how so? the Vatican clarification on limbo seems to admit the orthodox points on that (though that is of course a change in doctrine, and they would still have to give up immaculate conception for example)
Rigid views such as yourself are probably a greater stumbling block. "Flee from discussions of dogma as from an unruly lion" St. Isaac the Syrian (Homily 17)
@@kais.1684 Original sin a later Augustine theological dogma, vs ancestral sin of Orthodoxy. This lead to other issues for Latin Franks regarding Mary. Further heresy of Immaculate Conception which actually robs Mary of her humanity. Rome making her the exception rather than the example... The original sin of Calvinism is very extreme. Not found in Judaism, Christian Orthodoxy, nor Islam. Fr. Panayiotis has two excellent videos on the subject of original sin. What is the Orthodox Perspective on Original Sin? th-cam.com/video/SRgPKrD31fU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=o0Ouhl3n0lkMR0CV Do Unbaptized Babies go to Hell? (Chrysostom, Augustine, and Original Sin) th-cam.com/video/ke4QJjMkVlQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=y232SED8S04zslcM
All authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Jesus Christ, just because we do not understand what is happening does not mean that his purposes are not being achieved. :)
The silence of the West after the Germanic invasions: these tribes had all adopted Arianism, meaning that the rulers of the West were opposed to the orthodox/catholic church. This persisted through 508 when the first Germanic leader, Clovis, was converted to Catholicism. In Italy Arianism persisted through the middle of 7th century and in Spain the beginning of the 8th century. This means that the rulers of the West largely opposed the Councils through the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553. Another historical point I would add: Charlemagne had himself crowned emperor in 800 in part because he claimed that the throne was empty, was currently usurped by a woman (Empress Irene). The 7th Ecumenical Council in 787 did not suffer from any defect in the eyes of people at that time because Irene had convoked it when she was merely regent for her son Constantine VI. Charlemagne therefore was not claiming to be emperor of the West but of the entire theoretical empire (then massively conquered by Islamic armies in both East and West). These political points may seem irrelevant but it is a fact of Church history that the Councils were convoked by the emperor in every case, starting with Constantine the Great in 325AD. The emperor therefore has a kind of sacramental role as protector of the Faith, Peacemaker and Shepherd. This can be seen in the term Melkite, which in the Levant designated "the Imperial Church" as opposed to others in the region (Miaphysite or Nestorian).
Your conclusion does not follow. Charlemagne never sought to be recognized as the sole ruler of the Roman empire, and actually accepted a much less grandiose title from the Byzantines.
@charlesiragui2473 your claim seems to be legitimate in so far as Charlemagne saw the throne as vacant and therefore when he assumed the title of Roman emperor he was seeking to establish or revive the throne in the West regardless of whomever the byzantines or Eastern Romans chose to rule them.
@@kais.1684 Most likely we should interpret Charlemagne’s move as an act of independence not really an attempt to exert control over the entire empire/Church. The forgeries that Father is referring to support this. The Donation of Constantine pretended that the West had been given to the Pope for instance. Arguments for universal papal authority and then infallibility came later.
Fascinating to ponder the impact of Arius centuries after his condemnation. In no small way, the animosity between the West (especially western Europe) and Russia today is a consequence of the Arian heresy. Words matter. Just one Latin word has impacted all of subsequent world history. A unified Roman empire may have been able to keep Islam contained to Arabia and Persia.
The church was in union with western churches prior to 1054 that had the Filioque. To say that it’s an irreconcilable heresy at this point is to say that we shared communion with open heretics for hundreds of years.
1054 is a particular point that is used largely for the purpose of outlining a boundary marker for the schism. That being said, all scholarship acknowledges that the Great Schism did not happen in a year, or even a decade but spanned the course of 100s of years. It was a slow development that escalated towards a definite break in communion. There is definitely a lot of ambiguity around this period because the schism was largely an organic phenomenon as opposed to being something like a legal process. The theology of the filoque was a development in the west, it didn’t just spring up out of nowhere. It was when it was added to the Creed without any consult of the other patriarchs that the controversy became a focal point for many in the East.
There are heresies that are addressed later in time as being heretical but were held by Church fathers prior to a council. For example, chiliasm is heretical according to the ecumenical councils however there were a variety of fathers who believed some form of chiliasm before those councils were convened. This doesn’t mean that those fathers were not sanctified nor does it mean that the ecumenical councils are false. It means that a very specific doctrine had to be assessed and addressed by an ecumenical council. People can believe in a false doctrine unknowingly and there is grace for them due to their ignorance but when these doctrines become a focal point in the Church and create controversy, is when it’s necessary to address them in a synod or council. The teachings of Origen became particularly harmful later in time when people were taking his writings to their logical conclusion. Even though Origen had long reposed, it was necessary for the Church to address his writings and regard “Origenism” as a heresy incompatible with the Orthodox Faith..
