HS-Baptism & AI

[PAC-fit]

Orthodox Priest on the Possible Expanse of Unity

[Concerning primarily Orthodox]"I Will begin, since so many seem to wonder about what Orthodoxy thinks of "others," we should begin there. Every Sunday, Orthodox Christians pray for "all mankind and everything." Why? One 14th century saint of the Orthodox Church puts it quite succinctly: "We are all brethren in that we have One Creator and Lord, who is Father to us all. That brotherhood we share with animals and inanimate nature.

We are also brethren one to another as descendants of one earthly father, Adam, and the creatures solely made in God's image, which is common to all nations. More especially we are brethren in that we are of the same people and abide in the same house, and, above all else, we share one Mother, the Holy Church, and the true Faith, the Author and Finisher of which is Christ, the rightful Son of God. Not only is He our God He was well-pleased to be Our Brother, our Father and our Head, bringing us all together into one Body and making us members Of one another and Of Himself" (St. Gregory of Thessalonica, 14th c. [aka St. Gregory Palamas] Homily I; Christou v .9; cf Engvar.Veniamin v. I).

This reminds us of the words of Scripture through the mouth of St. Paul: "do good to all people, especially (malista.de) to those of the Household of the Faith (Gr. tis Pisteos)." Notice in the Greek it does not say "the household of faith" but rather "the household of the Faith" With a definite article.

Of itself, apparent membership in the Church produces no advantage, but only the fruitful life of a true member of the Body, and more particularly one who abides in Christ and Christ in Him. In the words of St. Augustine: "How man sheep there are without and how man wolves Within!" (Hom. John 14.12). For there could be one who is outwardly not united to the Church, yet makes more legitimate use of the things of the Church than one who might be a member of the Church but does not fulfill his or her Baptism and does not live the Christian life. Therefore, which one of these looks to the Apostolic Church as his Mother?

The late Professor Jaroslav Pelikan. who was an eminent Lutheran theologian for decades, died a member of the Orthodox Church. Yet man said of him "he was really always Orthodox, and only had to be added to our number. How could this be? One forth century saintly Archbishop said the following of father at his funeral: "Even before he was in our fold, he was ours, for his character made him ours, as it were, by adoption. Just as man of 'our own’ are not really with us, since their way of life alienates them from the common body, so too there are many on the outside who are really with us, since their way of life anticipates their faith, and they need only the name Christian to add to their good works" (St. Gregory the Theologian, 4th c. Oration on the Death Of His Father, 5-13)."

 

[Eli1]

Thanks for sharing all of this.

On post 39 he talks about that culture shock I mentioned earlier and I like the fact where he says that not only the answers are different but the questions are different too.
I have mentioned this quite a few times during my time in this forum.
I don’t have anything else to add to that post since it’s a nice history lesson.

On post 40 I agree with the first half again and he is talking about original sin there which is the state we find ourselves in, separated from God physically.
But on the second half when he talks about unity and dropping the “baggage” I think that’s a tall order and that’s the cultural shock I mentioned earlier.
It’s not going to be easy for anyone who’s born and raised in any part of the western world, to walk into an Orthodox Church and then be “cool” about it.
This is the reality of the situation.

In post 41 I agree again and yes that’s what we do on the liturgy not just Sundays but 3 other days of the week too, Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
In there he also makes a distinction between Casual Christians and more dedicated Christians in the church.
And he makes the point with that Lutheran who was more spiritual inclined and aligned more with orthodoxy.
I have said this and will say it again, I am surprised how much southern Baptists align with Eastern orthodoxy.
But I don’t find unity just there as I said, I find unity in all views.
In 10 people you will always find one or two who are edifying and knowledgeable about their faith.
I even found interesting views from a Mormon on another forum and I know that Mormons are very controversial in Protestant circles, just like Catholics but the thing is, unless you talk to someone, don’t assume what they believe and I never make that mistake and would like to treat everyone as an individual before assuming them to a group.
Some people don’t like to be assigned to a group and although I find this a bit funny I try not to engage them on that despite being a bit oblivious.

