dr badboy Why do you have a masked degenerate blowing smoke out of his mouth as your avatar? How about you worry about yourself there bucko👍

I am converting starting next month to ROCOR and can not wait.

god bless you

kush God curse you

'Orthodox Christian Daily Prayer and Hours' Podcast Now available on iTunes, Anchor, Breaker, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Radio Public, Spotify podcast apps and websites, Just search for it by name on the site or in the app!

Hi Nihit. Did you say that you have converted "online"? Have you been baptised in an Orthodox church and do you regularly receive communion? If not I would strongly advise you to try and find an Orthodox church that you can attend in person. If you sincerely believe in Orthodoxy and wish to become Orthodox, baptism and holy communion are absolutely essential. If you have already been baptised then please forgive my comment.

I am really happy for you!

Have you heard of Ancient Faith Radio? Check it out online, and check out the podcasts. It has helped me grow tremendously brother! God bless!

I haven't heard of it. Thanks, I will check it out. @@LordHaveMercyOnUs247

Actually he is a subdeacon, not a priest.

He's a member of the Clergy, but not a priest. He's a subdeacon, which means he assists the priests with the Liturgy and Rites. He also teaches classes and is a spiritual advisor. Though he may, in circumstances "above his paygrade" send you on to the priest for advice. There are 3 grades of Deacon. Subdeacon, Deacon, and Protodeacon. The clergy of the Church are Readers (they literally read the Scriptures, spiritual readings, lives of the Saints and so on), Deacons (assist the priests and lead the congregational prayers), and Priests (perform the Liturgy, lead Rites, perform the Sacrements [Mysteries], and so on). Some priests marry (before being tonsured as priests) and some remain celibate. Celibate priests cannot be priests of non-celibate parishes.

'Orthodox Christian Daily Prayer and Hours' Podcast Now available on iTunes, Anchor, Breaker, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Radio Public, Spotify podcast apps and websites, Just search for it by name on the site or in the app!

we dont have an Orthodox church here ......

Same here, Australia.

God bless you. I am a catholic by birth and I some doubt about the orthodox reject purgatory I really love the orthodox faith.

God bless you !Glory to Jesus ! I am from Rhodes Hellas.

Find the true church, based on the Bible, not one that lies about it being based on the early church when it really isn't. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen , Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

yeoberry The Seventh Ecumenical Council explains the purpose and suitability of iconography especially as they pertain to the Incarnation.

William McGuire : The first “Seventh Ecumenical Council”, in 754 at Hieria, condemned icons, consistent with the early church. The second council of Nicea that met in 787 and embraced the idolatry of the superficially converted pagans who had flooded into the church is medieval. The early church strictly forbad icons.

yeoberry are you a baptist/Protestant

yeoberry also why are you bringing up the second commandment, if you are to follow the 2nd then you must follow the 612 Old Testament laws, which we are not under anymore as Christians. I’m an ex Jew and am now a Christian. Do you wear sidelocks in your hair, do you not shave your beard, do you not mix fabrics, do you not eat pork, shell fish, or catfish. Do you make animal sacrifices to be forgiven of your sins. Quit being hypocrite as Christ warns against.if you want to make every Christian follow one Old Testament law then you must follow all 612 others or you are being a hypocrite.

what books have you been reading? Thanks

Woo-Hoo! (From a catechumen in America) Blessings on your journey....

I don't know what books are available to you, but (assuming English is an option for you, since you're writing in it! 😉) a couple of good ones (there are so many) are "For the Life of the World" by Fr. Alexander Schmemann & "The Orthodox Church" by Met. Kallistos Ware. God bless you on your path....

Welcome my brother to be orthodox

'Orthodox Christian Daily Prayer and Hours' Podcast Now available on iTunes, Anchor, Breaker, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Radio Public, Spotify podcast apps and websites, Just search for it by name on the site or in the app!

Glory be to God for all things+ Unto the ages of ages Amen +++

1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

@@yeoberry You came centuries late to the party, iconoclast.

