Protestants and Papal Protestants must submit to the Holy Orthodox Church

That's not what this fine Russiaman ->

Uh-huh
thought

That's not what this fine Russiaman -> [...]
thought

?si=cnsFkGfMjGAtjX2q&t=1

> Andrew was martyred a long time ago. How exactly is he doing that?
Do you understand the transmission of apostolic authority through the laying on of the hands? Paul talks about it, same as he talks about the appointment of priests.

So you think the apostles appointed a bunch of people, and then those lineages just ended and from then on it became democratic for no reason? Seems implausible. Where do you get democracy out of the Bible?

Priests are assigned to parishes. In the ordination process, the newbie priests are presented to the congregation, symbolically representing the role of the community in affirming the ordination. But the bishop has the authority to assign, transfer, or reassign priests to parishes within his diocese.

I’m surprised you haven’t cited Acts 6:1-6 yet, it’s the only thing remotely democratic in the entire NT.

Why is it a straw man? That’s on you to explain. If congregations nominate their own leaders, as opposed to leaders being appointed by the apostles and their successors, to me that is democratic.
> You're also dodging my questions but it's alright
I already mentioned the community’s involvement in the approval of new priests. I’m not downplaying it, I think it’s important and biblical. Even a king needs the consent of his subjects.
> Where in the new testament do you find grounds to distinguish between presbyter and bishop?
The words are indeed used interchangeably, but the separate roles, the roles of overseer vs. overseer-of-overseers, are there. How priest came to mean the former and bishop came to mean the latter, I don’t know, quirk of history. But the distinction is in the Bible.
> Where do you find an office of bishop can assign and transfer presbyters around congregations? Where do you even find a bishop over multiple congregations?
“appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5)

> I'm saying that the elders rule at the consent of the congregation, not "democracy".
I already said that’s Orthodox as well. No disagreement on that simple point. The disagreement is in the idea of local autonomy. If the people are self-governing, that’s the definition of democracy.
> So what are you on about?
Consent of the congregation and top-down imposition are not at odds. I am “in about” your rejection of the top-down element, even though it’s right there in the Bible.
> Accretion
What are you saying is an accretion? The existence of a separate class of overseers meant to oversee the elders? No, that’s biblical.
> Like we said before the apostle isn't here to make those calls. If Paul showed up and told you to appoint elders you could do it too.
But that would violate congregational polity…

Is it democracy when UK can’t tell America what to do anymore? Yes. Congregationalism is not like Constantinople, it is like America. Constantinople is autonomous, but the patriarch of Constantinople comes on the authority of the apostles, because he is appointed by the church established by the same. If autonomy were all it took to be called Congregationalist, then the Eastern Orthodox Church is Congregationalist. It’s obviously not. Why? Because of what I just said.
> Over overseer is a foreign concept to the bible
Do Titus and Paul and all the apostles not all exhibit that role? How then is it foreign?
> What do you know about congregational polity?
If Titus came to your congregation and told you who your elder was going to be, that would violate the autonomy of your congregation, so you wouldn’t let him, because you are a congregationalist. Not rocket science.

Btw different anon

What is your point? The post you quoted isn’t in Congregationalism’s favour

When someone said it shouldn’t be democratic, you responded “Is that why we're given a list of the job requirements more than once in the epistles?” and posted a pic saying “in respect of the body or brotherhood of the church, and power from Christ granted unto them, it resembles a democracy”. You clearly believe that God wants democracy in His Kingdom, despite what the Bible teaches about church leaders making appointments which the people can either accept or reject (the Orthodox way)

You haven’t given a shred of evidence that “Congregationalist polity is actually the very easiest theological debate to win” and have ignored biblical evidence that contradicts it

>t. Most well catechised EO

Looks like a typo that's from a searchable proofread copy of the document.
The citations correspond to the correct passages in this copy

Whats unbiblical about the content?