For example I identify primarily as east orthodox because that’s where I’ve gotten my teachings. So that's my group.
But when a Catholic, Mormon or Calvinist doesn’t want to identify as any of those groups while having talking points specifically from those groups this is a bit funny and even more difficult to seek the unity that the priest is saying.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it’s a duck.
That’s why we have words so we can understand each other.
I always ask where people are from during discussions because by knowing just that , you know about 50% of what a person may believe based on culture.
Then you find the rest of the details as you ask them.

I think that unity as this priest is asking it, is more about knowledge of history and maybe some knowledge of liturgy according to the Orthodox Church but the second part is very hard due to cultural differences and the first part may even be ignored even when I show this picture from time to time during discussions.

 

[PAC-fit]

Thanks for sharing all of this.

On post 39 he talks about that culture shock I mentioned earlier and I like the fact where he says that not only the answers are different but the questions are different too.
I have mentioned this quite a few times during my time in this forum.
I don’t have anything else to add to that post since it’s a nice history lesson.

On post 40 I agree with the first half again and he is talking about original sin there which is the state we find ourselves in, separated from God physically.
But on the second half when he talks about unity and dropping the “baggage” I think that’s a tall order and that’s the cultural shock I mentioned earlier.
It’s not going to be easy for anyone who’s born and raised in any part of the western world, to walk into an Orthodox Church and then be “cool” about it.
This is the reality of the situation.

In post 41 I agree again and yes that’s what we do on the liturgy not just Sundays but 3 other days of the week too, Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
In there he also makes a distinction between Casual Christians and more dedicated Christians in the church.
And he makes the point with that Lutheran who was more spiritual inclined and aligned more with orthodoxy.
I have said this and will say it again, I am surprised how much southern Baptists align with Eastern orthodoxy.
But I don’t find unity just there as I said, I find unity in all views.
In 10 people you will always find one or two who are edifying and knowledgeable about their faith.
I even found interesting views from a Mormon on another forum and I know that Mormons are very controversial in Protestant circles, just like Catholics but the thing is, unless you talk to someone, don’t assume what they believe and I never make that mistake and would like to treat everyone as an individual before assuming them to a group.
Some people don’t like to be assigned to a group and although I find this a bit funny I try not to engage them on that despite being a bit oblivious.

For example I identify primarily as east orthodox because that’s where I’ve gotten my teachings. So that's my group.
But when a Catholic, Mormon or Calvinist doesn’t want to identify as any of those groups while having talking points specifically from those groups this is a bit funny and even more difficult to seek the unity that the priest is saying.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it’s a duck.
That’s why we have words so we can understand each other.
I always ask where people are from during discussions because by knowing just that , you know about 50% of what a person may believe based on culture.
Then you find the rest of the details as you ask them.

I think that unity as this priest is asking it, is more about knowledge of history and maybe some knowledge of liturgy according to the Orthodox Church but the second part is very hard due to cultural differences and the first part may even be ignored even when I show this picture from time to time during discussions.

View attachment 273760

Okay, so right off your carrying a bit-of an edge over quite a portion of mine just as he was back then Historically and otherwise. Still, so few wish to ascribe a point wherein the ''wolves'' (Acts 20:29) entered? Which would carry quite a load of implications for authenticism.

Love the chart, got a book of them myself but I don't recall that specific one!

If you like, I do have considerably more content of his to post?

 

[Eli1]

Okay, so right off your carrying a bit-of an edge over quite a portion of mine just as he was back then Historically and otherwise. Still, so few wish to ascribe a point wherein the ''wolves'' (Acts 20:29) entered? Which would carry quite a load of implications for authenticism.

Love the chart, got a book of them myself but I don't recall that specific one!

If you like, I do have considerably more content of his to post?

Let me answer the ACT verse first.
The Orthodox church is not perfect. I have also mentioned that many times before here in the forums.
For example the head priest of the Orthodox church in Russia blessed Putin's wars and tanks before the conflict with Ukraine started.
Many other churches in the East told him to withdraw from this position but he didn't listen.
So in that case we are dealing with a politician like the Pope, not a man who serves God first.
I gave you this example because there are many people like him in the orthodox church. That's why the church is no different than a Protestant church when it comes to the types of people you'd find in any group.