Your professor friend there was not alone. I'm a 63-year-old, thoroughly Jesuit educated, daily Mass going "Roman" Catholic (although I could really do without the "Roman" bit; I'm not a Latin-speaking citizen of a long-dead "empire"). And since I was about 18, I don't say the "filioque" during the Creed at Mass on Sunday, either. I can't be alone. "Together with the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified." Correct. So how on earth do we get to the Holy Spirit's proceeding "from" the Father AND the Son? Theological nonsense. Our Orthodox brothers and sisters are correct; and we've had this wrong forever. And as Steve below also pointed out, don't get me started on our entirely warped idea of "original sin".
It’s still a little confusing, but thank you for adding a little clarity. This is far above my pay grade… But can it be acknowledged by the eastern orthodox churches that the Catholics are still Christians? A difference in the understanding of who is sending the Holy Spirit, how is it a deal breaker? That’s where I get confused. The Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Son…? I know plenty who will call Catholics satanic over this and I think it’s a little crazy. As for the unleavened bread, is that a heresy? When Jesus sent His disciples to “go make ready the Passover,” there were specific things that they did which could only be on the Passover. One item specifically was getting offered lamb, which could only be done in the Temple. Secondly, during the first 2 nights of Passover, the Jews eat 2 Passover meals/Seders. So the difference between Thursday and Friday is moot. Also, what we understand as Thursday night, it’s actually a Friday evening on a Jewish clock. Anyways, thank you for this video.
Thank you Father. May I request to have closed captions generated for this video? It's hard to make out some of the dialogue due to the hardness and echo of the location.
Without having even watched the first second, the answer is no. There can never be compromise with schism and heresy. The Holy Spirit cannot come from the Son and not come from the Son at the same time. Orthodoxy leads to salvation and provides everything that is necessary to achieve it. No wordly approval or cooperation is needed. Interfaith dialogues are good and all, but not at the risk of compromises to the Orthodox faith.
@ do you think he and Leo would have pulled the same move if a man was emperor she was a queen regnant and it took them like 700 years before they allowed another queen regnant.
Filioque has a proper understanding (through the Son in an economic sense) and the heretical double procession. For centuries the first one was the understood interpretation. It wasn’t until just before the schism that the Roman flipped and decided no double procession is the “proper” interpretation even though the popes of Rome had previously condemned the position and agreed that they couldn’t add it to the Creed.
Rome must return to the one Holy catholic Apostolic Church of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical council's decision In the Hersey there is no salvation only eternal damnation
Nah. Doesn't make sense this way. The Holy Spirit is not a secret from Jesus. The Holy Spirit, The Father, and Our Lord Jesus Christ are ONE God. To say that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from The Father is to say that Jesus plays no role and that is erroneous... One Holy Triune God does not keep secrets from one another, they act simultaneously with the same motives. The West, aka Rome, did not lose connections and there was no loss of interpretation or knowledge. St Jerome had long since wrote the Holy Bible in Latin as interpreted from original in 383 and the schism didnt occur until 700 years afterwards. Latin was universal language in Jesus's time as well as up until Constantine in Constanople ... The East was conquered by ☪ANCER.
-the early church taught Monarchical Trinitarianism, the Father has the hypostatic properties of begetting and procession which the Son and Holy Spirit do no possess -the Son and Holy Spirit are not diminished in ontological status -the Trinity is One Will; there are no "secrets", only distinct hypostatic properties of each Divine Person -Greek was actually the lingua franca of that period, even in Rome; the Septuagint was in Greek and was the standard OT text. -St. Jerome's translation was not standard across all regions and he rejected the Deuterocanon as inspired (but kept it for pedagogical purposes) -the Latin West didn't even accept Revelation as canonical until the 7th century -Constantinople is not the embodiment of the whole Orthodox Church. Orthodox lands being captured has no bearing on what is true or false. -Muslims conquered Spain, Southern France, Hungary, and parts of Italy, all predominately Roman Catholic and mostly in the West. -likewise the Latin schismatics were quickly overwhelmed in the 16th century by Protestant schismatics and much of Western Europe today is Protestant still -the West was also conquered by humanism, materialism, and Freemasonry
@@fahn777 Agreed. Abba Almighty is the only person in our Holy Triune God that can beget. This is given. However, we as christians, while reciting The Creed are making an assertion of our Faith & Belief in the here & now. We are not professing what we believed prior to Our Lord coming down from Heaven, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and be born a mortal man in flesh through The Blessed VIrgn, Our Mother. Therefore, we should absolutely recognise Jesus's instructions when HE told us that HE would send us the Paraclete. I understand your perception- I agree. However, you should take into consideration our negligence as The Church [prior to schism when we were a whole] when our teachings contributed to heresy such as Arianism, the false rendition of islam's interpretation of Christianity/Sacred Scripture, as you mentioned, Protestantism and the rest of the so -called 'deoniminations' of Christianity ... All of them originating out of no loyalty to the Church and its proper instructions on how to Abide In Jesus. I know you know that Jesus has long ascended to The MOST HIGH where HE is seated at Abba's right hand and I know you know that Jesus has been handed all Power & Glory to Judge the Living and the Dead therefore you must also realise that there are NO secrets kept from HIM as the Holy Spirit proceeds at HIS Command. Now I have had the same discussion with many Orthodox and what is troublesome is that none are willing to admit common knowledge as given in the Holy Gospels and in Book of Revelation... and this worries me for all of you!