Orthodox Catholic Pilgrim Excerpt from “The Historic Church” by historian John Morris The Jesuits extended their efforts to win adherents for Rome not only among Protestants, but also among the Orthodox. They adopted what one Roman Catholic scholar has called a “Trojan horse policy,” to establish a group of clergy and laity within the Orthodox Churches who accepted the papal claims and worked secretly to extend the power of Rome over the Orthodox Churches.628 Eventually, this led to a series of schisms from the Orthodox Church that created a group of Eastern Catholic Churches. Eastern Catholics follow Eastern Orthodox forms of worship, and have married priests, but also accept the authority of the Pope. Through their relationship with Rome, they also accept Roman Catholic doctrine, although some Eastern Catholics have retained more Orthodox teachings than others. The existence of rival bodies in union with Rome but which outwardly looked Orthodox has been a constant source of conflict and tension between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. Disagreements over the Uniate Churches have led to the break down of more than one dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics. The Union of Brest in 1596 and the Birth of the Eastern Catholic Churches The first and largest Eastern Catholic Church began in Ukraine in 1596. The Orthodox Church in the lands that are now the Ukraine and Russia began in 988. At that time, the ruler or Grand Duke of Kiev governed Rus, a loose federation of principalities in what is now Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, as well as parts of what is now Poland, and Slovakia. As recorded in The Primary Chronicle, the most ancient Russian historical text, St. Vladimir, the ruler of Kiev and grandson of St. Olga, who became a Christian as early as 955, was dissatisfied with the primitive paganism of his people. He appointed a committee to study various religions and to recommend a new more suitable faith. The committee rejected Islam because they found no “joy” in the religion. They also refused to accept the prohibition on alcoholic beverages which is part of Muslim teaching. They then went to Germany where they found Western Christianity more satisfactory. However, overwhelmed by the beauty of the Orthodox Liturgy, they witnessed in Constantinople, they reported, “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere upon earth. We cannot describe it to you; only this we know, that God dwells there among humans, and that their service surpasses the worship of all other places.”629 As a result, St. Vladimir and his people became Orthodox Christians. There is no doubt that the advantages of an alliance with the Orthodox Byzantine Empire played a major role in his decision. Although Kiev enjoyed a brief time of growth and prosperity following its conversion, it soon entered a period of decline. In 1169, Prince Andrew Bogoliubsky, the ruler of Rostov and Suzdal, attacked and occupied Kiev. After his victory, he assumed the title of Grand Duke, but instead of taking up residence in Kiev, he established his court in the more northern city of Vladimir. In 1237, the Asiatic Mongols began to invade the Eastern Slavic lands, leading to Mongolian domination that lasted until the fifteenth century. The decline of Kiev and the Mongolian conquest prepared the way for the rise of Moscow, which became the capital of the Russian state. In 1300, Metropolitan Maxim, the leader of the Orthodox Church in Kiev, moved to Vladimir, completing the decline of Kiev. These events created a power vacuum in the Western part of Rus that the Grand Dukes of Lithuania were quick to fill. The Lithuanians conquered the southwestern part of the areas once ruled by Kiev. In 1569, Lithuania entered into a dynastic union with Poland. Thus, the conquered area fell under Polish rule.630 The new rulers of Ukraine and the surrounding territories were dedicated Roman Catholics. Sigismund III, who became the King of Poland in 1587, actively persecuted the Orthodox Christians living under his rule. With Jesuit support, he pressured several Orthodox bishops to accept papal primacy. On December 23, 1595, Pope Clement VIII agreed that if Orthodox accepted his authority, they could retain Eastern Orthodox forms of worship and their married priests, thereby establishing the Ukrainian Catholic Church. At the Council of Brest-Litovsk in October 1596, a group of former Orthodox bishops officially ratified the agreement with Rome. Prince Radziwill, Sigismund’s representative in Brest, prevented the Orthodox Bishops and their supporters from participating in the discussions.631 Because the Ukrainian Catholic and all Eastern Catholic Churches are based on the principles of the Union of Brest Litovsk, they are frequently called Uniates, although some Eastern Catholics find the term offensive. The Polish King then began a systematic persecution of those who rejected the union with Rome. On October 15, 1596, just a few days after the conclusion of the Council of Brest, he issued a decree declaring membership in the Orthodox Church an act of treason and banning the Orthodox Church in his lands.632 He ordered Orthodox Bishops replaced by Uniate Bishops, and he took church buildings from the Orthodox and gave them to the Eastern Catholics. The Polish king also supported Josaphat Kuntsevich, the Uniate Bishop of Polotsk. Josaphat, considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, was a radical papist who ordered the removal of the graves of Orthodox Christians to “purify” the lands around the former Orthodox Churches that had been given to the Uniates. Because their forms of worship come from the Byzantine Church, which was predominately Greek, the Uniates also call themselves Greek Catholics.633 In 1646, a group of Orthodox in Sub-Carpathian Russia, an area that had once been ruled by Kiev but had passed to Hungarian control, yielded to pressure from their Roman Catholic rulers to accept the Union of Uzhorod, an agreement similar to the Union of Brest-Litovsk. This established another Uniate Church, known in the United States as the Byzantine Catholics. Meanwhile, some Rumanian Orthodox Christians living in Transylvania, an area conquered also by Hungary, yielded to pressure from their Roman Catholic rulers to submit to Rome at the synod of Alba Julia of October 1696, thereby establishing the Rumanian Catholic Church.634 Supported by the Roman Catholic authorities, the Uniate Churches grew and prospered at the expense of the Orthodox Church. By 1946, there were about 3,500,000 Eastern Rite Catholics in Ukraine. However, after the Second World War, Joseph Stalin, the ruler of the Soviet Union who was no friend of the Orthodox Church but feared papal influence even more than Orthodoxy, forced the Ukrainian Catholics to disband the Union of Brest-Litovsk and to rejoin the Orthodox Church at the Council of Lvov in 1946. Eastern Catholics in the rest of Eastern Europe under Soviet domination suffered the same fate, as the communist rulers forced them to accept the authority of the local Orthodox bishops. It is unfair to blame the Orthodox for Stalin’s persecution of the Eastern Catholics. The Russian dictator also persecuted the Orthodox. Indeed, in 1946, the Orthodox were in no position to reject Stalin’s plan to force the Uniates to convert to Orthodoxy. Significantly, some Orthodox leaders, such as Archbishop Palladii of Lvov and Ternopol, tried to help the Uniates during the time of Stalinist persecution.635 During the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and Communism in the 1980s, the Eastern Catholic Churches emerged from persecution and demanded the return of all church buildings that had once been Uniate. The Orthodox officials suggested that each community decide for itself whether or not to remain Orthodox or to return to Eastern Catholic Church. However, the Uniates rejected this proposal. Instead they demanded possession of all buildings that had belonged to the Unia before Stalin regardless of the wishes of the people. The conflict has been especially bitter in the Ukraine. Although the Orthodox tried to reach a compromise with the followers of Rome, some Uniates refuse to settle for anything less than a complete victory for their cause. There a Committee for the Defense of the Ukrainian Catholic Church led by Iva Ghel, used violence to seize Orthodox buildings for the Unia. Similar conflict between Uniates and Orthodox took place throughout Eastern Europe. As a result, Orthodox Roman Catholic relations entered into a new period of tension.636...

