Can Non-Orthodox Be Called "Churches"?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 03. 2016
- Subtitles: EN
Dr. Sr. Vassa Larin replies to a question, concerning a draft-document of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (in June 2016, in Crete). Find more of Sr. Vassa's videos & podcasts at www.coffeewithsistervassa.com.
Dear Sister Vassa, thank you for your very thoughtful and kind explanation. Fr. James Barrand
I was very grateful to find your post here, Sister Vassa. We received an urgent call this past Sunday from an Orthodox monastic who is dear to our hearts. Grave concern was expressed regarding the upcoming upcoming Holy and Great Council and its possible parallel to the foretold "8th Ecumenical Council", further explained to us as being a sign of the beginning of the end times. (Please do forgive me if I have misnumbered the council above.) There was more depth to our conversation than what I have briefly stated here, but I was left with many thoughts and feelings, despair being one of the feelings. I have continued in prayer for both mercy and even a modicum of understanding. I would be deeply grateful for any further words of encouragement or discernment you may have.
The reason why Sister Vassas views are more reasonable than her hyperdox internet co-religionists is because shes actually studies the Ecumenical documents put out by both the Phanar and the Vatican.
Great point!
I'm a Reformed calvinist dog and I still watch these videos. This one was great ^____^
+snufalufagus4229
I appreciate the 'reformed' bit, to distinguish us from advocates of gross idolatry-----and on the other hand to keep at safe distance those who would require speaking in tongues as evidence of regeneration, or at least of sanctification.
In all cases the focus seems to be upon 'works' of some kind. Therefore
I lack patience for the sort of thing represented here. There is a lost world out there, and these folks seem stuck in medieval controversies. It sounds like ecclesiastical identity politics. On that subject: if it was wrong for a Corinthian believer to say, 'I am of Paul' or 'I am of Cephas' or 'I am of Apollos'-------why then say, 'I am of Calvin'? I used to hear it more often than I do now.
I think that we feel similarly in wanting to find a lowest common denominator of understanding with the self-styled Orthodox. But the jargon is so unfamiliar.
And they tend to exalt tradition, painting us as dangerously radical and individualistic. I prefer to hope that we may be those things only so far as the Kingdom is advanced.
+things are not Always as they appear
Clearly I have not said that there is anything wrong with being a Christian church. However the apostolic teaching in its clearest form is set down in the Scriptures. We are far removed from the first century culturally, and there are people of diverse backgrounds in the churches today. We cannot erase those facts by administrative fiat. However Jesus is Lord, and the Holy Spirit, Who is never the author of confusion, is our Teacher.
Now as for the idea that Jesus must have died on Friday but rose on Sunday, I am not convinced either, nor am I sure that you have solved the problem. My understanding thus far is that the early churches did meet on the first day of the week, Sunday that is, to celebrate the Lord's rising.
See Matthew 28:1 and Acts 20:7. Therefore, if Joseph of Arimathea and the women disciples needed more than a couple of hours to make their preparations for Jesus' burial, the day of the Crucifixion would be pushed back. But that is not a private theory, nor do I claim to know the answer. But we know that the Jewish day runs from evening to morning,
not from midnight to midnight; and I am not comfortable with condensing three days into less than 40 hours, unless the Lord meant it so. For we know that true interpretation rests with God.
markus onesimus
“Stuck in medieval controversies”.
I don’t get how some Protestants want it both ways, to strive to be both the “authentic” church of the early days, yet be the “church of the future” that old Squishop Spongy used to spout on about in his “Why Christianity must change or die” nonsense.
These notions presume to bind the church to worldly time, be it liberal or conservative, but to quote Chesterton’s Character “Ian McIan” from “The Ball and the Cross”:
“Everyone’s always complaining that the Church is behind the times, when the Church is really BEYOND the Times”.
While Chesterton was speaking from the unfortunate POV about Rome being at the “head” of the Universal Church instead of just one of its Patriarchates, as Orthodoxy resolutely insists, he nonetheless spoke THE Truth about the Universal Church in Her most correct form in this statement. That line is also part of a wider conversation int that chapter condemning fads and fashions as (at LEAST) mild insanities. So much creative talent applied to projects that then get thrown away, and not even for the sake of temporal humility. Buddhists will create the MOST elaborate works of art only to destroy them as an act of humility in the face of impermanence. Fashionistas do this for the OPPOSITE reason, destroying their past work out of a bored pride.
These attitudes have crept into the reasoning behind Protestant splintering, not always, but often.
im not religious but i watch these. the asmr keeps my soul full.
@@eldermillennial8330 The protestants act like the first fifteen hundred years of church history is nothing more then a history of errors. They take a similar approach to history as Whig History which is England when the Whig Party was in power they believed that all of human history lead up to this point and that all of history before the Whigs took power is merely a history of errors. They act like the Church was in a state of heresy for the first fifteen hundred years except for a few things st. Augustine said that John Calvin blatantly took out of context. Then John Calvin and Martin Luther came to save the day. Of course, this could not be further from the truth.
They act like at the founding of the church it was devoid of icons and sacramentalism. They think sacrmentalism, veneration of icons, and the priesthood were all simply added later as man-made traditions that lack transcendentiality. While it's true that high protestants hold communion it is viewed as symbolic and they do not believe it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. This is blasphemy.
During the Reformation John Calvin's movement was violent many religious paintings, statues, stain glass windows, and pipe organs were destroyed. Martin Luther was more conservative and many Lutheran churches have pipe organs and stain glass windows. Martin Luther took the Deutero-Cannon and the epistle of st. James and ommited them from the Bible. While Martin Luther was wrong about many things it should be noted that it is a little known fact that Luther read the Greek Church Fathers and he was attempting to solve the problem with the Roman Catholic church. Though he was unsuccessful.
My dear. I do love you! We humans try to fetter Holy Spirit according to our imperfect, sinful image by chaining Him to our own passions! Thank you and God bless. (Perhaps we can entreat the Council to institute a "Hug-Your-Favorite-Nun-Day"?) †
@Adonis Nomos czcams.com/video/FuHcWiN7hjI/video.html
@Adonis Nomos "Church is the pillar and the ground of the Truth."( 1 Tim.3:15)
But which church? The Apostole's church, or the pope's church?
When Romancatholics realized what they have done from 9th cent inserting all these heretic doctrines to the Christ's body, to the Churvh, then they can return to the True Church, to Orthodoxy.
Congratulations Sister Vassa!
I enjoy all your videos Sister Vassa. I wish I didn't feel compelled to comment on this but it is close to my heart and why i came to Orthodoxy and Christ together at the same time. My only comment to the mystery of the Church and how it pertains to other "sects", "denominations" etc is the fact that the Holy Spirit is not a liar, a disceaver, or wishy washy. One can see the work of another's hands breaking apart, fractioning, Christendom. Should Orthodox be mean or cruel to other "churches" outside Orthodoxy? No, because as we know God can use anything to bring lovedones to him. However, standing for truth is still part of the mystery of the one true faith and how she has stayed intact all these years. Even in the scriptures the faithful that were taking things in their own hands and straying a bit were admonished by the first Fathers and set straight. May he continue to guide people home to the folds of The One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Evangelical Church for she is the perfect Bride of Christ. Praise God in all of his wonders and his Bride in all her warmth.
This perspective and how you're moving is very beautiful, better than the frontal perspektive, I think. This applies to both content and presentation : ) Thank you very much!