So with that being said, in ACTS Paul tells that that some leaders will be like wolves. To me after being in different churches during the years, this is pretty obvious.

What does the priest preach?
Politics? That's a red flag.
Condemnation? That's a red flag
Fear? That's a red flag.
Judgment? That's a red flag

These are some of the flags but there are more depending on the conversation.
Does he preach the message of Christ which is forgiveness and peace? If yes, you're in a good group.
This also ties to the "edge" that you mentioned. The "edge" is simply an edge from other groups which is reflected in the response, as well as my direct communication style which is part of my culture. This communication style also exists in many Americans too.
This is why i love Trump, because he's very direct and short in his answers.


Please send any content from him and feel free to ask me any questions.
I will never avoid answers here and i've always answered very shortly sometimes with a simple Yes or a No. And i can explain the reasons why it's a Yes or a No.

God bless and thank you for considering this discussion about the Orthodox church.

 

[PAC-fit]

Let me answer the ACT verse first.
The Orthodox church is not perfect. I have also mentioned that many times before here in the forums.
For example the head priest of the Orthodox church in Russia blessed Putin's wars and tanks before the conflict with Ukraine started.
Many other churches in the East told him to withdraw from this position but he didn't listen.
So in that case we are dealing with a politician like the Pope, not a man who serves God first.
I gave you this example because there are many people like him in the orthodox church. That's why the church is no different than a Protestant church when it comes to the types of people you'd find in any group.

So with that being said, in ACTS Paul tells that that some leaders will be like wolves. To me after being in different churches during the years, this is pretty obvious.

What does the priest preach?
Politics? That's a red flag.
Condemnation? That's a red flag
Fear? That's a red flag.
Judgment? That's a red flag

These are some of the flags but there are more depending on the conversation.
Does he preach the message of Christ which is forgiveness and peace? If yes, you're in a good group.
This also ties to the "edge" that you mentioned. The "edge" is simply an edge from other groups which is reflected in the response, as well as my direct communication style which is part of my culture. This communication style also exists in many Americans too.
This is why i love Trump, because he's very direct and short in his answers.


Please send any content from him and feel free to ask me any questions.
I will never avoid answers here and i've always answered very shortly sometimes with a simple Yes or a No. And i can explain the reasons why it's a Yes or a No.

God bless and thank you for considering this discussion about the Orthodox church.

Really, which begs the question, does all the Orthodox network of nationalities derive the same level of scholastic wieght?

One thing I agree with him on for efforts of rebuilding alliances when he said,

''In order to reverse the divisions of the past, we have to not look at creating a new thing, but on getting back to the well-founded thing that existed right from the beginning. The only way to do that is to look honestly at the newly created doctrines of the past several centuries invented by individuals, ,''

But, I recall you saying denominations aren't the problem. Think I can relate to that. Now, If we were to apply his formula to the heads-up of Acts' 'wolves', a point in time taking on the role of an accuser than a restorer, maybe, with your example of the RO Priest, I take it, you don't feel Paul's use of the wording; '', , not sparing the flock'' was not all that widespread?

 

[Eli1]

Really, which begs the question, does all the Orthodox network of nationalities derive the same level of scholastic wieght?

They don't actually.
I have found that the ones involved in missionary work are the ones who are the most knowledgeable in terms of their understanding of scripture because all of them go to a special school before becoming a priest.
But after school they are usually under the guidance of a senior priest who teaches them further in the church and church affairs for years.
Missionaries however seem to be more "lean" of church politics and are usually on 'sacrificial' mode where they sacrifice comfort for a very harsh place where their lives are in danger simply because they are led by the Spirit.

But, I recall you saying denominations aren't the problem. Think I can relate to that. Now, If we were to apply his formula to the heads-up of Acts' 'wolves', a point in time taking on the role of an accuser than a restorer, maybe, with your example of the RO Priest, I take it, you don't feel Paul's use of the wording; '', , not sparing the flock'' was not all that widespread?