>Especially since we Orthodox see you all as Latins anyways
If you think Mormons or JW are Latins you aren’t very educated at all.
Who catechised you may I ask? Because you are giving this dude (

[...]
the citation is orthodox Christians immediately punching you in the face when you disrespect jesus and catholics/protestants not doing shit

) a run for his money in terms of quality

>Russia has broken communion only with Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch.
They also broke communion with Alexandria, Greece & Cyprus.
>still commemorates Kirill so there are no two sides as far as non-Russians are concerned.
This is false, I can’t tell if your lying or ignorant.
https://spzh.news/en/amp-news/69743-decisions-of-aoc-synod-a-new-round-in-the-schism-of-world-orthodoxy
>On November 22, 2022, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria decided to suspend the commemoration of the name of Patriarch Kirill
In additional a schism is determined wether the parties are in full communion or not, not wether the parties pretend they are United
>A break in communion is known as schism, and may be brief or prolonged.
See (

>No it's not.
Yes it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow–Constantinople_schism
>To admit into communion schismatics and a person anathematized in other Local Church with all the 'bishops' and 'clergy' consecrated by him, the encroachment on somebody else's canonical regions, the attempt to abandon its own historical decisions and commitments – all this leads the Patriarchate of Constantinople beyond the canonical space and, to our great grief, makes it impossible for us to continue the Eucharistic community with its hierarch, clergy and laity. From now on until the Patriarchate of Constantinople's rejection of its anti-canonical decisions, it is impossible for all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to concelebrate with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople and for the laity to participate in sacraments administered in its churches.
https://mospat.ru/en/news/47059/
And “OrthodoxWiki” Defines schism as
>A break in communion is known as schism, and may be brief or prolonged.
Unironically who cares catechised you?

>The Orthodox church itself isn't schismed.
Well it’s not the “Orthodox” Church, but if it was, yes it would be.
>Or else there would be 2 Orthdox churches.
Which is the current case.
>It's more of a "fracture".
I’m sure they said that in 1056, it’s what we call “cope”.
>Because both Constantinople and Russia are in communion with common churches
Not only does that no mean the schism isn’t real but it creates an additonal problem for the anti-ecumenists because whoever is “right” within the EO schism you have a bunch of other churches in communion with both parties. This means whichever side is right both sides are guilty of ecumenism. That’s actually a major problem for those who oppose ecumanism because in their opposition of it they would invalidate their entire church.

)
You can deny all you want but it doesn’t change the facts everyone can see.

And also Old Believers are in communion

Only some Old Believers, there are still some denominations who still refuse to accept the reforms such as the Bezpopovtsy.

>Being in communion IS being one church
Okay so if the only way to be one church is to be in communion then we just loop back round to my original question,

>what do you mean
There are multiple church all who claim to be orthodox
See ([...] & [...])
Learn to use LULZ before you post here.

And your claim here (

Most of those you listed are one church though

) can be instantly ignored.
Now, my schismatic brethren, will you answer the question?

That’s a retarded argument and you know it.

we don't loop though.

Your entire premise is false. There are no multiple churches if they are in communion

I said most, not all. Besides both churches are in the process of reconciliation, away from the reach of heretics

- in communion
- in the process of reconciliation
- in communion
- in communion
- not in communion
- in communion
- not a thing, in communion

Sorry but you need to learn more

good

>Depending on the denomination
The remaining groups are a statistical error and will probably return to the one church soon.

>Cope and still doesn’t answer the question.
Absolutely true, see

>This is a lie, and after all the evidence I’ve previously posted I don’t think you can justify ignorance making this an intentional lie.
You are free to go back to check.

>Zero evidence for that. The monks of mount athos are firmly against any reconciliation. The Holy Roman & Apostlic Catholic Church has had more ecumenical dialogue with the OO church as of late.
That is a lie as well, the monks of the Esphigmenou aren't the only monks or Athos.