Brilliant reply, thank you.
As a Latin-rite Catholic I appreciate the evenhandedness of this video; however, I think that there is an undiscussed underlying issue here, and that is (relatively recent) history. Just as, in the USSR, there were some calling themselves Orthodox who collaborated with the ideology of Communism as embodied by the Soviet state, so also there were some Catholics in the West who collaborated with the ideology of Fascism (I am thinking especially of Croatia). Both Catholics and Orthodox were gravely hurt by these ideologies that did not acknowledge the sovereignty of JESUS CHRIST but were invented by men. I think that it is important to acknowledge that many modern East-West ecumenical tensions are coming from a place of hurt owing to the painful history of the 20th century and earlier centuries also. I, as an American, sometimes have difficulty understanding this pain, but not being an American is not in itself a sin.
As a Protestant who has read a bit of history it goes back to 1054 when the Bishop of Rome forgot that he was accountable to the rest of the Church and tried to take over as dictator. Traditions were already getting in the way of true worship to a great degree but when the Bishop of Rome went into schism then there was nothing to stop the adding of tradition from going really crazy until an Augustinian monk read Romans and discovered the True Faith buried under the clutter, much like the high priest Hilkiah found found the book of the law in the house of the LORD
. But Leo X was obstinate and rejected the word of God in favor of his own authority and so the the Reformation was born.
Nah. It’s still the Pope and the filoque.
Glen, I don’t think the Orthodox Church ever suffered from the degree of perversion and corruption that was entirely normal in the Catholic for several centuries. They didn’t have Borgias, for instance-but you could name another 10 popes just as bad.
I resent this part, "Catholics in the West who collaborated with the ideology of Fascism (I am thinking especially of Croatia). " Nothing could be further from the truth. The then archbishop of Zagreb Stepinac voiced his objections to the persecutions of Jews in the Independent State of Croatia (under the Axis occupation). After the war, as a show of "gratitude" for that, communists had thrown him into prison during the 1950s, where he developed a serious illness from which he later died. They imprisoned him because he refused to split from Rome, which is what Communists usually demand from the local Church hierarchy (see for example China). To Tito's communists, for example, Serbian Orthodox Church was far more acceptable, because it didn't answer to an ecclesiastical authority on foreign soil and thus was more manageable.
@@genli5603 Oh, and what about Tsarist Russia's pogroms of Jews, with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church?
Dear Sister,
Christ is risen! I appreciate your concise, yet astute commentary. Now, I'm wondering if you have produced any writings or videos that deal with Article 23 of the "Relations of Orthodox Church..." section which states that the council rejects all forms of proseltysm. What does this mean?
Dear Sanchez, No, Sister hasn't written or made videos on that topic. Thanks for your kind words. Rob (Sister's assistant)
My perspective. I'm a Protestant but I have read and enjoyed much of the early Christian Fathers. The first video I watched of Sr. Vassa was on Irenaeus of Lyons, one of my favorite Fathers. At first I thought she was Roman Catholic. This is the 2nd video I seen of hers. I've read a bit on Eastern Orthodoxy and interestingly enough feel closer to it than to the Roman Church. Many of the things I find most objectionable about Rome seem to be only in seed form in the east. One of my favorite authors is the British author C S Lewis. One of his closest friends was J R R Tolkien a Roman Catholic who was instrumental in his conversion to Christianity. I like to think on Mk.9:38-41 and the parallel in Lk.9:49-50, the disciples were all bent out of shape because some guy was casting out demons in Jesus' name and wasn't "part of their club" and Jesus told them in effect "chill out guys, he's with us". Discussions about our differences are always more productive if we concentrate on the real matters and not just pride of association with a certain group.
The Orthodox Church being the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church ...relating to the promotion of Christian unity" important to say that unity is only possible through Orthodox Church being the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, therefore, everything else is heresy because our Church is One and our Church is Catholic and Apostolic Church..and HAS nothing to do with Roman Catholics and other heresies
czcams.com/video/FuHcWiN7hjI/video.html
Is that why the orthodox church taught the immaculate conception prior to 1854 but only started opposing it because a pope dogmatized it? With all due respect the orthodox church has no doctrinal orthodoxy, every century you change your teachings you did the same on purgatory.
It’s odd also that the orthodox church could even be the “one Holy catholic and Apostolic church” when it has an internal schism between Constantinople and Moscow currently. It’s not universal especially in its theology and traditions since you have differing theological opinions on the filioque and the papacy!
Bravo, Sister Vassa!
Or maybe . . . Brava, Sister Vassa?
So what of the St. Cyprian quote at 8:03? Are we to understand that St. Cyprian was incorrect?
+Ryan Platte There is no exact quote of St. Cyprian at 8:03. But yes, the Church did not, actually, accept the rigorism of St. Cyprian. You can read Florovsky's volume on the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (or many other books on that) to find out more. St. Cyprian was for re-baptism of all (in the famous controversy between him and Pope Stephan). The First Ecumenical Council opted for a more lenient policy.
if you read the Article of mount Athos,
they insist that there is no Other Church,
siter Vassa hear, sadly, going against the mount Athos and the Holy Fathers and saints teachings
Please Holy Spirit heal us. Bind us together. Theotukus pray for us.
THANKs for that Sr. Vassa""""""""""""""""""
Well presented and said. God Bless
On the topic of Scriptures which touch on this subject Sister, I think another very important one comes from ch. 9 vss 49-50 of the Gospel of St. Luke.
"Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company." Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you."
I think that Gospel passage ought to be the "anthem" or "creed" if you will of the Ecumenical movement.
There is one Christ that Saul encountered on the Road to Damascus thus there can only be one Church Acts chapters 8 and 9...THE Church is Orthodox in its worship. If you have A church then you have A jesus...like the Jehovah's witnesses ie Arians.
Thank you Sister Vassa for your wonderful explanation. I have seen the video that you referenced regarding the "un-witness" of the Coptic Martyrs. As a Copt myself, it was extremely heart wrenching to see such comments from other Orthodox Christians who were quoting Fathers left and right in order to disprove the martyrdom of those brave men.
+tonedawg1983 Ugh. Sorry you had to see that! God bless you.
+tonedawg1983 wow. thats sad. I know of non-orthodox pastors who have been doing this. I don't see how people can say such things.
I bet those same misguided zealots would likely renounce faith in Christ (if they have any, that is) in a heartbeat had those same ISIS terrorists put them to the sword. This satanic and hateful vitriol is what happens when you center the faith around the holy church, the holy canons, the holy fathers, and the holy councils instead of the Incarnate and Risen Creator for whom and by whom these things were established.
The videos you watched werent created by Orthodox Christians...
They were created by fundamentalist Pharisees claiming to be Orthodox Christians, but rest assure they are unknown to the Man-God Christ Jesus.
I was surprised to hear of the division. I always thought that the Coptic Church was a branch of the E. Orth. not Rome.
Absolutely Brilliant, I truly loved how you used those two magnificent examples in the Gospels of how Christ showed us that regardless of who the person is or what culture they are, " Everybody is invited to my father's table". I also love the story of the woman who's reply was " Yes my Lord But even the dogs eat the crumbs off the table". In addition the Roman centurian who according to our Lord had more faith than most of the son's of Abraham
Thank you Sister
about Psalm 26:5 "I have hated .........."
Why only the Wycliffe translation that uses the word "church" ?
other 34 translations use "the company", "the assembly", "the community", "the crowd", "the gatherings" etc. are these also mean church?
