.
Your point about the liturgy being didactic is so important. If we claim to be liturgical, part of that is because we believe everything we say and do in worship matters. Everything should be done with great attention and care, with purpose. They can’t claim that “save us o theotokos” is not at least objectively idolatrous without those (weak) qualifications you mentioned, and claim to be attentive and purposeful with their liturgy.
Thank you for sharing your story. I almost became Orthodox twice in my life, in 2002 and 2017, and even completed catechesis in a Greek church. Both times, I eventually decided that I'm too ecumenical to be Orthodox. Was Anglo-Catholic for some time, before eventually ending up in an independent catholic jurisdiction (United Ecumenical Catholic Church).
@@scott9335 It was a good experience, I met some wonderful people, including two amazing priests. My theology and praxis have definitely been influenced in positive ways.
Thanks for making this. Are there any classic Anglican works that address or respond to Eastern Orthodoxy? Or any classic Protestant books you’d recommend on the topic?
Father James, regarding confession, besides the confession of sins in liturgy, would you say confession in the privacy of your own mind at home count as confessing sins? I do the daily office and do my best to confess sins, but I’m at home and not with a priest.
@@barelyprotestant5365 absolutely. I’m not against confession in front of a priest per se, but more so, it’s not as often available, and I don’t know that I can always confess all the sins in my mind prior to the confession in the liturgy
I find your content very interesting because it so closely resembles my journey from Southern Baptist to confessional Lutheranism (LCMS). This is one of the best critiques of Eastern Orthodoxy, which at least pops up on the radar of every evangelical making a similar journey. In particular, the lack of instruction in the liturgy, the anti-westernism, and the fact that “on the ground” there is schism within orthodoxy. As a Lutheran of course, I would add that I don’t think they’re square on justification. You point out, correctly I think, that a different understanding of baptism on the part of ROCOR and Antiochan is in effect, a schism within Orthodoxy. Could you clarify, do you think they are making the schism because they understand the sacraments differently, or is a different understanding of the sacraments schismatic itself? I ask because I’m interested in your take given the range of Real Presence allowed within Anglicanism. Of course, our Lutheran take is that a Calvinist understanding is different enough to not commune with them, for both our benefit, as we don’t want someone communing who doesn’t grasp what they are getting at the altar. Would you commune someone who has a purely symbolic/Zwinglian understanding of the Supper, or would your concern about withholding Christ and unnecessary schism take precedence? If you wouldn’t commune them, would you consider that errant view to be the schism, or the actual act of separation to be the schism? Please note I’m not using schism in an accusatory way, I think we would both hold that schism is at some point justified. I guess the bottom line question is how much differentiation on sacraments do you think is allowed before a separation is warranted? I’m sorry, I know this is a very Lutheran question…
In ROCOR, if I were to join them my Baptism would not be considered valid. With the Greek Orthodox, it would be considered valid. This, by itself, demands that they are schismed from each other because they both don't recognize the same Baptism. I would recognize (as I'm sure you would) a Baptist's Baptism as long as it's Trinitarian, done in water, etc. The Baptist would not recognize the Baptism I performed a few months ago, because the Baptism was done on an infant. It is for this reason (among others) that we are schismed from the Baptists. That's not the same when it comes to Holy Communion. With Holy Communion, both sides within Anglicanism agree that it imparts Grace, cleanses us from sin, etc. Neither of us would look at a priest celebrating and say that he is celebrating an invalid Eucharist because of his belief on the "inner workings" of the Lord's Supper. If we were to claim that, then we would necessarily be in schism on that.