Orthodox Catholic Pilgrim ...The Melkites and Eastern Catholicism in the Middle East The Jesuits and other Roman Catholics were also active in the Middle East. With the support of French diplomats, the Roman Catholics carried on an active campaign to convince clergy and Faithful of the Patriarchate of Antioch to accept papal authority. Throughout the seventeenth century, several Patriarchs of Antioch may have secretly accepted the authority of the Pope. When Athanasisu III died in 1724, a group of pro-Roman bishops elected Seraphim Tanas, who had received his education in Rome, to the vacant Patriarchal throne. After assuming office, as Cyril VI, he openly submitted to papal authority. However, the Orthodox bishops of the Antiochian Church rejected the pro-Roman Patriarch. With the support of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, they chose a Greek monk from Mt. Athos, Sylvester, who became the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Because the new Patriarch taught strict adherence to the fasting traditions of the Church, the Uniates attracted members by offering them an appearance of Orthodoxy through services that are almost identical to those of the Orthodox Church, together with a much more lax religion that did not expect its followers to follow the ascetic practices of the Orthodox Church.637 Ironically, the followers of Rome who left the Orthodox Church of Antioch chose to call themselves “Melkites,” a title which comes from the Syriac and Arabic words for king originally used to describe the Chalcedonian Orthodox due to their allegiance to the Church of the Byzantine Emperor. After they established their own Church, the Uniates used generous subsidies from France and other Roman Catholic countries to entice Orthodox to leave their Church and join the Eastern Catholic Church. The Romanists also persuaded Orthodox to convert to the Unia by offering education in the schools and medical care in the hospitals they were able to build with moneys sent from European Roman Catholics. Under the Turks, the Orthodox Patriarch had certain judicial powers, including the right to sentence an offender to prison or galleys. However, those guilty of offenses could escape punishment by joining the Melkites and then could count on diplomats from France and other Roman Catholic countries to use their influence with the Turks to protect them.638 In 1750, the Melkite Patriarch consecrated Joseph Babilas to serve as the Uniate Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt.639 Orthodox Objections to Eastern Catholicism The existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches has been a constant source of disagreements between Orthodox and Roman Catholics for several reasons. Orthodox see the establishment of the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome as a form of ecclesiastical imperialism. When the Pope extended his jurisdiction into the canonical territory of the Orthodox Patriarch, it showed that the Roman Church considered the local Orthodox Churches defective because they had not accepted Rome’s “expansionist” claims.640 These tensions erupted in legal actions and violence following the demise of Communist domination in Eastern Europe when the reorganized Uniate Churches sought to regain control over properties that had once been theirs but which has been Orthodox for almost half a century. However, even without the violence, Orthodox find it offensive when Roman agents use clandestine campaigns to persuade Orthodox to convert to the Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. Orthodox authorities also object to the confusion among the Faithful caused by clergy and buildings that look Orthodox, but are really Roman Catholic because of their allegiance to the papacy. Some Eastern Catholics claim to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” However, by accepting the Roman claims to supremacy and with them, Roman Catholic doctrines, Eastern Catholics have broken from Orthodoxy and cannot legitimately claim to be Orthodox. Some Eastern Catholics attract Orthodox by emphasizing ethnicism or local nationalism. Others offer Orthodox an opportunity to escape the discipline of the Orthodox Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches have also caused concern for the Orthodox because they have seen that Latin authorities frequently treat their Eastern Catholic brethren with a superior attitude. The union with Rome has led to the Latinization of several Eastern Catholic groups. For example, some of them abandoned the ancient Orthodox practice of infant communion and introduced the Latin custom of “First Communion.” Others not only commemorate the Pope, but also have added the filioque clause to the Creed. Some have greatly abbreviated traditional Orthodox services in a manner not unlike the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Mass. Some Eastern Catholic Churches have statues. Some Eastern Catholic faithful practice such Latin devotions as the rosary and devotion to the sacred heart. When Eastern Catholics came to the United States and Canada, the local Latin authorities prevailed on Rome to forbid married Uniate priests from serving Eastern Catholic communities in the new world. This violation of the various agreements that had established the various Eastern Catholic Churches led many former Eastern Catholics to become Orthodox after they immigrated to America. Beginning in Minneapolis in 1892, Father Alexi Toth, considered a Saint by the Orthodox Church, led thousands of Uniates into the Russian Orthodox Church after suffering persecution from the local Latin authorities. In 1938, Orestes Chornock of Bridgeport, Connecticut led a group of Carpatho-Russians from the Unia into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.641 References: 628 Aidan Nicholas OP Rome and the Eastern Churches (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 283 629 Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 264 630 Michael T. Florinsky, Russia: A History and An Interpretation (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970), pp.31, 41, 44 631 Ibid., pp. 258-259; Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, pp. 262-264 632 Dimitry Pospierlovsky, The Orthodox Church in The History of Russia, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), p. 93 633 Ibid. 634 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, p. 294, 299-300 635Pospiellovsky, The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia, p.363 636 Igor Troyanovsky, ed. Religion in the Soviet Republics: A Guide to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Other Religions, (San Francisco: Harper, 1991, pp. 126-127; Pospiellovsky, The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia, p. 364 637 Constantius, “The Patriarchs of Antioch,” in Neale, A History of the Holy Eastern Church: The Patriarchate of Antioch, p. 184 638 “The Church of Antioch,” and “State of the Patriarchate of Antioch in 1850” in Ibid., pp,206, 215 639 Runciman, The Great Church, pp. 234-235 640 Ignatius IV, Orthodoxy & The Issues of Our Time, p. 105 641 Constance J. Tarasar, ed. Orthodox America 1794-1776: Development of the Orthodox Church in America, (Syosset, New York: The Orthodox Church in America, Department of History and Archives, 1975), pp. 53, 191