The word church, means gathering or assembly.
Regarding the Martyrdom quote, I've always thought of it as referring to how the Orthodox live such a life of fasting and prayer in comparison to others. Maybe I'm wrong but its always what comes to mind.
Thank you, thank you! So helpful as I'm married to a dear and pious non-Orthodox believer.
you are a good pastor !
Lumen Gentium from Vatican II beautifully thought this out in a deep way (Catholic). Dominus iesus put out by Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) dealt with it too. I hope we can all be visibly one!!!
Thank you Sister for this video!
Lord bless you and meka you stronger
I d love a Christian Orthodox point of view on C.G.Jung.
What elements do you think are contributory or not at all...
Anima..animus..projections..dark side...etc.?
www.amazon.com/Soul-After-Death-Seraphim-Rose/product-reviews/093863514X
Thanks.
Let me suggest that we know where grace is; we do not know where grace is not. The Holy Spirit does not take counsel from us.
Thank you, Your Eminence.
Οι αιρετικοι δεν εχουν απιστολικη διαδοχη και δεν παραδεχονται τα μυστηρια της εκκλησιας. Πρεπει να ορισουμε τι ειναι η εκκλησια, Μην λεμε εκκλησιες τις συναγωγες του σατανα.
Indeed He does not. It’s a shame many of your coreligionists don’t realize this
Just to give the benefit of the doubt to some struggling with this issue: when one converts, it is very natural and even necessary to approach the Faith in black and white terms in order to grasp what is so new. The hope, of course, is that as we mature in faith, we mature in our ability to embrace certain Mysteries (like this which you speak of) with scandalizing our consciences.
I converted 15 years ago and I sincerely struggled with this question, emphasis on "sincerely". My struggle was not born of bitterness or a will troll and prove myself right-er than others (well, not generally). It took time. How I understand non-Orthodox Churches such as the Catholics, Copts pr even Lutherans, is a constant evolution and I NEEDED that time- I would not have been able to properly internalize my current views 15 years ago amd they very well may have demoralized and eroded my Orthodox faith.
Certainly there are many who ask these out of haughtiness, but many do out of humility.
+Joshua Greve Yes, well this is a video for those who still ask questions. Not for those who have all the answers.
+Coffee with Sr. Vassa oh no. I didn't mean to come across critically. It seems By your response I came across as if to say that I already know all of this. Is that it? If so, that wasnt my point at all and ai apologize for my muddled writing.
My point was that while some people question the status of these non-Orthodox Churches with a sense of haughtiness or bitterness, expressing no charity, there are others who ask the same questions out of sincerity and love struggling with how to reconcile the claim of the Orthodox Church as THE Church with their experience of meeting so many wonderful Catholics and protestants.
The content was useful to both parties while the tone seemed more directed at the former who troll with an attitude of superiority. And I don't criticize that. I only wished to point out that the question itself can also come from a place of charity and, in fact, that is why some ask it. That is why I used to ask this question.
+Coffee with Sr. Vassa so please, sister, forgive me for what has turned out to be careless writing and offending you or anyone else. Your podcasts as well as academic and other commentaries on Church life and history are a blessing to the Church and have been a wonderful blessing to me. I was grateful to be able to meet you last year in Michigan and look forward to the opportunity in the future. God bless you and your work.
+Joshua Greve Dear Joshua, actually I didn't think you meant what you thought that I thought you meant. :) So forgive me! I simply meant that this is, indeed, for those with sincere questions. And I think you're right about this subtle pastoral truth, about people needing black-and-white answers when new to the faith. It's also true, nonetheless, that one does move on from the "Walt Disney" version of Bible stories and allow for the "grey zones" of God's mysteries. I'm thinking of something G.K. Chesterton wrote about the very nuanced nature of Christianity, against which, as Chesterton thought, Islam (with its black-and-white rule-oriented lifestyle) was a reaction. But I'll stop there. Please remember me in your prayers when you can, and have a blessed Lent! Love from Vienna.
Love your comments. I was always disappointed whenever someone would teach that doctrines (protestant ones) are more important to God than any believer, so always had to be on guard which was the right ones, etc. Jesus was always emphasizing faith over anything else. I became Orthodox in 2007 . . . and appreciate being less judging and more loving.
They are churches in the term that they are Christian temples and architecturally similar in function, but there is only the one continued Church of the Apostles, spoken about by both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition: Orthodoxy.
Sure , apostolic of which apostles? Who of the 12 went to moscow to create the only church standing of yours?
Ethiopian, Catholics, and Armenians would disagree with you on that one. And they can all at least vaguely trace their roots to the movement of the apostles. The Ethiopian church even has the book of acts (scripture) stating its origin. And Catholics and orthodox were the same church until 1054 so they have just as much a claim as you.
What matters is scripture and how close your theology fits the apostles and Yeshua. Not this argument of roots.
Brother I am seeing your comments in a lot of videos I watch lol
Father Matei Vulcanescu from the Church "Panaghia Odighitria" Metropolis Piraeus, Orthodox Church of Greece, answer to the question: What will be the effect of the "Holy and Great Council" to be held in Crete on the Orthodox Christians everywhere (if the Council approves the preliminary texts adopted by the Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches at Chambésy in January 2016)?
First of all, the effect will be the distortion of the Church teaching in the mind of the Orthodox Christians, or better said the sealing of this already existing distortion. The Orthodox Christians are influenced today by a variety of relativist ideas; for the most part they ignore their own faith. Orthodoxy is not a relativist faith, but confesses that there are no truths other than Christ, Who said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, and that no one can acquire the eternal Life without uniting with Christ in the One Church, His Body. In spite of this, today many believe that the Roman Catholics are also a Church (Sister Churches, “the two lungs of the Church”), even more believe that those who are not Orthodox will be saved too, and many more of them see nothing wrong in praying and worshipping together with the non-Orthodox or in appropriating various Protestant and pagan ideas. Some of these ideas will be sealed by this Council, showing a state of fact. By trampling the teaching of the Church, the Orthodox identity will be lost and in the Holy Sanctuaries the Orthodox teaching will no longer be asserted by the priests who preach the new relativist faith.
This is precisely the beginning of any fall out of the Church of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, that is the Orthodox Church. Every reference point for holiness will be abolished, so that the whole battle of the saints for keeping the purity of the Orthodox faith will be made useless. The new type of “Orthodox” will be created, who has as supreme values Freedom, Fraternity and Equality, as the preliminary texts for the Council in Crete assert.
This will be an alienation of the people from Orthodoxy, with the main consequence of losing the salvation of their soul!
This is why we attach so much importance to the knowledge of the Orthodox teaching in contrast with the novel teachings of this so-called “Council”.
In history there have been many robber councils, that is, councils which tried to change the teaching of the Church and to endorse other ideas. It is not unlikely that we will have another one soon. But whoever will accept it in his consciousness and confession, and will not wall himself off from those who accept it, will be apart from Christ God the Truth and His Gospel.
Protopresbyter Matei Vulcănescu
Do not confuse martyrdom with the truth. The question regarding martyrdom and who is and who is not a true martyr, is as varied an answer as the people who offer their lives in Christ's name. As with the saints, there are as many unique levels of martyrdom as there are those who are martyred. Those who adhere to the Apostolic faith and are martyred because of it, if they have been perfected by faith are the highest of all martyrs as their offering more closely resembles the value of Christ’s on the cross. Whereas, a man who steps in front of a car to save a child and is himself killed in the process, this offering may be spattered with sin even though the gesture is enough to secure him a place in paradise. Whereas, a man called a martyr for blowing himself up and other innocent people will not escape Hell fire. The closer to Christ, the truer and higher the martyr.