Evidence of small steps taken:

affirmation of faith: Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration
baptism from Eastern Orthodox Churches is recognised; recently, Roman Catholic, too: Apostolic Journey to Egypt: Courtesy visit to H.H. Pope Tawadros II (Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Cairo - 28 April 2017)
laymen cannot commune between the two churches. Officially, eastern orthodox and coptic orthodox signed an agreement not to allow conversion from one to another. Whilst this can have drawbacks, it is a prudent theological move. Thus receiving by chrismation is not possible, which only leaves a semi-formal statement of repentance, which may be frowned upon, depending on the bishop.
the content of the Divine Liturgy is identical, though local variations of Tradition may have seeped through, like any other Chalcedonian patriarchy. Antiochian services tend to be longer than the Russian or Greek Orthodox, and do include the office of the proskomedia.
Ask an Orthodox Priest Facebook public group, featuring both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian church priests.

>Objective lie, I am calling you to repentance.
You're confused, I've answered on the Assyrians above

>Finally an EO who admits there is a schism.
There is no schism.

>Objective lie. Again calling you to reprentance.
Old calendarists are not in communion.

>Who catechised you?
Not a Facebook user like they did with yourself.

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Orthodox_Church
>a church of 30 members with no communion to anyone is a thing
You forgot to list Pokemons as a church as well

>I can refute your entire position with a simple question.
>Yes or No, is the EO church officially in communion with the OO church.
>Yes or No?
>It’s a simple question yes or no?
>I await your 1 word answer.
No one claimed that. You-re debunking your own position now.

>Considering they have more ecumenical dialogue with the OO church then you do, I suggest you humble yourself.
An utterly destroyed claim, see

>This is a lie, and after all the evidence I’ve previously posted I don’t think you can justify ignorance making this an intentional lie.
You are free to go back to check.

>Zero evidence for that. The monks of mount athos are firmly against any reconciliation. The Holy Roman & Apostlic Catholic Church has had more ecumenical dialogue with the OO church as of late.
That is a lie as well, the monks of the Esphigmenou aren't the only monks or Athos.

Evidence of small steps taken:

affirmation of faith: Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration
baptism from Eastern Orthodox Churches is recognised; recently, Roman Catholic, too: Apostolic Journey to Egypt: Courtesy visit to H.H. Pope Tawadros II (Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Cairo - 28 April 2017)
laymen cannot commune between the two churches. Officially, eastern orthodox and coptic orthodox signed an agreement not to allow conversion from one to another. Whilst this can have drawbacks, it is a prudent theological move. Thus receiving by chrismation is not possible, which only leaves a semi-formal statement of repentance, which may be frowned upon, depending on the bishop.
the content of the Divine Liturgy is identical, though local variations of Tradition may have seeped through, like any other Chalcedonian patriarchy. Antiochian services tend to be longer than the Russian or Greek Orthodox, and do include the office of the proskomedia.
Ask an Orthodox Priest Facebook public group, featuring both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian church priests.

I've demonstrated that the most of the churches you listed are in communion. The only two that are acceptable are OO and Old Calendarists. You've even listed a movement which is not a church, showing your ignorance, just like when listing the Esphigmenou Monastery. I would call you on repentance, but you're too deep in heresy. Hopefully one day you will see the Uncreated Light

No, Western Rite shouldn’t be added to the list

Btw, while it’s a somewhat valid point, I don’t agree with your thesis

These churches are 95-99% overlap in terms of theology and liturgy, you can’t just ignore that

Also filioque is a theological innovation.

> It’s biblical, you are wrong
Just because Jesus sends the Spirit in the economy of salvation doesn’t mean the Spirit proceeds from God the Son eternally

The problem is that the verse does not imply that the Spirit proceeded from Jesus though

>“whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth WHO PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER…” (John 15:26)
This is the power of Western theology?

This argument ignores the difference between the Holy Spirit's Eternal Origin and His temporal coming into the world. The Holy Spirit was not "spirated" for the first time in the Upper Room, but exists eternally. Once this distinction is recognized it becomes clear that this passage speaks of the Holy Spirit's coming into the world (His temporal origin) and does not refer to His eternal, existential origin. This verse does, however, testify to the formula "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" because the Holy Spirit comes to us through the Lord Jesus Christ.