He made another post recently regardning this video.

@@AzureSymbiote sweet!

@Harold Zwingley who? You? Not me! I live in a world of miracles and saints and beauty truth and goodness in Christ! I will not leave what I finally found! The Pearl of Great Price is the Person Christ Jesus who lives!

😮☦️

That's some crazy road he took to get to Orthodoxy. God bless him.

'Orthodox Christian Daily Prayer and Hours' Podcast Now available on iTunes, Anchor, Breaker, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Radio Public, Spotify podcast apps and websites, Just search for it by name on the site or in the app!

It's more asking for intercession but I know what you mean. Maybe you shouldn't say "pray to" to your Protestant friends, it sounds pretty weird for someone not grown into the Church (like you and I too). Lord have mercy and God bless you and your friends. Out of curiosity; did some of your friends converted by now already or not?

@@024Nimmathank you. My friend leads a “Bible study” and is dug in deep to the Calvinist mindset. I love her dearly and pray for her but we agree to disagree on what defines The Church. We have civil conversations and she agrees with much of what the Church teaches, but when you are a “big wig” so to speak, it’s hard to give that up.

I think you're forgetting about King Connecticut, sir.

Same

Sister your Lastname is Georgean you guys are strong Orthdox believers. Love from Serbia

Yes -- beautiful Orthodox traditions from Georgia! Take your time learning about the Church -- much richness to uncover.... God bless you! 😌

So today You are one Year older. Regards from Poland and Happy Birthday. I used to work for Embassy of Georgia in Oslo Norway. Just technic jobs. Making some flag holder at Pilestredet 80 outside and secure the door.

'Orthodox Christian Daily Prayer and Hours' Podcast Now available on iTunes, Anchor, Breaker, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Radio Public, Spotify podcast apps and websites, Just search for it by name on the site or in the app!

you're a saint for this

That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.

I love Armenian cuisine!!!!! That is the beauty of Orthodoxy. We can go to any church and know what is going on, fit in just fine, enjoy each other because we get it.

Do you not realize Christ came to fulfill The Law? Romans 11:36 elucidates that All Things...in Heaven and On Earth are...by, to, through and FOR Him! Furthermore, Paul says in 1st Corinthians 8 that an "Idol isn't anything," then states that Shema as reveled through Yeshua, that He is the One Lord and God of The Shema! What I am saying is this, if you believe for one second that the Orthodox are worshipping pictures themselves and not The God Who Is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge-which includes wisdom in art-) portrayed in the Icons...then I will suggest that you are not understanding from an honest perspective!! Rather, you have a biased/myopic understanding of Holy Scripture(which I did too)! @@yeoberry

Richard Jordan : If the “Orthodox” weren’t worshipping pictures, they wouldn’t be using pictures contrary to God’s Word. They do with images exactly what the second commandment forbids. The early church followed the second commandment and so strictly prohibited icons. The Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.

@@yeoberry Always an opinion from some yahoo about something they are too lazy to look up. Not pictures, icons that keep us focused, that's all. Not pictures and idols, it is just for the eyes and mental focus to direct prayers to a higher creator than little nothings like you that only worship your own ego.

Same! 🤯

Right!?

Without credibility.

@@yeoberry How much does Pastor Billy Bob Jones pay you to post in these threads?

@@Cobruh_Commander : I don't know. The check hasn't arrived yet! :)

1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

@@yeoberry lol Butthurt Schismatic protestant watching our videos, gettimg englihtened in the Orthdox faith Good to see

Isn't Jesus the savior of man?

Covenant Caswell The Orthodox Church is the early Church. You need to study Church history from the beginning. Stop listening to nonsense.

Jesus has no competition.

Yes and that is the Orthodox Church or at least, they're the only ones who say so.

Mathew Parvu Nope. Jesus started ONE Church, not many.

@@sdnlawrence5640 the Mormons claim that their church is led by Christ. Well, through living Apostles who hear from Christ.

No, esta es la iglesia católica, la única iglesia qué Jesús fundó

@@TheRealRealOK The Church is the body of Christ, and it’s made up of all believers everywhere. Like Christ’s body, the church is mangled and hard to look at, but it IS one body. Having impeccably correct theology is not what saves us, Christ is, and he’s present wherever believers gather to worship him.