A friend pointed out your video from a Facebook thread in which you recently posted it. I made it to 11:40 before I encountered the first unfounded presupposition: "I did not like how the Liturgy was not very strong...as far as teaching the faith." There is another way of stating this more accurately: "I, with my post-modern, highly-rationalistic, hyper-individualistic American sensibilities, did not like something weird and different." Again, this is a modern presupposition being used as a tool to evaluate a tradition (Christianity) that is both rooted in the ancient world and also timeless, which means it can't be evaluated based on a 20th Century educational model (which is demonstrably flawed). Following, you state that you "got the sense that everything was done as a conscious rejection of Western Theology..." This, again, is a radically unfair presupposition in light of the fact that the Liturgy itself predates any "Western theology" as we now know that term. You fully admit that it was the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, yet accuse it of consciously rejecting Western theology, which makes very little sense (this makes even less sense when we dig into the historical record of Christian thought in the Eastern Church). Your portion on Exclusivity and Excommunication seems to misunderstand those concepts as understood in the Eastern Church. This is understandable, as many of the laity today misunderstand this concept, but this is another example of using a modern American metric for evaluating ancient concepts. At just after the 21:00 mark, you state that a ROCOR priest and an Antiochian priest would treat Person X differently on the validity of Holy Baptism. This misunderstands a few things about how that works, but here's my hunch: you are taking from examples you have heard about where a person _was_ received in one parish and another person _wasn't_ received in a different parish. If that is the case, then your argument is entirely invalid and never gets off the ground for reasons that is obvious to every Eastern Church priest (and those who have been in the Church for a while). To address the overall point, though, there is no "fundamental difference" about what Holy Baptism _is_ in any way like there is in all of Protestantism, and even within what people would consider the same fold. I can watch, for example, a debate here on RUclips between RC Sproul and John MacArthur about Baptism that absolutely shows a fundamental difference in what it is -- and that's between two people who everyone considers "conservative Reformed Christians" (hint to any following along: they're nothing of the sort). But to further this point, Anglicanism as a whole has zero ground upon which to stand on topics like "fundamental differences" on things that Christianity has, for a very long time, considered very important. You admit this, but your caveat as to why it is different holds no water (pun intended). You state that you have a hard time with the "infallibility of Ecumenical councils" and that "the canons are not being held to day." So, you're stating that you have a hard time with any authority but your own, and that it's hard to consistently behave in a Christ-like manner? No way! I kid, of course, in hopes that this isn't taken too seriously. To be fair, I think Celtic Christianity has a beautiful tradition, and if it still existed within the Anglican fold, I'd probably be there instead of the Eastern Church. But the Anglican Church is an abject disaster, and the sad part is that this will get much worse over the next few years rather than better, all while the Eastern Church is growing (on that point, the number of Reformed and Anglican priests and educated academics who have become Orthodox so far dwarfs the number who have done the opposite that it's not even worth comparing -- educated people are not moving Westward). Check out Fr. Stephen de Young and Fr. Patrick Reardon. The former is a former Reformed pastor, the latter a former Anglican monk and pastor, and both have more education in those areas than should be legally allowed. I tell you this not to implore you to come to the Eastern Church but rather for educated perspectives on these topics and theology as properly understood.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I beg to differ Fr. I think with proper catachesis, western Christians can once again understand we petition the Saints and especially Her for prayers that save us. It’s fancy, liturgical and mystical language to help elevate our understanding that She is indeed crowned in Heaven. The Orthodox understand it this way and not in a co redemptrix way many fierce Trads believe. All in all, I don’t think it’s required in the liturgy but it sure would be nice. Next generation will likely because I’m noticing that the younger people generally seem more accepting of the prayers to the Holy Theotokos. Please pray for me, I’m going through a lot these days.
11:20 Major Premise: Lex orandi, lex credendi. Minor Premise: *Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary:* _On the awesome day of judgment, save me from eternal punishment and make me an inheritor of the ineffable glory of your Son, our God_ Conclusion: Orthodox believe that Mary saves them from eternal punishment on the Day of Judgment. Yes! The Liturgy is didactic. The fact that Liturgy is public prayer negates the option of alternative definitions of "save." If you're praying things in public that you don't actually believe, then you're teaching people to believe things you don't believe.
1. "Entreat your Son" and "On the awesome day" are separate petitions. That petition has some uncomfortable implications as well, but not as starkly idolatrous. It excuses nothing in later sentences. Major Premise: Lex orandi, lex credendi. Minor Premise: "Entreat your Son and our Lord and Master, using your boldness as a mother, so that he may open to me the loving mercy of his goodness, overlook my numberless transgressions, turn me to repentance, and make me an acceptable doer of his commandments." Conclusion: Orthodox might believe that Jesus is unwilling to be merciful, overook transgressions, and create repentance and obedence unless Theotokos urges him. If this is ALL you believe Theotokos does for us, why don't you just stop there? Why do you add to this the words, "On the awesome day of judgment, save me from eternal punishment and make me an inheritor of the ineffable glory of your Son, our God"?