There is one God and one truth. Does God operate in grace outside of His own instructions and Gospel? As He has free will it is in that right to do so but none the less, the Father holds one specific and immovable truth construct. Do not look to grace to bail you out when you yourself in continuance of your forefathers have run the ship onto the reef it is very unwise.
There is one valid Eucharist and it is that of the Orthodox Christian Church, as watered down and faithless as we are, as much as the world is dead with us at the helm. Our Eucharist being the very body and blood of Christ, is the only thing that is alive on earth, everything and everyone else is dead but sadly we do not know how to administer it. To think that Jesus Himself mingles His blood with heretical belief systems is in itself a heresy.
Therefore, the Eucharist of the Roman Catholics is invalid so they too are dead, or does God operate perfectly in a gray area? No He does not. Can one profess to be a Christian and deny the very salvific Christ-centric principals that title represents in its unaltered Apostolic state, does God tolerate even a minute infraction, No He Does Not. Or do we; as spiritual diplomats wish to lick the whore of Revelations and her spiritual bastard children the Protestants and pretend we can escape their diseases. Catholicism is the beast that will attempt to devour the male child born out of you my beloved Church and the baby is starting to kick!
There is one Gospel, it is ours, and we must have the guts to say so. But wait, we just gave you a teeny weenie snippet of it, a bite size morsel in our incredible Divine shrinking Liturgy. When has any Orthodox Christian ever heard any priest or Bishop preach the Gospel in its entirety, even paraphrased? Never. This is one reason our congregations are skinny and undernourished, there are many more reasons and they will be made plain. Begin to look up as your heart falls, our heavenly Father is fed up with our bitter taste and putrid aroma!
As Orthodox, we have not martyred when we should have, we have not boldly proclaimed the one truth when we should have, we have nobly over complicated everything we touch, we have muzzled God to our standards and we have again lost the world and the judgment is coming because of this profound failure.
Liberal Orthodox interpretation will give way to the bold proclamation of the one singular truth wherever a Spirit inspired mouth can be opened, by the one singular Church Body of rising believers that unashamedly held that truth for 2,000 years, believers that are not cowering in the face of acceptance and worldly spiritual correctness while forsaking the value and cost of true correctness and faultless witness. Where is the desperate and unwavering need to save the man across the road? He's not Orthodox; let him continue to feed on Hell while we remain pious and indifferent with long robes and shortsightedness.
Christ is returning and this big mess will be rectified by fulfilling the warning given to Adam. As Orthodox, it is time we stood up and proclaimed the truth to a dying world because very shortly they will all be dead anyway and it will be too late. But wait, its time for a luncheon and a makaria. The dead in Christ are more alive on earth than we are and our Bishops are as confused as the world they pathetically and fragmentally attempt to save. As I said, the end will straighten things out. Almost time to hold your breath!
In short, are they Churches, no they are not! They are religious organizations that God is earnestly trying to save through the hands of an Orthodoxy that is stranded on the reef asleep at the helm, while Jesus Christ's lungs are bursting yelling at us from heaven to wake up or else, but whose listening? Lucifer is, he knows what's coming, and that’s why the world is exponentially speeding towards destruction, provoking God to pour out His wrath.
Hey, let's watch another Netflix movie.
Tick tock!
ATHIM 4 EVER Dear Sir , with greatest respect , You are incorrect , both Orthodox & Roman Catholics have the true & real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You might say that is not possible , yet it is. I know this experientially , no one on earth even to death can change my mind . Many hosts have bleed , with scientific proof . Turned to stone in a non repentant sinners mouth. etc. but as I said once an individual knows God's existence , not just a belief.....one grows in knowledge. You have assisted me in desiring to never to be as ugly as you. Lots of love , I shall pray for you , really. You need it terribly. Lastly , all replies are blocked , I do not debate individuals such as yourself. Blessings to you.
To follow the same tract, do NOT confuse grace with the truth.
The Roman Catholic Church died at the schism, period. I can prove it to you from the New Testament but I doubt you would hear me. The fact that you experience miraculous events associated with the Roman Eucharist is not a sign of the truth but a true sign of God’s enduring grace till what is otherwise prepared, comes to pass. Soon the Father will reveal to humanity that He abides, and will abide in only one Church and it is the Eastern Orthodox Church.
It is a blessing to me that you will never be like me and it is a blessing to you that I will never be like you. When people have a problem with the truth the problem is not with the truth but with them.
I hope you will have the courage to admit that to yourself and be perfected as the unblemished bride of Christ is perfect. You can never become perfect in a system of belief which is in of itself imperfect and Roman Catholicism has many flaws before our Father.
The Roman Catholic Church has adopted heretical teachings as dogma which excludes them from the perfection our heavenly Father required of them. Will God operate amongst them, yes He will, will God bring imperfection to an end, yes He will, and thus the end of their 1,000 years of sin against Him.
You need not pray for me, pray for yourself for a correct understanding.
Thank you Sister .... thank for speak about the coptic martyrs.... I'm Latin, but for me they are saints.... and all who died for Christ our God...Coptic, Orthoddox, Latin, even protestant like Bonhoeffer....we are devided ...and this a great pain....may Christ our God give us unity and healing.... but he is our God....and we are his church.....suffering sinners parying for his grace and help....
Well said Sister Vassa! But, you could have added considerable more impact if you had been holding a PEZ dispenser :)
the catholic and orthodox bishops broke away from each other over issues of authority and theology, but did those catholic bishops suddenly lose their priesthood, did they lose the ability to ordain new priests? lets be honest orthodoxy is far from available to us in "the west" , our "traditional" church is catholic.
what im saying is many of us are catholic by accident of history, the bishops in our countries were connected to Rome so when Rome spilt from the east so did we, does this accident of history mean we are deprived of a priesthood or sacraments and aren't even Christian?
i kinda hate all this " one true church talk ". Apparently god says to some catholic living in a town were all they've known is Catholicism: "the priest you know is part of a church which split off from the true one over theology you probably don't even understand so im sending you to hell"
мало видео на русском языке(, или я не там ищу?
God bless sister! I love your view of this topic because it's very true!
“Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5. 12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, "not to judge another man's servant" (Rom. 14. 4).”-Alexei Khomiakov
Thanks, S. Vassa. There are some that think we should use the term "sect" for other Christian bodies. That, to me, would be "meanminded." It seems to me that you are right on the mark. Sorry that we had not managed to be somewhat closer i communication. I have great admiration for you and your work.
I must say enjoy a lot of your work as well, despite our disagreements
They can be called churches in a historical or political sense, but not in an ontological sense because they are not salvific. Ontologically, there is only one Church of Christ, the One Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church as Constantine called it. Simply, it is the Orthodox Church and there are no other churches outside of Her.
Serban Olaru
I'm Roman Catholic and I agree with you actually. Orthodoxy is THE church.
Why?? why don't you leave then
Well done. Furthermore, other people as "good Samaritans" or Coptics who are outside from Orthodox, are saved because God wanted through their faith, not because they are members of a church. Salvation is in God's willing. But the way of salvation is a different matter from salvation. The Orthodox church is the only safe way of salvation. Of course, it doesn't mean that every Orthodox christian is going to be saved. But as I already wrote, the salvation from the way of salvation is another issue.There is no other church leading to salvation, than the Orthodox church.