I am sorry but i don't understand this my friend.
If you recall, another member joked about your writing style and i think she's a native born American so i don't think it's an issue with my understanding of English being a second language after all.
Could you please try to rephrase this so i can understand you better?

Thank you.

 

[PAC-fit]

Could you please try to rephrase this so i can understand you better?

Sure, per my whittled down statement over Paul’s forecast:

For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves
will come in among you, not sparing the flock. (Acts 20:29)​

, , if I read your response correctly, you don’t feel this damage he spoke of the Church sustaining, would come upon her as a flood, so much to be strong enough to offset Church traditions, succession of oversight, corrupt certain councils? But rather as a series of lesser attacks throughout the ages?

 

[PAC-fit]

Orthodox Priest on the Possible Expanse of Unity

[Concerning primarily Orthodox, cont.] Father George Florovsky speaks of the "mystical territory" of the Church extending beyond "her canonical borders." He describes certain bonds, such as "right belief, sincere devotion, the word of God, and above all the grace of God" Which are still unbroken, even though there is schism. Indeed, the Church recognizes that grace is required for one to be either brought or brought back to the Church in order for them to come back. This means that the grace is obviously operative outside the Church, although in various circumstances it is operative in distinct ways. For Father Florovsky there is something of God connecting every schismatic and heretical community with the life of the Church of God. What is valid in the sects, he says, is that which is in them from the Church. [Clapsis, Conversation p. 6.], such as a relationship with God throuqh prayer, throuqh Scripture. etc. As we shall see, this concept of "still belonqinq to the Church" after schism is not new, but was articulated bv St. Basil the Great in the 4th century.

They [the ancients] have distinguished among heresy schism and para-congregations. A heretic is one who has completely broken off [from the Church] and has become estranged according to the faith. A schismatic is one who has become a dissident because of some church (ecclesiastical) issues and matters which can find healing. Para-congregations [Gr. parasynagogou] are the gatherings of insubordinate presbyters or bishops, or those perpetrated by uneducated people...Thus, from the very beginning, it seemed good to our predecessors to totally disregard the baptism of heretics; but [it seemed good] to accept the baptisms of schismatics, for they still belong to the Church. (Canons of St. Basil, ratified by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils)

Thus, St. Basil, and the Ecumenical councils recognize a difference between one who has severed off all ties by embracing full heresy, and one that is outside at a given time but is still attached by common threads or things of the Church (common threads being accepting Jesus as truly Christ, the Son of God, by accepting Him as Lord and Savior, having the Lord in one's life through Prayer, Scripture, etc.—thus, even unbeknownst to the individual, still maintaining fellowship with the saints of both small and big "s" variety), where the rest can find "healing."

But, furthermore, the Orthodox Church recognizes a difference between a person who creates a division of any type, and the multitudes who simply happen to find themselves, generations later, in a group which was created by one of these individuals. This is, again because it sees the human individual first and foremost as a person, rather than as "part of a group. In fact, the 102nd canon of the 6th Ecumenical council expressly states that, although we have gene standards, the personal situation of each must be

taken into consideration by the pastor. Perhaps the most "conservative" theologian of the 20th century, Metropolitan Philaret Nikolaevich, responds to the question, "Will those who are not Orthodox be saved?" first by responding that those who knowingly and willfully pervert the truth and sever the Church from within, lead others astray, or seek to destroy it, are at the mercy of God. But he continues:

"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members of other non-orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics (i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth)... They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment Of personal and conscious renunciation Of orthodoxy. The Lord, 'Who Will have all men to be saved' (I Tim. 2:4) and 'Who enlightens every man born into the world' (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way."

 

[PAC-fit]

Orthodox Priest on the Possible Expanse of Unity

[Concerning primarily Orthodox, cont.] Fr. Michael Pomazansky, another very conservative Orthodoxy theologian of the 20th century wrote the following in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology regarding Christian confessions and sects which are not part of the Orthodox Church (p 244): "there is no reason to view these confessions and sects as on the same level with non-Christian religions. One cannot deny that the reading of the word of God has a beneficial influence upon everyone Who seeks in it instruction and strengthening of faith, and that devout reflection on God the Creator, the Provider and Saviour, has an elevating power there among Protestants also. We cannot say that their prayers are... fruitless if they come from a pure heart, for in every nation he that

feareth Him. . -is accepted With Him (Acts 10:35). The Omnipresent Good Provider God is over thern, and they are not deprived of God's mercies. They help to restrain moral looseness, vices, and crimes; and they oppose the spread of atheism" (p244).