>Read the next sentence. He (the Spirit) proceeds from the Father
Read the prior sentence.
Along with Luke 24:49
& John 20:22.

>If filioque were true Jesus would have said “Who proceeds from me and the Father”
1) don’t declare what Christ would have said.
2) Argument from ignorance fallacy.
What if the Holy Spirit Proceeds through the Son?
What would have Christ, the incarnate word, said then.

>Sure
Absurd. The trinity doesn’t change its nature God is perfect actuality.

>Catholics are the ones backpedaling when they neuter the Filioque and say “He-He proceeds FROM the Father but THROUGH the Son”
Okay stop, please stop, Don’t do that, it’s intellectually dishonest and you know it.
I KNOW YOU KNOW IT
He proceeds FROM the Father AND THROUGH the Son or you can say “and the son” and it’s just as theologically correct”.

>So the original church got it wrong?
Anon, I……… are you insane? Legit question btw, do you know how dumb of a question that is.
Do you believe the Nicea-CONSTANTINOPLE (because they added to it later) had to cover 100% of theological matter or it’s invalid?? Because it’s missing info on icons if you didn’t notice.

Also please answer the question in my image here (

That’s a lie, you can see multiple verse “whom I shall send” or words to that effect.
*pic related*

[...]
>The Eastern Orthodox Church fully acknowledges that the Son sends the Spirit in time
Okay so now “Filiqoue in tempore” is perfectly licit??
You see why Catholics would find this backpedaling absurd.
Additionally to hold that position you would need to argue that the co-eternal unchanging persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit all changed their enteral unchanging relationship during the incarnation which I would argue is heretical because it denies God perfect actuality.

>John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father
>But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you
>Helper comes, whom I will send to
>whom I will send
That proves the filioque.

>And once more for good measure, the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed DID NOT CONTAIN the Filioque
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT IT DID, STOP HAVING AN IMAGINARY ARGUMENT, We are saying that
ITS
NOT
HERETICAL.

)

>So “from” and “through” mean the same thing now?
Did you get your genes from your parents? Or did you get your genes from the first non-cellar life on earth?

Differant anon but,
>Only my parents had my parents’ genes. Bad analogy.
He asked where did you get YOUR genes, bad answer.

> So you admit the Holy Spirit Proceeds through the Son?
Yep
> Will God send Seed to hell for saying what he said, answer honestly.
Separate question, not quite answerable, probably shouldn’t even be attempted to be answered

From and through are different words though. “From” talks about the origin and “through” talks about the flight path. It’s important to respect the eternal relationships of the trinity and not run roughshod over them with crude simplifications. Bless

>Elaborate?
Just Google “early Islamic expansion” if you want the details.

>Why?
Theologically their position is a lot stronger than the EO church and a lot more consistent.
The biggest one is they don’t affirm Palamism.
They avoid a lot of the autism of the later councils like the 6th, 7th & both of the 8th.
Avoid the autism of radical anti-filioquists.
And they currently aren’t in schism with each other.
From a personal standpoint they tend to be a long nicer, they are the Gold that has been refined in the furnace of Middle Eastern Persecution.

Got it

The Eastern Orthodox Church fully acknowledges that the Son sends the Spirit in time, especially in the context of the Incarnation and Pentecost. However, when it comes to the eternal relationships within the Trinity (the “processions”), they maintain that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
> John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”
And once more for good measure, the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed DID NOT CONTAIN the Filioque

It’s an untenable position in every way.

No, because there are examples from the OT where the Spirit comes from the Father directly. It is simply a bad hill to die on

This can only be true if you are saying that the Spirit cannot exist without the Son and therefore is below the Son and the Father, thus defying the whole concept of Trinity, which is a heretic position

>No. The Holy Spirit not the Father nor the Son exist or possible could exist without the other members of the Trinity, this is known.
You're implying that one member of the Trinity cannot exist without another specific member of the Trinity. That's a hierarchy among them

>Are you implying that the Holy Spirit is below the Father because it proceeds from him?
Only the Father is the Cause without Origin, this has been established so many times that it's not even funny.