1)Please just lets only Jesus Christ make judgments about my soul.
2)When we say Orthodoxy we mean the church founded by Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit on the day of the Pentecost, the same church whose bishops have the apostolic succession through ordination, the same church that received the symbol of faith through the ecumenical sessions, the church of the Martyrs, the Saints and the Fathers from the 1st century until today. Which church has all this, unadulterated until today? Only the Orthodox church.
3)There are two examples of extreme selfishness in the Christian world: Satan in the age of old testament and the pope in the age of the church who tried for political reasons in the 9th-11th century to dissolve the church, creating romancatholicism.
4)I don't care about buildings created by humans, especially popes. I don't care about popes money, or donates, or his banks in vatican, or his meetings with the presidents of the powerfull countries of the world. I'm interesting about the only original church Jesus Christ created.
1) no one judged you but yourself. A judgment would be "because you are a selfish moron full of lies out of the orthodox false claims , ALL PROVABLE FALSE, you are going to hell ", but i've not stated that . I just stated objectively , you understand nothing about the religion you would like to talk about. The bishops in the gospel are portrayed as successors of the apostles, and if you stick to that definition bishops have to GO AROUND PREACHING, they never had in history the authority to manage a community and call it church, and claim "this is my church INDEPENDENT FROM THE ONE OF PETER and i do whatever i want here". Your orthodox priests self proclaimed themselves without any succession , and then claimed heretics all the west (not one or two popes alone) : saint Francis , 1000 years ago , was defined heretic by a leech sitting on a chair he never deserved , doing nothing but chatting and shitting all day long. Jesus was talking to prostitute and publicans, so the pope is talking with bankers and presidents: the more you insult the church of christ and the more you are demonstrated a fooled mob with no kind of mental capabilities. You are an embarrassment to yourself and to the minimum decency of a human brain
Most churches (small c) recognize that there are nonessential as well as essential differences in theology. There are only a few sticking points between most Protestants and the Orthodox, from the Protestant end: asking intercession of and for the dead, and sacramental efficacy in salvation. That’s really all that stands between the Orthodox and most Protestant small-c churches finding essential harmony. Going the other direction, Orthodox have a larger additional problem with Protestant rejection of hierarchy, revocation of sacrament creep, frequent indifference to most liturgical tradition, and the relative unimportance of apostolic succession. (Keep in mind that many Protestant preachers and elders/bishops do, indeed, have apostolic succession. Because it’s not a huge focus, it’s not written down. But even Baptist churches practice ordination of elder, much less preachers, by laying on of hands, which would have come from an apostle at some point.)
Catholics with their (at least officially) strictly celibate clergy and the authority given to the now infallible Pope, however, is another vast gulf to cross.
Gen Li I agree. I’m a confessional Lutheran and our church is liturgical, and we’re also, as far as I am aware, the only Protestant denomination who actually still confesses the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Anglicans don’t all agree on this. I personally can’t go over to Orthodoxy because I have a major issue with the way Mary is exalted. The prayers to saints and Mary insofar as it is asking them to pray for us is I guess okay in my view, but i have a lot of trouble accepting the way prayers are worded to Mary. It is the way I would only pray to God. As for apostolic succession, my branch of Lutheranism does not confess this, so that’s a sticky point too. I wish we did, though. I can only pray that Jesus would not deny his body and blood to believers who truly want it.
@sarah richmond lol funny you should ask that now. I became Catholic almost two years ago. I used to be a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
if i may add. Church is the body of Christ that consists out of believers and followers of Christ, continuously inspired by Holy Spirit. There are people inside of orthodox buildings (churches) and altars that don't belong to Church.
I think you confuse definitions of the Church here a bit, putting some saints not in a good light. « There is no martyrdom outside the Church » means that only death for the faith in Christ and love for Him is a martyrdom. For the early Church Fathers the Church was simply congregation and worship of people who believe in incarnate, dead and resurrected Christ. That was and is the Church.
Thank you for such a wise and enlightening video...as much s we want everything to be black & white, it is far from that . We must be inclusive in our love of Christ...great job Sr. Vassa!!!
7:32
Exactly.
the 21 martyrs are a great example for one of them not being a Copt. But like the pagan officer who beheld the 40 martyrs of Sebaste this one joined the 20 Copts in their testimony for Christ becoming a brother among brothers and for sure winning the crown of eternal life with them.
The Lord knows who are His. He does not need direction from a human council. The question is, by what standard do we know that we are saved? Are there any clues?
Or is a question of balancing good deeds versus bad? Never, praise be to God, or we would all be thrown straightaway into hell, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.' 'There is no one righteous, not even one.' Is it a question of membership in the right religious club, as mutual anathematizers would have it? What of Paul's rebuke to ecclesiastical partisanship in 1st Corinthians chapter 3?
(John 1:12-13) 'But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of the will of God.'
(Acts 16:31) 'They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." '
(Romans 10:9) '...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, yoi will be saved.'
(Ephesians 2:8-9) 'For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.'
How dare self-styled Catholics, or Orthodox, or anyone else, make the path of salvation hard to find? Is an underpopulated heaven to the liking of some? But who is as kind as the Lord, who 'desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth'?
But how are they to know the truth when the Light is hidden from view on account of human concerns?
god is one
Do Orthodox Christians pray to Mary and the angels and saints like we Roman Catholics do?
Yes
@@Andronicus_of_Rhodes We have the same seven sacraments, the same apostolic lineage, the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Many of the same traditions. We're not so far apart. The Catholic Church that you see at St. Peters in Rome is the false counterfeit Church. It has been taken over by devils. But a remnant remains faithful to Tradition. This remnant has much in common with Orthodoxy.
@@maxkol4380 I am from one of the so-called “Oriental Orthodox” Churches and I deeply respect my separated brethren from the Sedevecantist/Traditionalist Catholic movement. Vatican II has brought great harm.
@@Andronicus_of_Rhodes Assyrian Church? Armenian?
@@maxkol4380 Coptic. The Assyrian Church of the East is not OO, it’s a separate entity
This young woman is a heroine to us all.
Сколько здравого смысла
amen Sister
Being Roman Catholic Sr Larin I find her answers balanced compared to some Orthodox I have heard . If course I disagree who the true Church is .The Orthodox would disagree with me who that Church is . I do pray for full unity but after seeing what is happening at the Pan Orthodox Council I dont think that will ever happen in my life time .
Darrel Slugoski I agree with you , still hope unity isn't to far off. Miracles & graces happen for Roman Catholics & Anglicans , God is the judge in the end. I am not Orthodox , yet respect highly Thier Sacraments which are in line with Roman Catholicism. Also , although not Orthodox , The Lord has decided to bestow graces upon me , so my prayer he has heard. I don't judge other Christian Traditions with hate cause God made all of us & has a beautiful plan for each & everyone of us ❤All is within the heart. Lastly , Coptic Christians are my brother's & sister's , may this horrible suffering end. I pray for improved relations between Islam ,& Christianity.🙏
AMEN
Vassa's answers are not "balanced," she's an Ecumenist. She's a diplomat who wants to be liked by all whether she speaks the truth or not. Real Orthodox pay no attention to her.
Christ prayed that we become " one as he and the father are one " so real Orthodoxy should take her seriously . orthodoxy are split just look at your last council . Who are the true Orthodox ? Moscow... or the other half Constantinople...
