Άντιpacman🪽

@MasterPShredder @needGod_net What's more important, being nice or the truth?

@doth4580 @needGod_net That's not nice

It's ironic seeing the comments from Catholics & Orthodox relying on their obedience to get them to heaven and yet being disobedient in their behavior in how they treat others. Meanwhile, faith alone people are nicer and more obedient. It’s almost as if trusting fully in God’s grace actually transforms the heart.

Man what are you doing exactly? Your are a recent CONVERT. Sit down humbly and quietly at the back of the Church, and LEARN. You know nothing yet. NOTHING. You don't know what to promote and what should should not. You are not able to do it properly. Drop the Orthodox Youtube video making. Make videos about your hobbies or something. But not Orthodoxy. You are putting people in spiritual danger.

New episode just dropped. Abbot Nicanor of Tsarnogorsky Monastery in Bulgaria has objections to the glorification of Seraphim Rose. Find out what they are by watching the video in the link below. 👇

@AL_J82 Oh really? What does "this is my blood" mean?

As protestants, we read and know more about what the Bible says than those who claim their church gave it to us.

@needGod_net Nobody other than protestants think that. What?

Thinking God will only keep loving you and accepting you based on your obedience to him won’t create much love for God. But knowing God loves you and accepts you despite your failings, because of the work of Christ, creates great love for God.

@cottman11918 @JayDyer And shills

Almost every single catechuman (of which there are many) that I've spoken to at my small parish have been influenced by @JayDyer. People that are trying to take him down fall into 3 categories: subversives, fools, or heretical enemies of the Church.

@kennythefed I do not believe you are capable of making that determination.

@doth4580 there are 20 orthobros in this comment section allone arguing these claims as true

the Orthodox church claims that their institution IS Jesus Christ. they boldly state that they hold the keys to salvation. this is a false gospel. Jesus is alive, and he’s not your corporation of wizard larp daddies.

As far as re-union goes in the context of the Pope and RC clergy in general: From the proper (I cannot believe I have to clarify this with an adjective) Orthodox point of view, the Pope is not presently a canonical bishop of the Orthodox Church. He is not a hierarch of the Church, not in communion with the Church, and not a confessor of the Orthodox faith. Therefore, in a true reunion on Orthodox terms, the Pope (and all RC clergy by extension) could not simply continue as though the modern Roman papal office were already an Orthodox office. He would first have to renounce the Roman errors that separate Rome from Orthodoxy: papal supremacy, papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I, the Filioque, and any other doctrines incompatible with the Orthodox faith. He'd probably have to do this publicly in a very visible way so that the ex-papist world would know. He would then have to be received into the Orthodox Church according to the canonical judgment of the Church. Depending on how the Church judged the matter, that reception could theoretically involve baptism, chrismation, confession of faith, vesting, ordination, or some other canonical act of reception. The exact mode would not be for Rome to dictate. It would belong to the Orthodox Church to determine. Only after that could the question of his ecclesiastical status be addressed. If he were to be recognized as Bishop of Rome within Orthodoxy, he would not be “Pope” in the modern Roman Catholic sense. He would be the Orthodox Bishop of Rome, possibly restored as Patriarch of the West and possibly if the Church decides to make it so, first in honor among the patriarchs as it was in the past. But that would be a fundamentally different office from the Vatican I papacy. He would not possess universal jurisdiction over all bishops. He would not be the supreme earthly head of the Church. He would not be the source of episcopal authority. He would not be personally infallible in defining dogma apart from the Church. He would not stand above an Ecumenical Council. He could be first in honor, but not supreme in power.

Was my answer confusing to you? Can the Pope, as a bishop, show the laying of hands since the Apostles? Yes, that is apostolic succession. Is the Pope in communion with the Orthodox Church? No. I said these two things plainly. One needs both to be fully canonical (within the rules). I kept it a short answer. Apparently that doesn’t work with you, as you seek to twist and corrupt to your own ends. I also gave you a separate example, Patriarch Kirill, the Patriarch of Russia. He is not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church at the moment. Was he properly and canonically ordained? Yes, but he is out of communion on the basis of his actions. Your question doesn’t merit a simple “no” answer, as it is more complex than that. Shame on you for your wicked intentions here. You know in your heart how you are straying currently.

Ah, but what has he converted them to? Because it certainly isn’t Orthodoxy.

Let us remove your smoke and mirrors: For the Roman Pope: Is the Pope in communion with the Orthodox Church? No. Does he confess the Orthodox faith? No. Does he preside over a local Orthodox Church? No. Is he recognized by the Orthodox Church as a canonical Orthodox hierarch? No. Therefore, is he a canonical bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church? No. For Patriarch Kirill: Is Patriarch Kirill in communion with the Orthodox Church generally? Yes. He remains in communion with much of the Orthodox world, even though communion with some Orthodox Churches is impaired or broken. Does he confess the Orthodox faith? Yes. Does he preside over a local Orthodox Church? es. He presides over the Russian Orthodox Church. Is he recognized by the Orthodox Church as a canonical Orthodox hierarch? Yes, though disputed or rejected by some in relation to specific intra-Orthodox conflicts. Therefore, is he a canonical bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church? Yes, unless one is speaking from the perspective of a particular Orthodox jurisdiction that has broken communion with him or rejects his actions. That is the difference. The Pope is outside Orthodoxy as the head of a non-Orthodox religious community. Kirill is inside Orthodoxy, but involved in an intra-Orthodox rupture or dispute. The faithful can switch and go back and forth to the Russian Church. There is however NO Orthodox Bishop who in their right mind would ever say it's ok to switch between any orthodox Church and a Papist religious community. Those are not the same thing. They never were, since the Schism.