Don’t despair, look to Christ, pray for His Church and partake of the Eucharist. Rinse and repeat.

Is the mother of God stance taught by orthodoxy? I thought that was primarily Catholic. Being raised Protestant, that kinda sits really bad with me. I've seen info to suggest that that is a pagan invention. This is a serious question, by the way. I'm not trying to pejorative, I'm looking to learn. Thanks

@@oilscience9808 same question

@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr I looked into it a bit a few days ago. I watched a Catholic video that make sense, sort of. Since Jesus is fully man and fully God, and Mary is the mother of the incarnate God, Jesus; it's kind of logical to say that she is the mother of God, but not to say that she is the creator of God or that Jesus didn't exist before his incarnation. I assume that the Catholic perspective is the same or at least very similar to the Orthodox perspective. If not, I apologize. My assessment is that from there the Catholics have taken a leap to say that Mary was sinless and perpetually a virgin, and that she intercedes prayer, and... I could go on. On one hand I can see their perspective, on the other hand it has led to a false gospel. I'm still learning, so there might be more nuance that I'm missing. I however am choosing not to venerate any mortal, much less pray to them.

selam selam mother of God is not a correct term. She carried the flesh of Jesus but she didn’t creat God. She carried him but is not the mother of the Godly essence only the flesh of Christ

@@oilscience9808 It is all about expressing Saint Mary's sainthood and gracefulness that has being given to her from GOD. When Mary Visits Elizabeth Luke1:43 . . . ." And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

Covenant Caswell It is said...Saint Paul painted the ICON- Of the THEOTOKOS- just like the Old Testament - God told Not surprisingly, the altar table performs a similar function as that of Ark of the Covenant. As the Ark of the Covenant was a special place of meeting between God and man (Ex. 25:22 Holy Scripture witnesses to this, calling the Church “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) and members of the Church “heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26-69). Other Liturgical Items-Besides the altar table, we find other items that are used in Orthodox worship that come directly from Old Testament worship. Among these, we find: 1) a seven-branch candelabrum (Ex. 21:35-37), 2) a censer and incense (Lev. 16:12-13; 1 Ch. 23:13; Mal. 1:11), 3) and priestly vestments (Ex. 28:3-4, 29:29-30). All these are true ICONS NOT IDOLS- which is a false image. Glory to God for all things+++

@@yeoberry And make two cherubim of hammered gold at the ends of the mercy seat, Mold one cherub at one end and a second cherub at the other end; make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat. And the cherubim are to have wings that spread upward, overshadowing the mercy seat. The cherubim are to face one another, looking toward the mercy seat.… Exodus 25 18-20, clearly instructing the use of images for the tabernacle.

Teresa Pavani : The myth of your medieval sect is that Luke made the first icon. I know more about your medieval sect than you do. 1. . The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9. 7. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) said that no one knew the appearance of Jesus or that of Mary (De Trinitas 8:4-5). "For neither do we know the countenance of the Virgin Mary" (De Trinitas 8:5). How can that be if, according to "Orthodox" tradition, Luke made an icon of Mary?

blue wolf : They didn’t bow to them. They weren’t icons. The early church strictly prohibited icons. See above.

Michael barakat, sorry, but he is not father, because he is not a priest or a deacon, he is a subdeacon. Subdeacon is a layman, not a part of the clergy.

Anyway my friend no problem. I have just said it due to what I have learned from the seminar. But even though, a father is the man who gives birth to children whether spiritual children or not as Paul the apostle says. And the separation between "clergy" and " laypeople" is also strange and not part our orthodox heritage. In the first church, there were elders and the first elder is the bishop. some monks and spiritual fathers are not even part of the " clergy". anyway, it is a big subject. you can read a book called " The Church of the Holy Spirit" for Father Nicholi Afnasief and you can read books for father Alexansder Schmemann if you want to know about the subject more. thank you anyway

Michael barakat : 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

Yeoberry my friend. I do not know why you talked about icons in your reply to me. I have not mentioned them, but anyway. I would like to address a question here. If Jesus Christ is really the son of God and he is really divine, and If he says I will build my church and he gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, so how can a Christian think that the church of God is lost? The real question is: Is Jesus Christ the Christ and divine? God kept his people all the years safe from any corruption or division. Well, some groups left Israel and separated from the people of God, but Israel remained safe. Christ came and who did not accept him were separated also and God has still been keeping his Church safe. Now if Jesus is Christ so he can keep his church so now our aim is to look for his church and be part of it and not reinventing "the church". so God did not succeed and some people are more efficient than God and they protect and reforming the church. So when we find the church we accept her tradition and faith. Every one can invent a theology and build up an argument and I myself can give you another argument about icons but that is not faith but philosophy or invention. If God is God and the church is the church so we must learn and accept her faith because it is the faith of Christ. The orthodox church is the first church and the only church and our argument is written by blood. It is your choice, my friend.

Michael barakat : The church of God is not lost. The “Orthodox” are obviously not that church because they were overcome by the gates of hell. They are a semi-pagan medieval sect that lies about their origins. They practice exactly what is condemned in the second commandment (Ex 20:4ff). They claim to have preserved the practices of the early church but in reality they practice exactly what the early church strictly prohibited, as the above quotes prove.