Darrel Slugoski
I too disagree with her , I’m a Roman Catholic
But I love Orthodox Church
Peace ✌️
the Presence of Jesus fills our Blessed Sacrament chapel like a cloud...thats where the rubber hits the road.
I believe Rev 1-3 speaks to the different denominations today. So I would say Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are all Christian.
only God knows our hearts and who a real christian is! i believe Orthodoxy is the right church-the first church!!but this doesnt make me to a better person because i am baptized orthodox!is my everyday life which proofs my faith-how i handle it,and if God find pleasure in my acts!!! so only God knows the true christians!
@@joannagrimeki7415 church fathers teach catholic things and the orthodox church has deviated from their teachings
I think out of respect we can call them churches with a little c because of their commitment to serve Christ, and the dictionary definition applies, but not Church, because they are not a part of the True Church, The Orthodox Church. Their belief is different. Their path to salvation is different. Saint John Chrysostom has stated as much. They believe they are part of the Church in a mystical way. That is the thought that needs to be examined. St Paul tells us to take every thought captive for Christ. Will they be saved? That is up to Jesus Christ to say. Will they reach Theosis? Their lives show they have not reached Theosis. Interesting to note that there are many Orthodox Saints who have spoken against the ecumenical movement as a heresy of the last days. All those Orthodox Saints showed signs of having attained Theosis. It seems to me that that thought the heterodox have about all being a part of this mystical body of Christ is a lie meant to prevent them from reaching Theosis. Roman Catholics "saints" show they have reached a state of prelest, spiritual delusion. While Protestants are stuck in a scholastic approach to union with God. In both cases the 3 powers of their souls are not purified but still darkened. The Orthodox Church holds the true teachings on the purification of the heart and true union with God. On the martyrdom issue, you do not have to have reached Theosis to be a martyr. In summary we need to love them and help them see this path clearly.
There’s the invisible church and the visible church.
It is Psalm 26 not 25 and it doesn't prove anything, as it was written in Hebrew not Greek
The MT was written centuries after the Septuagint (written before Christ), which was the standard scriptures read by Christ and His apostles, as is born out by the fact that St. Paul, and St. John the evangelist quote extensively from the LXX. So actually it really does have something very important to say
@@eduardovalentin9416 so if I write down a copy of Hamlet right now, would you say "Hamlet was written in the year 2020"?
That is just as rediculous as you saying "the MT was written centuries after the Septugiant"
All that the MT accomplished was to settle on the exact spelling and vowel points for texts that had been meticulously preserved by the Jews for thousands of years before that.
The MT was not "written". It was "compiled"
@@tzadiko the point stands that the LXX is what was predominantly used by Jews
@@eduardovalentin9416 what evidence do you have of that? Are you saying that they did not have Torah scrolls written in Hebrew?
@@eduardovalentin9416 I just thought about that for a minute and it's obviously impossible. The only reason the world has the Hebrew text of the Bible today is because the Jews preserved it throughout the generations. If the Jews had ever discarded the original Hebrew Bible for Greek we would not have the Hebrew one today.
NO!
It is true that when we speak of "the Church" we can not reason with "whites and blacks": "Orthodoxy is ALL the Church and outside the Orthodox Church there is NOTHING".
But it is also true that the same Fathers who speak of "semens of the Logos" outside of the Church, are very categorical. This is for a pastoral reason: if not, it introduces relativism in the Church. In this way, there is no "aut-aut" but "et-et": the orthodox truth is not contradictory but antinomical! This means that one can speak of "semens of the Logos" outside the Church as well, saying that the Church is one and that is Orthodoxy. The speech of current modernist mind, by contrast, has totally different foundations and, by humanitarism and humanistic reasons, go in relativism et, in the end, in the death of the Church!!
Very true, brother!
I wish you were wrong but . . . .
Of course they can and should if they are 'orthodox' that is correctly believing. Are all Orthodox necessarily 'correctly believing'? '.....if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.' But
as it is, humans naturally resist God. (Romans 3:12) 'All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.' Why then make salvation more difficult than necessary, by insisting on partisan loyalty?
We are called to worship God and to love one another. No body has the authority to judge another.
Judge in what sense? We _are_ to judge each other, just not anyone's current standing with God.
since the word church does not exist in Jesus speech "apon this rock" such that it should conclude with " I will gather my assembly", a less corrupt translation. The question begs....not are they churches but are they Christians.
There is no knowledge of a believer separated from a congregation in the epistles. It’s from the word for congregation in the Greek that we get the word Church.
I am a Roman Catholic and we also believed that the Church of Rome is the mother of all Churches being the seat of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles. We believe that our church is the one Catholic Church but we also recognized the validity of the sacraments and orders of the orthodox.
+Albertus Magnus de Meia
In Scripture, believers are collectively called 'saints'. NOWHERE does it say explicitly that Simon Peter is 'prince of the apostles' or anything like it. Of course he was one of three who saw Jesus transfigured, and he was very prominent within the collective leadership at Jerusalem. However no apostle worked harder than Paul, and Paul was called specifically to the ministry to the Gentiles.
But what of it? These men would agree that it is Jesus Who is to be glorified.
Suppose
THAT BOTH
YOU AND
the 'Orthodox' are wrong, and that the Church is a people, the body of born-again believers in Christ, and not an institution based on earth?
+markus onesimus You seem to have forgotten about the renaming of St. Peter to Rock and his being given by Our Lord the ministory of overseeing the whole flock (Church)-"tend" His sheep? The very keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? (a symbol of the steward of the Kingdom from the Old Testament, who exercises the power of the King, has authority and is like "a father" (Pope) to the people, "a peg in a sure place"; a rock?) Jesus shows us that St. Peter was to be a rock in the waves of trials of faith: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [all], that he may sift you [all] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted [from the threefold denial], confirm thy brethren." Also the Biblical roots of the infalliblity (un-fail-ability of "faith") of the teaching of the Pope to the whole Church regarding faith in certain objective circumstances.
Of course St. Paul was a great Apostle. That's why the Church always spoke of St. Peter and St. Paul as the two 'chief' Apostles.
You put 'glorification' of Jesus and glorification of Jesusat odds, as if to say that to praise, in human terms, of these two great Apostles (or other saints) is akin to actual worship of Jesus, whereas such is utterly false. We worship and adore Jesus, because He is God in the flesh. (For which reason Mary is the Theotokos; Mother of God, whose dignity Protestants simply ignore for various reasons). God alone is adored and worshiped. The saints, including the most holy Paul and Peter, are venerated and praised for their great work-people have no shame in praising the work or life of some great president, but not the publishers of the Gospel of Christ??
"The Church is a people" but with a structure, from the beginning. It is not a vague notion or invisible number. But is a "city atop a hill", and "the light of the world." What kind of light is invisible? With priests, who offer the "pure oblation" spoken of in Malachi 1, even the one sacrifice of Christ. Of which the Eucharist is but the representation and reofferingas we wait for His coming: to "show His death until He comes." Who forgive sins ("who gave such power to [mere] men"): "As the Father sent Me, so I send you...whose sins you forgive they shall be forgiven them; whose sins you hold bound, they shall be held bound." Who alone can "anoint" the "sick" with oil and pray that "their sins" are "forgiven" and blotted out in the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, or as it used to be called Extreme Unction. Etc.