For all those struggling I encourage Joshua shooping videos. He was an orthodox priest and he explains the anathemas they try to hide and he shows what’s in the mother of light prayer book. Calling the Theotokos our salvation only hope vine rock redeemer even!! That’s was it for me I knew it wasn’t where the Lord would have me as it detracts from Christ and puts the saints above him and his mother as more merciful then our Lord himself !!
I too almost became Eastern Orthodox before becoming Anglican about 15 years ago (having also been raised Baptist). My biggest issues (aside from my wife not going along with it at all) were: (1) downplaying of imputed righteousness and the substitutionary atonement; (2) denigration of Western saints/theology; (3) veneration of icons and prayers to Mary/saints.
The spouse factor is a real consideration.
@@NorthernFire9 -yeah, I like icons personally, I just don’t think they should/MUST be venerated.
It sounds like you didn't like the answers they were giving since it didn't match up to your prior beliefs. You shouldn't lean on your own understanding. Also I understand the issue of a priest not able to give you a good answer, but they are not theologians. You cant write off Orthodoxy because you had two bad experiences. It could be that the Orthodox view of the atonement is more mystical and not able to be put into words as succinctly as the anglican tradition is able to, this doesnt make it false just because it is harder to explain. Some of these issues take years to understand, and sometimes it takes a leap of faith to get into the orthodox life for these things to start making sense.
@NorthernWaters3 I’ve ended up in Confessional Lutheranism, and you have summed up my issues with orthodoxy almost perfectly.
Orthodox will often say the legal/penal/substitutionary aspects of the cross are “western,” but as you point out, it is immensely Scriptural.
Western theology and focus may indeed under-emphasize the resurrection as compared to the crucifixion, but I’ve heard many Orthodox say the Resurrection is more important.
Another thing I would add is that I can’t find a comprehensive list of what I would be required to believe as an orthodox Christian. I know that itself is a western way of looking at things, but there’s no agreed upon list of church fathers that are binding, and the varying opinions in orthodoxy are almost as wide as Protestantism, especially on birth control, universalism, and even the way in which agreed upon doctrines are understood.
Lastly, I understand the Scriptures are part of Tradition in Orthodoxy, which I can affirm to some degree with a lower case t. I’ve heard varying explanations about the nature of scripture, and again, we come to the issue of variance within orthodoxy. But I have come across the view that the apostles were able to write scripture because they were so fully cooperating with God’s grace, so whatever they wrote would be inspired. The same priest (granted on RUclips, but it was an ecumenical type interview) also argued that scripture is needed to point us to God’s grace, but ideally we could get to a point where we don’t need scripture. I think these views undercut the God breathed nature of scripture and it’s centrality. Even in Catholicism’s Scripture plus Tradition, scripture is still essential.
@@doubtingthomas9117 If Icons bring people closer to God and bolster their faith they're good. It's the veneration of them that's a problem.
Fr James I wanted to thank you personally for pointing me to St James Anglican Church in Memphis. While back I asked you to help me with that. We’ve been going since beginning Trinity Sunday. Daughter who is 8 was baptized there on All Saints’ Day and wife and I were confirmed on December 6th by Bishop Peter Manto. Been a wonderful and indescribable journey. Thank you brother.
I love this video. I live in Murfreesboro and have visited St. Elizabeth and St. Rose! I grew up Episcopal and have been going to St. Patrick’s Anglican Church as of late. Thank God for youtube theologians like you who have helped those like me who prefer liturgy to stay grounded in scripture without jumping all-in to somewhere that the grass may only appear greener.
Nice! I was Confirmed at St Patrick's. Tell Fr Chris and Fr Wesley I say hi!
@@barelyprotestant5365 will do!