Different anons

How can sola scripturas justify the trinity when its clearly just schizoid traditions

>Western Rite are fully Eastern Orthodox
What did my post say.
(

>Holy Orthodox Church
Which one?
Old Believer Orthodox?
Oriental Orthodox?
Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox?
Or Western Orthodox like the Celtic Orthodox Church?
Or “True” Orthodox?

)
>Or Western Orthodox like the Celtic Orthodox Church?
I made this CLEAR in my OP.

>Much less affirmed today
And EO who doesn’t affirm it I have no problem with. Those who do I ask that simple (but for some reason sensitive) question.
>To be fair, they are extremely minor numerically
I will actually agree with you there, but the EOs are the ones who constantly that size is irrelevant only theology.
>Why did Rome affirm it for the first 1,000 years then?
They affirmed the Nicea-Constantinople Creed. However nowhere in those 1000 years did they say “oh and saying and the son is heretical”.
>Anyone who thinks filioque is biblical
Which it is.
>is ignoring the economy of the trinity compared to the eternal relationship between the persons
Ok simple question is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Jesus Christ (The Son).
Yes or no?

Also you can refer to this (

1) you didn’t address my point. Which is intellectually dishonest. I address your point you should give the common courtesy.
2) It’s biblical, you are wrong.

) for my TLDR.

>This is a lie, and after all the evidence I’ve previously posted I don’t think you can justify ignorance making this an intentional lie.
You are free to go back to check.

>Zero evidence for that. The monks of mount athos are firmly against any reconciliation. The Holy Roman & Apostlic Catholic Church has had more ecumenical dialogue with the OO church as of late.
That is a lie as well, the monks of the Esphigmenou aren't the only monks or Athos.

Evidence of small steps taken:

affirmation of faith: Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration
baptism from Eastern Orthodox Churches is recognised; recently, Roman Catholic, too: Apostolic Journey to Egypt: Courtesy visit to H.H. Pope Tawadros II (Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Cairo - 28 April 2017)
laymen cannot commune between the two churches. Officially, eastern orthodox and coptic orthodox signed an agreement not to allow conversion from one to another. Whilst this can have drawbacks, it is a prudent theological move. Thus receiving by chrismation is not possible, which only leaves a semi-formal statement of repentance, which may be frowned upon, depending on the bishop.
the content of the Divine Liturgy is identical, though local variations of Tradition may have seeped through, like any other Chalcedonian patriarchy. Antiochian services tend to be longer than the Russian or Greek Orthodox, and do include the office of the proskomedia.
Ask an Orthodox Priest Facebook public group, featuring both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian church priests.

>So I’m assuming you are a LARPing ROCOR. So let’s look shall we.
Bada assumption.

>Old Believer Orthodox (let’s be fair and say Yes)
Thanks.

>Oriental Orthodox (NO)
>Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East (NO)
In process.

>Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism (This is you)
That is not me. Yes.

>Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism (NO)
Yes.

>Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (NO see people like the Matthewites).
No.

>Or Western Orthodox like the Celtic Orthodox Church (NO)
No, that's a book club.

>Or “True” Orthodox (NO).
Not a thing.

Hm. Seems like you need to learn more.

1) you didn’t address my point. Which is intellectually dishonest. I address your point you should give the common courtesy.
2) It’s biblical, you are wrong.

Jesus sends the Spirit coming from the Father (John 20:22) There's a reason why no one heard of filioque for first 8 centuries of CHristianity

Okay so you clearly aren’t a serious person.

we don't loop though.

Seriously, what's with the cosplay?
why they dress up like that?

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. I suggest you follow Israel a bit more closely. There were huge splits even among the Ashkenazim themselves