North West Thebaid : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.

Covenant Caswell You really make your rounds don’t you. You are a fool and a heretic and you’re not worth engaging. May God have mercy on you.

North West Thebaid : I have the Word of God and the teachings of the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

Covenant Caswell You’re also disingenuous and historically illiterate. Hence my comment about you being an utter fool. If there’s one thing I’ve gleaned from my years in a Reformed sect it’s this: You people are the most arrogant and uncharitable of all the Christian sects and your lack of self-awareness and objectivity is pathological.

North West Thebaid : 1. You cannot show once where I’ve been “disingenuous”. Therefore you’ve broken the 9th commandment (Exodus 20:16) by bearing false witness. 2. I have multiple witnesses from the early church: the Council of Elvira, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, etc. Your claim that I am “historically illiterate” is absurd. 3. You can’t show one source from the early church who supports icons or present any archaeological evidence of iconography. Attempts to do so always rely on confusing decorations with icons. 4. That you spew insults at people presenting the teachings of the early church while claiming to be historically literate proves that you lack basic self awareness. 5. That you belong to a semi-pagan, medieval sect that lies about being in continuity with the early church that it actually radically broke away from, shows that you lack basic self-awareness. 6. That you spew false insults at people who know the truth about church history, shows that you lack charity. 7. That you lack historical literacy, self-awareness and charity while (falsely) accusing others- who have the actual teachings of the early church- of lacking those qualities, shows that you’re a hypocrite.

Thank God for the technology of the Internet! :) Of course, like any other discovery or invention, the internet can be used for good or evil purposes.

Isn't there an autonomous orthodox Church of Finland?

'Orthodox Christian Daily Prayer and Hours' Podcast Now available on iTunes, Anchor, Breaker, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Radio Public, Spotify podcast apps and websites, Just search for it by name on the site or in the app!

@@sdnlawrence5640 yes there is

ROCOR is fine. They are all fine. Just stay within canonical world Orthodoxy and avoid schismatics and sects

@@ddawg6482 By this do you mean the Orthodox Church in America? In my town there are three orthodox churches: One American, one Greek, and one Coptic.

@@mercster stay away from the coptic. the rest are fine

@@ddawg6482 OK thanks.. does that have to do with their split after Chalcedon in 451? Any history you can tell me there?

@@ddawg6482 Yeeeaaah... this is about the same thing I was talking about, their rejection of the Chalcedonian concept of Christ. Honestly I think these are kinda convoluted man-made definitions... can we TRULY explain the nature of Christ, fully human yet fully divine, in human language? Probably not. But I get what you're saying... also I would be the only non-Egyptian in the room, probably, so it would be weird. Also Arabic. The American Orthodox church is 40 mins away, the Greek orthodox is just down the road. I am conflicted! The liturgy would be easier to follow in English... thanks again for your help.

Did you find it?

See what the Bible and the early church says: 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

Icons are NOT a tenant of Orthodoxy. I see no reason why you should be so fixated on this tiny part of the faith. I grew up without icons and find great joy in worship without having them. BUT I also am reminded when I see an icon of some things and some aspects of a saint's life and brings me to a desire to come closer to God. The most important aspect of the faith is that we come recognizing most of all that we are sinners in need of the salvation of God. Honestly and prayerfully ask God and listen to what His reply is regarding this very tiny aspect of the Faith.

Icons are idols.

@@yeoberry How are pictures Idols?

@@charlieknight6413 : The early church strictly opposed icons. Thus, the Eastern Orthodox church broke away from the tradition of the early church.

Jesuits? Really?

@Athanasius Contra Marxism yes I know about Jesuits they are more dangerous than Muslim

@Athanasius Contra Marxism I am not a Catholic nor a former Catholic (Protestant) I am just a Christian and I want to study more about Primitive Christianity. I read about the Jesuits and how they tried to conquer the Americas and Japan and China too. I'm from Portugal homeland of Catholicism and one of the countries that had a lot of Jesuit priests around the world. God bless

Which part of the world you live in?

God bless you

He has good points, but he scratched the history of the Church. It was mutual excommunications. I love orthodox liturgy, but also Love the Latin Rite. Great thing there is a dialogue going on between Latin Rite Cristian Catholics and different Orthodox Rites Christian Catholics. There is much more in common than divisions. Hopping for unity pretty soon!

@@loboambriento when is Rome going to abandon it's innovations?

@@loboambriento In the following video that is mainly about the Orthodox Church of Russia there is quite extensive analysis about excommunication. The Catholics set up Churches with the same names (Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus) in the lands where the respective Orthodox Churches had jurisdiction at the time when these respective Churches were still commemorating the Bishop of Rome in their diptychs (ie they had not excommunicated Rome).... By the way, to this day the Orthodox Churches have not reciprocated in creating any "Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome" etc... (see for video with title "Ad hoc | Russian Ecclesiastical Expansionism: Before Schism - Metropolitan of Peristeri Grigorios")

@1:26 you can buy it for $40 info provided

@@julioocampo4000 Thank you

www.sainthermanwasilla.org/files/Inquirers%20Classes/Finding-the-Ancient-Church-lectures-1-4-study-guide.pdf

@@chaseforchrist thank you!