Missed the live but enjoyed the video. On the topic of both EO and Bible apps, Catena is great. Doesn’t default to NIV. Click on any verse, and it shows commentary from church fathers and saints.
I will say the continuing Anglican Church I went to 2 weeks ago, does not allow you to have communion unless you have been baptized and then confirmed. So some Anglican traditions are stricter
Good video. I've heard Ubi Petrus make the argument that re-baptism is simply left up to the individual parishes (and he'll say thats how it's always been in the history of the church), but to me that completely evades the dilemma that is going on with many EO churches claiming other EO churches are apostate for not re-baptizing converts.
Question for you, why would you chose the Oriental orthodox instead of the Eastern orthodox church? Great video by the way, I learned alot, thanks.
I get this question a lot, and I have no idea why, haha. It recognizes fewer Ecumenical Councils, and is generally closer to Anglicanism than Eastern Orthodoxy is. We Anglicans also have great relations with the Coptic Orthodox.
@@barelyprotestant5365 that's interesting I didnt know that Anglicans and the Oriental Orthodox have good relations. Maybe you can make a video about that sometime. Just a thought. Merry Christmas
Also your shirt should say Providence of the Irish ☘️ 😊
I was just wondering how you can have proper apostolic sucession if some of the Anglicans have women priests now? Does that create a problem if the women are not proper priests? Thanks for the video!
That is not how Apostolic Succession works. It works, first of all, through the Bishops; they are the branches passing down the succession. So while women's "ordination" is bad, it doesn't affect the Episcopate if it's limited to the Priesthood (not that they're actually priests).
Even if women are "consecrated" to the Episcopate, their "lines" alone are ended (and they aren't in fact part of those lines to begin with). Because the standard is that 3-4 Bishops consecrate a Bishop, one would need to have a Bishop being "consecrated" exclusively by women in order for it to be a "dud" consecration.
Can you do a video about this anglicanism and OE communion that you mention?
I might!
You went to MTSU? Cool! Im enrolling there next fall!
Awesome! Check out St Patrick's Anglican Church!
@@barelyprotestant5365 I’m an M’boro native and I’ve never heard of that church until recently. I’ll have to check it out!
@@TheOtherCaleb if you're a board gamer, email me. We play board games about once a month in Gallatin.
What is your opinion on GAFCON?
I am part of it; I like a lot of it.
Your point about the liturgy being didactic is so important. If we claim to be liturgical, part of that is because we believe everything we say and do in worship matters. Everything should be done with great attention and care, with purpose. They can’t claim that “save us o theotokos” is not at least objectively idolatrous without those (weak) qualifications you mentioned, and claim to be attentive and purposeful with their liturgy.
@@conqueringdeath2559 read St Athanasius’ letter against the arians.
It always bothered me when they said oh most holy theotokos save us. Thabk you so much for reminding me why I didn't become EO.
Thanks Fr James. Your comments are accurate. Life in the orthodox church for converts is very tough. Dont convert.
Thank you for sharing your story. I almost became Orthodox twice in my life, in 2002 and 2017, and even completed catechesis in a Greek church. Both times, I eventually decided that I'm too ecumenical to be Orthodox. Was Anglo-Catholic for some time, before eventually ending up in an independent catholic jurisdiction (United Ecumenical Catholic Church).
How was your experience in the Greek church?
I never been baptized but was close to becoming roman Catholic in the rcia
@@scott9335 It was a good experience, I met some wonderful people, including two amazing priests. My theology and praxis have definitely been influenced in positive ways.
So you wanted to be a ecumenist
@@AbdulRahman-bi1nu Yes. Despite its deficiencies, I still recognise the church in western Christianity.
Bless me daddy!
Thanks for making this. Are there any classic Anglican works that address or respond to Eastern Orthodoxy? Or any classic Protestant books you’d recommend on the topic?
No, not any classic ones to my knowledge.
@@barelyprotestant5365 thank you.
Father James, regarding confession, besides the confession of sins in liturgy, would you say confession in the privacy of your own mind at home count as confessing sins? I do the daily office and do my best to confess sins, but I’m at home and not with a priest.
It is fine, but Confession in the presence of a priest can be incredibly beneficial.