The Orthodox Church even has canonized saints who weren't baptized! One saint is a muslim who, in the 16th century, was muezzin assigned to call the muslims to prayer that day, which happened to be Holy Saturday, in a tower near the Holy Sepulcher, and witnessed how the Ottoman Turks had banned the orthodox Christians from going into the Holy Sepulcher, and watched them for hours on Holy Saturday of that year standing outside praying to Christ in different languages, one of which was Arabic which he understood, and thereafter saw the miracle of the Holy Light and immediately declared "Jesus is Lord" repeatedly from the tower. He was baptized in His own blood by the muslims who ran a sword through him. The Lord makes it clear that “only those who persevere to the end" will be saved, according to Christ. The church fathers make it clear that many of those who are visibly members of it now who will fall away, and many who are not visibly members of it now who wlll be.

Bishop Timothy Ware, an orthodox bishop of England, states in the book The Orthodox Church: "The Spirit of God blows where it chooses and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is, there is the Church. We know where the Church is but we cannot be where it is not. This means, as Khomlakov Insists, that we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians: Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord appointed to appear at the final judgement of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits.... She does not judge the rest of humankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of humankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the great day."

We will thus close with another word from St. Augustine: "In the ineffable prescience of God, many who seem to be on the outside are in fact on the Inside, and many who seem to be on the inside are nevertheless In fact on the outside" (St. Augustine of Hippo, 5th c.: Bapt. 5.27.38). Prescience means foreknowledge, meaning that even though people may not at this moment be on the inside, because in His foreknowledge that they will be, they are already recorded In the Lamb’s book of life as members of Christ; likewise, many nominal members will-be removed with the tares, and so, though they are 'Inside' at thls time, they are really on the outside since they will not remain steadfast to the end, which no one knows but God alone, and therefore this is one of the things we cannot judge.

The Church is called to minister to those who have come to her and joined her as members and who now struggle. Whether they will remain steadfast to the end or not, only God knows. It is His job to be the eternal universal shepherd, It Is the bishop/presbyter's job to be the temporal local shepherd. The Orthodox Church does not espouse the so-called branch theory (that idea there are really no divisions and that all are lust distinct branches on the same tree), nor does It espouse denominationalism (that it is ok to be "separate but different"), but it does reckon severances which can be healed. It recognizes the fullness of the Body of Christ as

that which partakes of the 30dy of Christ in the unity of the Faith. I hope that this helps clarify the Orthodox position.

Emphasis mine, although the Priest liked to remind me that as a Protestant, I spoke out of ''obscurity''.

 

[Edify]

you know the unity in spirit thing that is something that has bugged me for a ehile now ypu wpi;d think if we all have the spirit in us then by that same spirit there would be unity in us mot division.

The simplicity is we are or we aren't. Those who claim they are & don't agree & fuss, aren't. You will know them by their fruit.

 

[Blain]

The simplicity is we are or we aren't. Those who claim they are & don't agree & fuss, aren't. You will know them by their fruit.

indeed and some just like to argue which is why some are here, I don't do pointless debates if the people will not listen to reason it is best to walk away instead of giving them what they want and just arguing even more.

But yeah the fruits are plain to see

 

[Eli1]

Sure, per my whittled down statement over Paul’s forecast:

For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves
will come in among you, not sparing the flock. (Acts 20:29)​

, , if I read your response correctly, you don’t feel this damage he spoke of the Church sustaining, would come upon her as a flood, so much to be strong enough to offset Church traditions, succession of oversight, corrupt certain councils? But rather as a series of lesser attacks throughout the ages?