You are collapsing two separate categories of things. No, the Roman Pope is not a canonical bishop in the Orthodox Church. At most, one may say: “Orthodox theologians disagree about how to describe Roman Catholic orders sacramentally.” But even if someone were to take the most generous possible view of Roman Catholic ordinations, that still would not make the Pope a canonical bishop. Validity and canonicity are not the same thing. A suspended Orthodox priest may still have valid ordination, but he is not canonically functioning. A schismatic bishop may have received an ordination rite, but he is not thereby a canonical bishop of the Church. Likewise, the Pope may claim apostolic succession, but he does not thereby possess canonical episcopal authority inside Orthodoxy. This is the fatal flaw in your answer: you smuggle in Roman Catholic categories, call them “apostolic succession,” and then pretend that this equals Orthodox canonicity. It does not. From the Orthodox point of view, episcopacy is not magic hands plus historical lineage. Episcopacy is inseparable from the Orthodox faith, the Eucharistic communion of the Church, and canonical recognition by the Church. Remove those, and you no longer have a canonical Orthodox bishop. You have, at best, a separated normative but not real "hierarch" of a heterodox communion.

@doth4580 @EthanWayne2001 The Pope is canonical in the sense of apostolic succession and χειροτονία. The Pope is not canonical in the sense of being in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. It’s sort of like Patriarch Kirill not being in communion now, but is properly ordained.

@InvaderbugGames @Acts17David Jesus Has indeed given us enough ans continues to give enough. But you keep denying what He has to offer. He did NOT only offer the 66 books of the Bible. That’s your problem. You have arbitrarily decided that the 66 books is everything that was offered by Jesus Christ.

@doth4580 @Acts17David I disagree that the answers are diametrically opposed. God may be present in it via spirit, body, both, or neither, we can't know yet. No ramifications we spoken by Jesus or the disciples besides taking it improperly. I trust Jesus has given us enough, certainty isn't necessary.

Three questions for Orthodox Christians: (1) Who would you recommend for a livestream laying out the POSITIVE CASE for the Eastern Orthodox Church being the True Church? (I mean someone who would actually do an effective livestream about this, not someone too busy or too annoying.) (2) What video/lecture (20-60 minutes) do you think does the best job laying out the positive case for the Eastern Orthodox Church being the True Church? (3) What book (preferably 150-200 pages, classic or modern) do you think lays out the strongest case for the Eastern Orthodox Church being the True Church?

@InvaderbugGames @Acts17David What? So tou think that This: “this ia my body” is literal ans this: “this is my body” is symbolic are NOT direct contradictions?

@JustinTime82313 Your avoiding to answer this simple question reveals the issue here.

@doth4580 I’m not paid by anyone except for the U.S. treasury. Forgive me for trying to educate a young convert who still carries much of his Protestant falsehoods with him. What do you get out of posts such as this? Does it make you feel important, strong or emotionally superior?

Shill alert

@JustinTime82313 Dude I am not a convert. I am cradle. I am 50+ AND I AM NOT A US CITIZEN. Can you please answer the question: Is the Roman Pope a canonical bishop to the Eastern Orthodox? Is he? Tell me please.

I can. The fact that they do, does not make it correct though. What the Church is, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. More specifically the idea of the Church in protestantism is as fluid as required so it incorporates whoever it suits, depending on the person. You likely though distinguish the church into the Invisible church which is the true christians united through time by faith, and the visible ble church which is the various congregations of believers and where they preach, read the gospel, baptize etc locally around the world. Again, these types of definitions are extremely lacking, and this can be shown by simply asking for the definition of various things, which leads to irreconcilable differences or total absurdity

@doth4580 @Acts17David Protestants have a different understanding of church altogether Can you steel man the position?

I do not want to focus currently on what the competing opinions are about this. I am stating with this, that 1) The answers ate diametrically opposite 2) The ramifications of the interpretation are not just big or massive; they are infinitely important. Thus to know which of the interpretations is true, is infinitely important. Is it not? If you agree, how can someone have certainty on this infinitely important question?

@doth4580 @Acts17David There are good arguments from both of those who believe His statement is metaphorical or literal. Jesus says we should do it in remembrance, and as Paul says later, we should do it in right conscience. If we needed to know the full truth instead of just obeying, Jesus would say.

@JustinTime82313 @EthanWayne2001 I have nothing to say to your type. You are either naive or not what you seem to be. Answer me this question. For the Eastern Orthodox, today, is the current Roman Pope a canonical bishop? Explain your answer

Whoa, that’s a very bold statement. Do you seem to think ecumenism is evil or heretical? It is the act of restoring a household. The intentions of it are to end the schism by bringing others back to orthodoxy, not compromising orthodoxy. This is a noble effort. Last century, there was a liberal movement called ecumenism that sought to merge all Christian denominations into a universal church that discarded tradition for the sake of unity. It’s important to recognize the distinction. The picture he has is of the former Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope ending the anathemas against one another and beginning dialogue on how communion could one day be restored. Never did that patriarch or any other seek to abandon Holy Orthodoxy. Such a picture should give you hope and inspiration and not dread and disdain.

@SophiscNews @Acts17David Are you saying that protestants as we know them today did not exist in the first millennium. If you are, you should understand why any protestant so called church cannot be the church mentioned in scripture and refered to in history

@doth4580 @Acts17David You said once people understand the lack of Protestants in the first millennium… How could there be Protestants before Martin Luther?