@@barelyprotestant5365 absolutely. I’m not against confession in front of a priest per se, but more so, it’s not as often available, and I don’t know that I can always confess all the sins in my mind prior to the confession in the liturgy
Regarding the issue of excommunication, schism, etc: I’m guessing this applies to the Roman Church too?
Yes. I've done a few videos along the same lines, concerning Rome.
I find your content very interesting because it so closely resembles my journey from Southern Baptist to confessional Lutheranism (LCMS). This is one of the best critiques of Eastern Orthodoxy, which at least pops up on the radar of every evangelical making a similar journey. In particular, the lack of instruction in the liturgy, the anti-westernism, and the fact that “on the ground” there is schism within orthodoxy. As a Lutheran of course, I would add that I don’t think they’re square on justification.
You point out, correctly I think, that a different understanding of baptism on the part of ROCOR and Antiochan is in effect, a schism within Orthodoxy. Could you clarify, do you think they are making the schism because they understand the sacraments differently, or is a different understanding of the sacraments schismatic itself?
I ask because I’m interested in your take given the range of Real Presence allowed within Anglicanism. Of course, our Lutheran take is that a Calvinist understanding is different enough to not commune with them, for both our benefit, as we don’t want someone communing who doesn’t grasp what they are getting at the altar.
Would you commune someone who has a purely symbolic/Zwinglian understanding of the Supper, or would your concern about withholding Christ and unnecessary schism take precedence? If you wouldn’t commune them, would you consider that errant view to be the schism, or the actual act of separation to be the schism? Please note I’m not using schism in an accusatory way, I think we would both hold that schism is at some point justified.
I guess the bottom line question is how much differentiation on sacraments do you think is allowed before a separation is warranted? I’m sorry, I know this is a very Lutheran question…
In ROCOR, if I were to join them my Baptism would not be considered valid. With the Greek Orthodox, it would be considered valid. This, by itself, demands that they are schismed from each other because they both don't recognize the same Baptism.
I would recognize (as I'm sure you would) a Baptist's Baptism as long as it's Trinitarian, done in water, etc. The Baptist would not recognize the Baptism I performed a few months ago, because the Baptism was done on an infant. It is for this reason (among others) that we are schismed from the Baptists.
That's not the same when it comes to Holy Communion. With Holy Communion, both sides within Anglicanism agree that it imparts Grace, cleanses us from sin, etc. Neither of us would look at a priest celebrating and say that he is celebrating an invalid Eucharist because of his belief on the "inner workings" of the Lord's Supper. If we were to claim that, then we would necessarily be in schism on that.
A friend pointed out your video from a Facebook thread in which you recently posted it. I made it to 11:40 before I encountered the first unfounded presupposition:
"I did not like how the Liturgy was not very strong...as far as teaching the faith."
There is another way of stating this more accurately:
"I, with my post-modern, highly-rationalistic, hyper-individualistic American sensibilities, did not like something weird and different."
Again, this is a modern presupposition being used as a tool to evaluate a tradition (Christianity) that is both rooted in the ancient world and also timeless, which means it can't be evaluated based on a 20th Century educational model (which is demonstrably flawed).
Following, you state that you "got the sense that everything was done as a conscious rejection of Western Theology..."
This, again, is a radically unfair presupposition in light of the fact that the Liturgy itself predates any "Western theology" as we now know that term. You fully admit that it was the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, yet accuse it of consciously rejecting Western theology, which makes very little sense (this makes even less sense when we dig into the historical record of Christian thought in the Eastern Church).
Your portion on Exclusivity and Excommunication seems to misunderstand those concepts as understood in the Eastern Church. This is understandable, as many of the laity today misunderstand this concept, but this is another example of using a modern American metric for evaluating ancient concepts.
At just after the 21:00 mark, you state that a ROCOR priest and an Antiochian priest would treat Person X differently on the validity of Holy Baptism. This misunderstands a few things about how that works, but here's my hunch: you are taking from examples you have heard about where a person _was_ received in one parish and another person _wasn't_ received in a different parish. If that is the case, then your argument is entirely invalid and never gets off the ground for reasons that is obvious to every Eastern Church priest (and those who have been in the Church for a while).