You are anachronistically seeing what you think the Churhc ought to be like, whereas we can see from history what the Church itself taught about itself. The one who gave you the Bible. There was no "the bible". There were "the Scriptures" whose canon was not fixed. You have the New Testament you do, not including say, Barnabas, or Clement, because the Church said so. Or rather, the Holy Ghost promised to be "with you forever" and to guide the "Church of the living God," "the pillar and foundation of truth." Notice, the Bible has a pillar in the Church founded by its Author. Not the other way around.
The same Christ Who gave us His doctrine, and the inspired Scriptures through His Apostles, equally gave us the Church in fact, He founded the Church first, and the Faith was preached first, and then the Scriptures (as you can tell by reading them) corrected error and adominshed and built up. But they were never intended to be, nor viewed as, a 'catechism' from which (from scratch/private interpretation at odds with the orthodox view that the one Church He founded has always had) to 'build it yourself' the Faith which actually came first. Even the Epistle of Jude proves this ever so simply, when he, as yet not having ublished his epistle, writes, "the Faith once delievered (past tense) to the saints [the Church]".
"not an institution based on earth" is to say that the Body of Christ is not on earth, or hasn't been for 2000 years. Absurdity. It's end is heaven, i.e. ultimate salvation. That doesn't mean Christians on earth aren't Christians-that the Church never existed. It's true it was not based on a human, but Jesus Christ, and that we are to be crucified to "this world" as in the evil sense, but the Church is the Body of Christ: Militant (on earth), Triumphant (in heaven), and Suffering (in purgatory). The Body is never severed from one another, and we benefit each other by "prayers, intercessions", etc. Christ's Body can never be divided. You are His Body, or you are other, external, outside where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Objectively speaking.
I guess you aren't taking into account what the Church turned out in fact and through history to be like. If you abandon this, then you could take our Scriptures, yes, OUR Scriptures, and find any teaching you want. Look at any number of heretical groups.
Think of the ridiculousness of defining orthodoxy (right-faith-ness) as: 'do you find it taught in the Bible or not', and not 'does it disagree with the perennial understanding has had on it.' ("the pillar and foundation of truth"). 'Do you find it taught in the Bible' is different according to every other person. If that were the definition, then Arius was orthodox.
I think you have a fanciful, completely ahistorical (History Channel) view of the history of the Church: 'the Church invented Mary worship in the Council of Ephesus' kind of garbage. 'New pagan doctrines' weren't allowed. Even when Pope St. Gregory tried to change an incy bincy bit of the Latin Liturgy, the people almost killed him because it's something you don't do. Imagine the alleged claim that the Pope introduced something not different but orthodox (tiny change to some lesser part of the liturgy/prayers used at Mass) but _pagan_ would be admitted without all the bishops of the world (who met relatively regularly at these pesky Ecumenical Council thingies-something Protestants don't really factor in to their conspiracy theories) condemning it and dousing it out?
Find me, or yourself for that matter, any proof that a protestant or whatever denomination or theology you are in history. Find my a Christian saying this is what Christians believe, anywhere in history. Thousands of years after Christ don't count.. obviously. Jesus founded His Church in 33AD, not 1500s.
Apologies in advance for the perhaps sour tone...
God bless.
Albertus Magus de Meia The Roman Catholic Church is not the mother of all churches, Jerusalem was, as the Church Fathers taught due to Jerusalem being the first church. Rome was a mother of churches due to being the only apostolic see of the West, and gave birth and guided the other western churches. The see of St. Peter btw, is not limited just to Rome. The see of Antioch and Alexandria are also Petrine,as Pope St. Gregory says to the Alexandrian Patriarch:
"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in thepersons of his successors."
+Ave Christus Rex
Where to begin? As an apologist for Roman Catholicism (or what some
ex-priests whose witness I esteem have called 'Romanism'), you have
lost me from the beginning of your tome. I do not apologize for apparent
'sourness' when I mention that you have presented in many respects a caricature of 'Protestant' or, if you will, 'evangelical' faith. Suffice it to
say that the Lord is very gracious indeed, that His commands are 'not burdensome':
that mortification of the flesh, idolatrous prayers to saints
WHO ARE NOT GOD, submission to the spurious political and ecclesiastical authority of 'popes', and submission to a non-Levitical
priesthood (when Jesus, high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, has already made a perfect sacrifice in His own holy blood), ARE NOT REQUIRED. Indeed THEY ARE OF NO AVAIL,
'for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.' (Romans 10:9)
If we say that God's Word is true, let us hold fast to that which is plain: and we are to avoid fables and harmful controversies. But nowhere in Scripture have I seen it stated explicitly that Mary is 'God-bearer'; rather, it seems clear to me that she was (and will always remain, in heaven) a creature of God, whereas the Logos (Who became Incarnate as the Christ) existed from all eternity. Furthermore it is plain that the dictum, 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' applies to Mary as to us. Let us not bend Luke 1:42-43 out of shape by making of Mary a semi-divine person with intercessory powers of her own. You folks ought to be more cognizant of her Jewishness and of the horror of idolatry which as a godly woman she would have felt.
Note also that following Jesus' birth she had other offspring with Joseph her husband. We do well to focus upon Mary's humanity,
taking our cue from Scripture. Efforts to 'divinize' her fly in the face of historical fact, and distract attention from Christ Himself.
As for Peter, it is with difficulty that you infer his primacy from a single passage, but what does Acts tell us about his activity at Rome? Nothing. On the contrary it was Paul who was commissioned for the ministry to the Gentiles. Do you deny that, while one apostle or another may have had occasion to 'shine' at various times (and Peter did, around and following the outpouring of Pentecost), the early Church had a sort of collective leadership?
Or was not Christ the Head? Is not the Holy Spirit teacher, comforter, and guide, indwelling true believers regardless of rank? Why glorify fallible human individuals?
+markus onesimus
"As an apologist for Roman Catholicism"
Oh no, not in the professional sense. Only in the 'every Christian' 1 Peter 3:15 sense.
"that mortification of the flesh" Like Col 1:24; 3:5; Phil 1:29; 1 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor 1:5; Rom 8:13,17; Mt 5:30 etc?
"idolatrous prayers to saints WHO ARE NOT GOD" I agree, obviously. Idolatrous prayer is never good, lol. What about non-idolatrous prayer though? After all, according to Catholics, the saints to which they pray are, specifically, "NOT GOD" so that claims of idolatry fizzle away into the misunderstanding category of attacks on the Church. Along with all the lovely 'pope invented mary at the council of nicaea' kind of claims.
"submission to the spurious political and ecclesiastical authority of 'popes', and submission to a non-Levitical priesthood"
Christ's institutions are neither spurious, nor meant to be Levitical.
"when Jesus, high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, has already made a perfect sacrifice in His own holy blood"
There you go, you have the right priesthood now. Except you make a distinction between the Sacrifice of Calvary and that of the Mass-contrary to explicit, clear teaching of the Church that it is the one, same, identical sacrifice, only the matter of offering that same sacrifice different.
That's why the priest obeys Christ Who said, "This IS my body....DO THIS in commemoration of me." St. Paul says we do this to "show the death of the Lord until He comes." And that this Eucharist is, specifically, "the body and blood of the Lord"-as every Christian taught from then right up until Protestantism began contradicted the perennial universal Christian Faith.
Now someone who offers and partakes of a sacrifice is called a what? A priest. Who _doesn't_ offer the Eucharist? A layperson. Hence, the need for a priesthood. Which, as we see from history (no guess work needed on anyone's part) was instituted by Christ; it has always been the mode of the Church.