Ah yes, that is correct I don’t think the wolves will be able to flood the churches everywhere on Earth because the ‘Gates of Hell shall not prevail over the church’ as Christ said.
And I already mentioned here and other topics in the past that I don’t see denominations as a problem.
The denominations have to adjust to the culture and time of every region on Earth.
I have mentioned in the past on how the icons look on an Orthodox Japanese church.
They have made Jesus and everyone else look like a Japanese person.
Now, we know and they know that Jesus was not Japanese but the fact that they paint Him this way it means that they want to make Him one of their own. So it means that they love Him and want to make Him one of their own.
That’s why I don’t see denominations as a problem. Not everyone is meant to be Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. A lot of that has to do with the culture. As our faith matures we may change some of these positions but in general your understanding is shaped by your church which is shaped by your culture.

This looks like also connects to post 48 where Fr. Florovsky says the same thing essentially, where God connects every schismatic and heretical community.

I don’t agree with the point of rejecting baptism of a heretic though, because if everyone repents there is no such thing as a heretic. Which means that they can get baptism.
Some of these details very from church to church in the Orthodox church and I was faced once with some Egyptian Orthodox Priests where they didn’t want to give me communion because I wasn’t Egyptian. Lol
They mean well, but are a bit entrenched in traditions which is a hallmark of the Orthodox church.

Also Metropolitan Nikolaevich is using the word “saved” in that post as a way to show unity because as a high Orthodox priest he should know that Theosis is the understanding of ‘Salvation’ or ‘How can we get to Heaven’ in the Orthodox Church. And the understanding of Theosis is that we leave our lives and souls in God’s hands. We are content with here and now to have been privileged to know Jesus Christ and to have known the Miracles of God throughout history.

Fr. Michael Pomazansky, seems to make the unity of the denominations even more clear to me especially when he said that even a Muslim is considered a Saint. When we see the Holy Spirit in a believer, we don’t see a Jew or a Gentile as the Bible/Paul says.

Bishop Timothy Ware is also saying the same thing and he’s more clear about refraining from passing judgment. I have mentioned that several times while being on this forum.

The priest who told you that you’re speaking out of “obscurity” as a Protestant may not have been very mature in his faith but forgive and move on. That’s what I do when I see disagreements. I find one point of agreement and forgive the rest.

Thank you for sharing all this and bringing up this topic.

 

[PAC-fit]

And I already mentioned here and other topics in the past, ,

Are you annoyed with something as you repeatedly mention your past involvement, several times?

I don’t see denominations as a problem.

Well, I can't deny if we all went along with that you would have fit right in with the commonwealth of Paul's time. But where does that lead us except to just surrender to another ''wrinkle'' (Eph 5:27)

I was faced once with some Egyptian Orthodox Priests where they didn’t want to give me communion because I wasn’t Egyptian.

Right off, a baseless protocol. We have an enormous EO a few miles e/o here and I found out they only offer communion upon being a member. I have come to the point of seeing MORE of that side of the issue than ignoring, 'guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord'. But when Paul was face with cultural shifts, he didn't fold (1Cor 7:2).

Fr. Michael Pomazansky, seems to make the unity of the denominations even more clear to me especially when he said that even a Muslim is considered a Saint. When we see the Holy Spirit in a believer, we don’t see a Jew or a Gentile as the Bible/Paul says.

Ha! Seems you are attempting an unsavory
mix here; one needing to renounce the hidden works of darkness, while the other in agreement of Christs' universal inclusion??

Also Metropolitan Nikolaevich is using the word “saved” in that post as a way to show unity because as a high Orthodox priest he should know that Theosis is the understanding of ‘Salvation’ or ‘How can we get to Heaven’ in the Orthodox Church. And the understanding of Theosis is that we leave our lives and souls in God’s hands. We are content with here and now to have been privileged to know Jesus Christ and to have known the Miracles of God throughout history.

Is a degree in Greek commonplace for an Orthodox priest?

 

[Eli1]

Are you annoyed with something as you repeatedly mention your past involvement, several times?

Yes, because it would be like talking to the wall.
I think many others would be annoyed if they repeated the same points and the others don’t give them a clear response based on what is said.