To address the overall point, though, there is no "fundamental difference" about what Holy Baptism _is_ in any way like there is in all of Protestantism, and even within what people would consider the same fold. I can watch, for example, a debate here on RUclips between RC Sproul and John MacArthur about Baptism that absolutely shows a fundamental difference in what it is -- and that's between two people who everyone considers "conservative Reformed Christians" (hint to any following along: they're nothing of the sort).
But to further this point, Anglicanism as a whole has zero ground upon which to stand on topics like "fundamental differences" on things that Christianity has, for a very long time, considered very important. You admit this, but your caveat as to why it is different holds no water (pun intended).
You state that you have a hard time with the "infallibility of Ecumenical councils" and that "the canons are not being held to day." So, you're stating that you have a hard time with any authority but your own, and that it's hard to consistently behave in a Christ-like manner? No way!
I kid, of course, in hopes that this isn't taken too seriously. To be fair, I think Celtic Christianity has a beautiful tradition, and if it still existed within the Anglican fold, I'd probably be there instead of the Eastern Church. But the Anglican Church is an abject disaster, and the sad part is that this will get much worse over the next few years rather than better, all while the Eastern Church is growing (on that point, the number of Reformed and Anglican priests and educated academics who have become Orthodox so far dwarfs the number who have done the opposite that it's not even worth comparing -- educated people are not moving Westward).
Check out Fr. Stephen de Young and Fr. Patrick Reardon. The former is a former Reformed pastor, the latter a former Anglican monk and pastor, and both have more education in those areas than should be legally allowed. I tell you this not to implore you to come to the Eastern Church but rather for educated perspectives on these topics and theology as properly understood.
Look, ma! An online Orthobro who is filled with arrogance and ignorance! I've never met that before!
I also love there presantificed liturgy but too bad they only have them during great lent
I wonder why Rome changed the feast day anyways?
Most Holy Theotokos is totally fine. We know what it means Fr.
"Most Holy Theotokos" is fine. The petition for her to save us, within the liturgical setting, is the issue.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I beg to differ Fr. I think with proper catachesis, western Christians can once again understand we petition the Saints and especially Her for prayers that save us. It’s fancy, liturgical and mystical language to help elevate our understanding that She is indeed crowned in Heaven. The Orthodox understand it this way and not in a co redemptrix way many fierce Trads believe. All in all, I don’t think it’s required in the liturgy but it sure would be nice. Next generation will likely because I’m noticing that the younger people generally seem more accepting of the prayers to the Holy Theotokos.
Please pray for me, I’m going through a lot these days.
11:20
Major Premise: Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Minor Premise: *Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary:* _On the awesome day of judgment, save me from eternal punishment and make me an inheritor of the ineffable glory of your Son, our God_
Conclusion: Orthodox believe that Mary saves them from eternal punishment on the Day of Judgment.
Yes! The Liturgy is didactic. The fact that Liturgy is public prayer negates the option of alternative definitions of "save." If you're praying things in public that you don't actually believe, then you're teaching people to believe things you don't believe.
1. "Entreat your Son" and "On the awesome day" are separate petitions. That petition has some uncomfortable implications as well, but not as starkly idolatrous. It excuses nothing in later sentences.
Major Premise: Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Minor Premise: "Entreat your Son and our Lord and Master, using your boldness as a mother, so that he may open to me the loving mercy of his goodness, overlook my numberless transgressions, turn me to repentance, and make me an acceptable doer of his commandments."
Conclusion: Orthodox might believe that Jesus is unwilling to be merciful, overook transgressions, and create repentance and obedence unless Theotokos urges him.
If this is ALL you believe Theotokos does for us, why don't you just stop there? Why do you add to this the words, "On the awesome day of judgment, save me from eternal punishment and make me an inheritor of the ineffable glory of your Son, our God"?
Thank you for your insightful and honest remarks.
I will save everyone some time. He basically says, "I love Ecumenism," and, "Mary doesn't save us."
Nothing can stop you. Do not waste your time - "promo sm".
Huh?