That’s superstition. 666 is a numerical value, you are misrepresenting something else

*Stef manescu* _"For ages many people didn't know how to read, but _*_they knew how to interpret an icon and to see in it,_*_ Christ as well as they would have read about Him from the Scriptures."_ Exactly!!!!

Bowing might be crossing the line. I, however, think the icons are the most beautiful art

@@johnnynesbit8289 Bowing is a sign of honor, respect, and reverence. In most cultures around the word, it is done respectfully to others-even to strangers, and especially to one's elders and to those in authority. Now consider that Jesus Christ is Yahweh incarnate, the Most High God, the Lord of Creation, the King of kings of Lord of lords. Of course he should be honored at least in such a way. Though depictions of him were forbade in the Law; now, _because_ of the incarnation, because he took on flesh and blood, he can be. And to pay honor to his depiction is to honor him. For example: Think of a soldier kissing a picture of a loved one who is back home; or the loved one kissing a picture of him, awaiting and praying for his safe return. It is the same thing. It is a means of showing love and honor to the one depicted. Consider also that when you honor your fellow man, you also honor God though him, for he is made in God's image (Gen 1:27; 9:6). Depictions of the saints are meant mystically to represent their having grown, by sanctification, into the likeness of Christ (Rom 8:29), who is the perfect image of the Father (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15). To honor them is to honor Christ who sanctified them by the Holy Spirit. And finally, consider what the writer of Hebrews said: "As it is, you have not come to a mountain that can be touched; or that burned with fire. You have not come to gloom, darkness, storm, the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words which made those who heard it beg that not one more word should be spoken to them! Indeed, they could not endure what was commanded, 'If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.' So fearful was the appearance that Moses said, 'I am terrified and trembling.' "Instead, you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling which pleads better than Abel's blood." (Hebrews 12:18-24 EOB) Note again v. 23, which some translations render as, "to spirits of righteous _men_ made perfect," adding "men" for clarification. Point being: Coming to Christ and being thus joined to his Church means one really and truly enters into communion and fellowship even with believers who have already died and gone on to their reward. But because they died _in Christ,_ though their bodies are dead, _they_ are still very much alive (see Matt 22:31-32; Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38). Even more so, they have been _perfected_ in Christ. These "spirits of the righteous made perfect" are the holy saints of Christianity. And the Hebrews writer goes on to say, "Remember your leaders, those men who proclaimed the word of God to you. Considering the results of their conduct, imitate their faith" (Heb 13:7). This includes not just those godly people in one's life now but all one's spiritual ancestors through whom the word of God has come down through the ages, including the likes of those mentioned in Heb 11. And why should we remember (i.e., honor their memory) and imitate them? Because, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb 13:8). If he can and did perfect them by his grace, he can and will likewise perfect us.

For centuries people didn't know how to read???..I rest my case!!

For ages people didn't know how to read? Really? Then how did anyone write the gospels? And how did Romans write their laws? How did classical civilisation pass on their accumulated knowledge? There were always people who knew how to read. The only really illiterate period came after the fall of the Bronze Age, until shortly after Homer composed the Iliad and Odyssey.

Yes, you are right. First to say Pope Benedict XVI renounced to the title of "Patriarch of the West" no to Patriarch of Rome and he did it as a humble gesture of ecumenism with the Orthodox Church ( Which together is the Church of Christ ) Wrongly or culturally it has been taught or called "Catholic church" to the Latin church or West church and Orthodox to the East church or Greek church , but in fact the union of all those churches with the different rites conform the "One" "Holy" “Catholic” and "Apostolic" Church. Secondly the term Pope comes from the greek (I do not have the word) but was used for "Father" and also the use in Latin the word Papa which has the meaning of "Petri Apostoli Potestatem Accipiens" that in English would be something like "He who receives the authority- power of Peter" I will share what Aleteia web site says about it: "It is the term used in the first centuries of Christianity to address the members of the clergy and especially the bishops, even today the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria of Egypt is called Papa (Pope). Only in a second moment towards the IX-X century does it become exclusive to the bishop of Rome: from father in general to father in specific sense, the father of Rome. The reference to the catacombs of St. Calixto is interesting because in them is the oldest testimony in Rome of the use of the word "papa" (pope) referring to the bishop of Rome. The severe Deacon declares to have received the order of the Roman bishop Marcellin (296-304) to build for himself and his relatives a sepulchral niche within these catacombs: “iussu pp. sui Marcellini diaconus iste Severus fecit… ”(cf. Testini, Christian Archeology, Bari 1980, p.384). Resuming: it is the story of a generic term that over time assumes an increasingly specific meaning until it becomes exclusive. In Dictatus Papae, a document born in the Gregorian environment during the struggle of the endowments and which strongly underlines the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome, the terms "pontiff" and "papa" (pope) are used as synonyms and interchangeable. Just to give an example, in the Rule of San Francisco (Chapter XII) we talk about Dominus Papa (pope). For a dozen centuries, the word papa (pope) (with the terms derived, papal, papacy ...) indicates only the bishop of Rome. Although there are several titles of the Papa (pope): high pontiff, bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, patriarch of the West (the latter ceased to be used by Benedict XVI), primate of Italy ... the theologically more true and from which all others derive is Bishop of Rome, and therefore heir and successor of Peter and head of the apostolic college. And this is the title that qualifies you in the deepest sense. We can end by citing two texts, one of Christian antiquity, one of our days, about the theological importance of the Roman title. “But as it would be too long to enumerate the successions of all the Churches in this volume, we will indicate above all those of the oldest and of all known, that of the Church founded and constituted in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, which from the Apostles it conserves the Tradition and faith announced to men by the successors of the Apostles who come to us ... It is necessary that any Church be in harmony with this Church, whose foundation is the most guaranteed - I mean all the faithful of any place-, because in it all who are everywhere have preserved the Apostolic Tradition ”(cfr: S. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, third book, part one) “In addition, within the ecclesiastical communion, there are legitimately private Churches, which enjoy their own traditions, the primacy of the Chair of Peter remaining unchanging, presiding over the universal assembly of charity [25], protecting legitimate differences and simultaneously ensuring that divergences serve the unit instead of damaging it ”(Lumen Gentium 13). We could spend hours about this topic. Very Interesting!