"ARE NOT REQUIRED. Indeed THEY ARE OF NO AVAIL"
Well, Christ says the opposite: "the bread I will give for THE LIFE OF THE WORLD is my flesh."
He also said, "AMEN, AMEN, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
"'for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.' (Romans 10:9)"
Oh will you spare us all the superficial faith with no substance? Faith in Christ isn't saying 'I believ ein Christ'. It's to believe and follow all He said. Not a confession without result: a confession without a result is a LIE.
St. Paul is talking to new converts and to those yet to be converted. Not giving the only thing Christians need to to be saved. Haven't you heard Christ? "What must I do to enter life?" (Jesus>) "I fyou would enter life, keep the commandments."
This Protestant idea that confessing Jesus' Name means literally just doing that _first_ act of faith and not living a Christian life would make any Christian laugh.
What about St. Peter's teaching that "baptism now saves you"? St. Paul refers to the prohpecy fo God to Ezekiel to put a new heart and a spirit within us by sprinkling us and washing us with clean water in Hebrews "in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and our bodies washed with pure water."
Why doesn't St. Peter say to not "delay" at all but "be baptized for the remission of your sins." That St. Paul says the Church was "[cleansed] by the washing of water in the word of life"? That "baptism" is how we are "baptized into His death" and that "[baptism]" is how we "put on Christ"? Ezekiel records God's promise to cleanse and give a new heart and a new spirit by "sprinkl"ing them "with clean water."
I don't know what the average Joe is supposed to do. Both Rome and the Orthodox Church say they are God's one true church. Protestants that's say both corrupted the gospel.
if both ,,corrupted,, the gospel,then protestants have not a honest Bible....
The average Joe should be like the noble Bereans and examine the scriptures daily
.
Joanna, what is meant is that Protestants believe that the Orthodox and the Catholics have both strayed. I honestly believe that within Orthodoxy, a Protestant movement would have been an internal reformation, but the corruption of the Catholic Church was truly staggering then. Sadly, the Catholic Church doubles down on some of its worst errors and abuses, which is precisely why there is the problems that it’s facing today.
Are you born again, ma'am?
I believe so, yes.
@@VassaLarin when did that happen for you?
Hypocrisy at it finest...
Isnt it that a woman should not teach others?
A woman is barred from officiating as a preacher in a church-or in the Orthodox Church, that would be from celebrating the Eucharist since they no longer have either the examination of prophesy (no one has that any longer) or the extemporaneous teaching doctrine. However, in other settings, women may teach, and older women are ORDERED to be the teachers of younger women in Titus. Titus was to teach old men, young men, and old women as separate groups, but young women were to be taught by the old women as a group.
Why your clothing similar to Jewish
She is wearing a chador identical to the garb worn by twelver shi'a muslim women.
Her choice of attire probably looks Jewish to you because she is not wearing a cross nor any symbol pointing to Christ and that is common among Jews and generally among people promoting an antichrist agenda.
The Roman Catholic Church is not a "denomination."
No, the church of the Borgias is the True Church. 1 Corinthians 5 would order to throw out your fornicating priests, but you make the popes and bishops and cardinals! You think under such perversion the people were not led astray? No, the yeast spread throughout the dough. You still have a chance to cut out the rot and right your errors but you won’t.
Hi, every church from any denomination claims to be the orthodox one, the true one, it is their opinion. Calling yourself as a name/title "the Orthodox one" is in the process calling others the Non Orthodox ones. You claim to represent the early church, it's too bad, they had many false doctrines, (fortunately for us) so we could under Paul's guidance go in the right direction...I like this video if only less arrogant!
If you people support and believe in Toll Houses then id rather trust a Protestant anyday.
Even worse this idea of toll houses has divided your church but people say "Ehh you believe it or you dont it does not matter" Well then whos saved in your church?
This type of fear mongering is the definition as to why religion is like a poision for the mind.
Jake Lermana Jake, I don't blame you one bit for what you express here. You are quite right! There are many things in the Scriptures to which all Christians subscribe, which although completely true in the context from and to which they were spoken, can be easily lifted out of that context by those outside it and very badly misconstrued and misapplied. The same is true of the sayings of the Church Fathers from which the Toll House illustration comes. Those "outside" that context spiritually include anyone, even those within the Church as it is concretely manifested here on earth who are not yet perfected in their understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the depth of His teaching. On some level that includes all of us. There are many outside the Church, who nevertheless do have a great depth of understanding of Jesus, though they may not even know Him by that Name or if they do, believe that He is God in the sense Christians understand. According to the teaching of one of the greatest recently disclosed Saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church (recently in the sense that he died only in the last century), the full depth of Christ's teaching is disclosed in one simple command--that is the one to love (as our own selves) not just our friends, but even our enemies! If you can find an Orthodox Christian who wholeheartedly subscribes to that teaching and gives evidence in his life in the deep kindness and respect he shows toward others that this is true, than you may be able to trust him to give you a proper understanding of the role of the Toll House teaching within the Orthodox Church (or at least for you). Until and unless you find that person, God does not need you nor anyone else like you to understand that teaching in order to save you and make you the kind of person He wants you to be. Get to know Jesus by reading the Gospels, asking Him to disclose Himself to you. He will do so! How do I know? Well, my guess is we will have to wait until we both get to Heaven before I can tell you that tale! For one thing it is still being written! :-) God bless! Hope that helped.
Only Roman Catholic Church can we called churches. ;)
Autistic "Orthodox" heretics will burn in Hell for all of eternity.
Go away, troll. You are a disgrace to the name Catholic you've clearly usurped to troll.
why do you dress like this
Because I want to.
***** I was genuinely asking a question? Lol😂 kinda expecting a mature informative answer versus a petty one....
@@lovedrakexx I would imagine that since she is an Orthodox nun that is the habit of her order.
It always amazes me that Christians act as though there was nothing before Christ. There are many paths, spiritualities older than Christianity that greatly influenced it - Christianity is not that original.
Troll.
Oh my..i thought you were Roman Catholic...I will pray for you..There is ONLY ONE Church..The Holy Roman Catholic Church...you split with Us..you " orthodox" reject Peter...
The Roman Catholic denominations is not the True Church it broke away from Ture Church 1,000 years ago in the year in 1054 AD. The Orthodox Church is the true Holy Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic denominations like to hit on little kids sexually.
Wow ???????
Wrong 👎👎👎👎👎👎👎
1 Corinthians 5 says that permitting open fornication in the church causes whole church to be poisoned. The Catholic Church had centuries of perverts and fornicators as its popes and bishops. You say they’re infallible because they said they were. Why would they say anything else? The Catholic Church has a chance to purify itself. Instead, it murdered people for giving them a Bible the people could read. How holy do you think that was?
@@jillsirignano9676 you do realize that the orthodox church has its pedos to right? You dont determine where the true church is based on the sins of men in the hierarchy. And there is no such thing as “roman catholic” it’s no where to be found in the canons. It’s the latin church but this isn’t the sole catholic church since there are the eastern catholic churches many of them being Eastern Orthodox schismatics that repented of their schosm and came back. I find it laughable that u can that the orthodox church is the true church snd the Catholics changed everything when the orthodox church literally taught the immaculate conception and original sin but only started opposing it because a pope made it a dogma. Study the fathers the orthodox church could use some wisdom