Well, I can't deny if we all went along with that you would have fit right in with the commonwealth of Paul's time. But where does that lead us except to just surrender to another ''wrinkle'' (Eph 5:27)

Right off, a baseless protocol. We have an enormous EO a few miles e/o here and I found out they only offer communion upon being a member. I have come to the point of seeing MORE of that side of the issue than ignoring, 'guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord'. But when Paul was face with cultural shifts, he didn't fold (1Cor 7:2).

Ephesians 5 can be seen as antiquated or patriarchal from our point of view today, but circling back on the mysteries of the Orthodox Church, Paul is interpreting Genesis 2:24 as a mystery not as a literal Jewish Law at his time.

In Ephesians 5 Paul is telling us how to live our lives in an outward manner, but the outward manner is driven and inspired by the Spirit so the submissions and perfections that he is taking about, should be seen as a matter of the heart to God first because we as people being raised in different cultures, we may come across as offensive to each other while in your heart you have nothing but good intent.
But a word or a body language that’s common in your culture is pretty offensive in another culture.
This is a fact.

And then the follow up question from you maybe might be: so what happens when people break these rules? Do they go to Hell?

With this question we immediately went to the topic of Salvation again, and in our church we leave judgment up to God when we will face Him for our sins and hope for His mercy for all the good things that we did too, or things that we think are good but may not be very good in the eyes of God.
So we literally leave judgment up to Him.
We’re not capable of judging billions of people that have ever lived. We are not gods.

This also ties to 1 Corinthians 7.

For example in the West , anyone who becomes a monk is seen as someone who “works” for the Catholic Church.
How would you change this mindset? Because I think it’s impossible to change it.

Because a Protestant might say: Oh but God told me to multiply .
And then an orthodox monk might even use verses from Paul to say: oh but the word of God says that you need to be celibate.

How do you reconcile this? And why would you want to make people look and walk the same when the Spirit is leading them where they should be?
Are you going to make these matters of the Jewish law or to use another word more appropriate for American culture, a matter of legalism?
This is why we have to accept certain points of agreements as opposed to splitting hairs reaching 100% agreement which is impossible.
This is also why we are created uniquely having (limited) free will to worship God in different unique ways as walk a life by the Spirit in us.
We are not an army of robots acting and walking exactly the same.

.
Ha! Seems you are attempting an unsavory
mix here; one needing to renounce the hidden works of darkness, while the other in agreement of Christs' universal inclusion??

I am not accepting the hidden works of the darkness, I am renouncing the ideas of trying to find 100% agreement and being like robots when we could be more “united” by being content with having 1 point of agreement as opposed to 10.

Do you see me bashing the Mormons?
Never have, never will.
But Protestants really hate them for some reason. They call them all kinds of names. A cult being one of them. Some even call the Catholic church a cult. Imagine that. Casting judgments for billions of people that live or ever lived because they don’t agree with your interpretations of the Bible.

And I also think that the American Baptist churches are pretty much Orthodox Churches but with a western/American version/interpretation.
As it should be! According to the culture and traditions here.

Is a degree in Greek commonplace for an Orthodox priest?

Yes a degree is usually required when becoming a priest in the Orthodox Church.
This also includes knowing the Greek language and Greek customs, as well as the Jewish language and customs.
The degree is usually obtained when they’re young, around their 20s and then they begin a lifelong mission of putting that in practice and learning more during their walk as a priest or as a missionary.

Thank you for the discussion brother!

 

[PAC-fit]

Yes a degree is usually required when becoming a priest in the Orthodox Church.
This also includes knowing the Greek language and Greek customs, as well as the Jewish language and customs.
The degree is usually obtained when they’re young, around their 20s and then they begin a lifelong mission of putting that in practice and learning more during their walk as a priest or as a missionary.

In respect to all the univ / seminary approach to ancient Greek, your 'low concern' over Denominations certainly does play a part there. Now I don't know about the training of Orthodox exposure to Gk accuracy, an aspect some independents know as ''stylistic approach'', well, as best as I can tell, when you finally come to the point of enquiring from the minister, ''How are you able to safeguard against the influences of bias?'', , as I sometimes do, it normally doesn't fair well due to denom-sensitivities. That nasty wrinkle of Ds.