Yes, the Pope of Rome was known as tge Patriarchat of the West. It's ironic that he dropped the title patriarch as it one of the few titles that the Orthodox accepted, unlike say "Vicar of Christ" (which is impossible and unnecessary). (Impossible because no man can take the place or authority of Christ; unnecessary because Christ is present with and in His Church.)

"Pope" is derived from papa, "father." It and "patriarch" are synonyms. But the Pope of Rome wasn't the only pope. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is formally referred to as the "Pope of Alexandria." (So is the Coptic Patriarch.) And yes, before the Great Schism, the Pope of Rome was the Patriarch of the West (the other four patriarchates were in the East). After the Schism, and especially after the diastrous Council of Florence, the Orthodox Church has regarded the Roman See-the Western Patriarchate-as _sede vacante_ (a "vacant seat"), since the titular Pope of Rome has apostatized, no longer follows in the Apostolic Tradition, and has introduced countless heresies and innovations in the West.

@@rodrigoguzman8437 thank you for that very thorough answer! A lot to think about.

@@HickoryDickory86 thank you, and yes, I think you are right about the Catholic Church mutating over time. As the pagans of Europe were being converted, it seems the Catholic Church added some of their Paganism. Seems like there are other forms paganism as well. And doctrines that are unorthodox.

How do you know how those churches looked? We think we know how they looked, because we are interpreting scripture with our modern ideas, and conforming scripture to our worldview. I would make the argument that those churches do not look more like the earliest form of Christianity.

The early Church was liturgical in nature, its service having been modeled by the first Christians, who were Jewish, after the Jewish services in the synagogue. See Father Thomas Hopko on this; his is the best explanation I've seen:kzfaq.info/get/bejne/asiEedVznMfYfoE.html Also, Justin Martyr (150 AD) describes early church services as Eucharistic-that is, the Eucharist was the culmination and center of every service. He also reports that the early Christians regarded the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ rather than a symbol.

👆💯

smontelongo013 ......in reply.... the division had left are wound in the soul of the Roman Catholic Church .... and we Catholics cannot wait to receive our Orthodox brothers and sisters to be one Church again. God will never make everything right.

smontelongo013 ......in reply.... the division had left are wound in the soul of the Roman Catholic Church .... and we Catholics cannot wait to receive our Orthodox brothers and sisters to be one Church again. God will never make everything right.

True, But Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us to forgive. This is in "The Lord Prayer". Throughout history; men, nations, the Church leader have made error. What's most importance is to recognize the errors that were done and having to guts to ask for forgiveness. Our Bless Pope John Paul II on May 5,2001 apologies to the Eastern Orthodox for the crimes committed by the Church during the 13th century Crusaders. The apology was accepted by His All Holiness Bartholomew I. Once again the Roman Catholic Church is trying to work with our Orthodox brother to become one Only Church. Let us be at peace as brother in Christ, work on uniting our faith and look at the richness both our churches have and stop looking at want dived us .

Forgiveness is given to those who want to be forgiven. Repent and rejoin the Church. I understand this is not so easy if you are born and raised in heresy (through no direct fault of your own), but what is impossible for human beings, is possible for our Lord Jesus Christ.

I understand your anger, but you cant erase the past. True the Orthodox Church will never forget what the Roman Church did. But once again the Roman Church is training to repair it damages and unite with the Orthodox Churches. If look at Vatican II the Eastern Church was invited to take part in these counsel. On very important Church celebration, should as Canonization of Saint and other celebrations, the Gospel is proclaimed in both Latin and Greek. I understand resentment of the Orthodox Church may have toward the Roman Church. But we most go on working hand by hand. An example of this forgiveness if Japan, as you know the US dropped two nuclear bombs that totally destroyed a city, killed million and some were vaporize. Today Japan hold no hard feeling toward the US. True they don't forget what happen, but the have move on and are working together. Some goes for the US with Peal Harbor. Let as Christina's we need to work together in the faith. The Catholic faith is being attacked by new ideas. Both West and Easter churches share the true roots of the catholic faith. And like in many families we might not agree on some issues, but we work together to find a solution. I have visited several Orthodox Churches and attended services. I really love the Orthodox churches and liturgy. What I love the most is how we are so I like. Some of the Icon you venerate, Roman Catholic venerate, the love for Mary (Theotokos). Lets work together

You don't even know history!!!!!

Are you stupid

MyGdoggy Orthodoxy is Truth.