@@fahn777 Dear, everyone spoke Latin in Israel. Israel had long been under Roman Rule for well over 100 yrs before Jesus was born. Jesus and Pilate did not have interpreters during their discussion and Matthew the tax collector did not either. They were multilingual. Yes, we know the Gospels were written in many different languages including Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. And that is due to each of the disciples native language and how they learned to be scribes. But this does not relay that they didn't speak Latin. We all remember the post above our Lord's Crucifixion where Pilate had it nailed in Latin that Jesus is King of the Jews.... so this is not even a debate because it is given. Please know I love you, I have much respect for all my Orthodox faithful as I believe in One True Faith and not men. But I do however believe that Roman Catholicism gives the best detailed explanation, interpretations, and instructions on the Faith that Jesus taught, practiced, and commanded... 😘📿
@gotogd1233 Don't give me that false piety and condescension. Have fun with Luce, Pacha Mama, popes who like watching horses have sex (Alexander VI) and Chicken Dance Novus Ordo.
@@fahn777 Your comment was void of integrity and sums up the problem with those who claim that they are Orthodox... Furthermore, it explains the lack of Logos [CHRIST] in your theology, the teachings, as well as in practice. Concluding that you are not faithful to Christ and HIS instruction. There are 6 things the Lord HATES and the 7th HIS Soul DETESTS: Proverbs 6.16 Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth: 1Haughty eyes, 2 a lying tongue, 3 hands that shed innocent blood, 4 A heart that deviseth wicked plots, 5 feet that are swift to run into mischief, 6 A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and 7 ⚠him that soweth discord among brethren. GET A LIFE IN CHRIST
The Western interpretation of original sin is another, and maybe even greater, stumbling block in unification.
how so? the Vatican clarification on limbo seems to admit the orthodox points on that (though that is of course a change in doctrine, and they would still have to give up immaculate conception for example)
What specifically about Original Sin as understood by the West is problematic?
Rigid views such as yourself are probably a greater stumbling block.
"Flee from discussions of dogma as from an unruly lion" St. Isaac the Syrian (Homily 17)
@@kais.1684 Original sin a later Augustine theological dogma, vs ancestral sin of Orthodoxy. This lead to other issues for Latin Franks regarding Mary. Further heresy of Immaculate Conception which actually robs Mary of her humanity. Rome making her the exception rather than the example... The original sin of Calvinism is very extreme. Not found in Judaism, Christian Orthodoxy, nor Islam.
Fr. Panayiotis has two excellent videos on the subject of original sin.
What is the Orthodox Perspective on Original Sin?
th-cam.com/video/SRgPKrD31fU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=o0Ouhl3n0lkMR0CV
Do Unbaptized Babies go to Hell? (Chrysostom, Augustine, and Original Sin)
th-cam.com/video/ke4QJjMkVlQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=y232SED8S04zslcM
No it’s not…
I have the feeling that the West is headed towards another pagan dark age. Thank you for making this important teaching available
Excellent as ever Father, ευχαριστώ!
The division of the Church is the saddest thing I think...Christ Jesus wanted for us to be One so that the world can believe...
All authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Jesus Christ, just because we do not understand what is happening does not mean that his purposes are not being achieved. :)
Glory to God for all things! ☦️
Thank you for this illuminating exposition! ☦️
The silence of the West after the Germanic invasions: these tribes had all adopted Arianism, meaning that the rulers of the West were opposed to the orthodox/catholic church. This persisted through 508 when the first Germanic leader, Clovis, was converted to Catholicism. In Italy Arianism persisted through the middle of 7th century and in Spain the beginning of the 8th century. This means that the rulers of the West largely opposed the Councils through the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553.
Another historical point I would add: Charlemagne had himself crowned emperor in 800 in part because he claimed that the throne was empty, was currently usurped by a woman (Empress Irene). The 7th Ecumenical Council in 787 did not suffer from any defect in the eyes of people at that time because Irene had convoked it when she was merely regent for her son Constantine VI. Charlemagne therefore was not claiming to be emperor of the West but of the entire theoretical empire (then massively conquered by Islamic armies in both East and West).
These political points may seem irrelevant but it is a fact of Church history that the Councils were convoked by the emperor in every case, starting with Constantine the Great in 325AD. The emperor therefore has a kind of sacramental role as protector of the Faith, Peacemaker and Shepherd. This can be seen in the term Melkite, which in the Levant designated "the Imperial Church" as opposed to others in the region (Miaphysite or Nestorian).
Your conclusion does not follow. Charlemagne never sought to be recognized as the sole ruler of the Roman empire, and actually accepted a much less grandiose title from the Byzantines.
@ It was clearly not a feasible claim of dominance and Irene was soon replaced.
@charlesiragui2473 your claim seems to be legitimate in so far as Charlemagne saw the throne as vacant and therefore when he assumed the title of Roman emperor he was seeking to establish or revive the throne in the West regardless of whomever the byzantines or Eastern Romans chose to rule them.
@@kais.1684 Most likely we should interpret Charlemagne’s move as an act of independence not really an attempt to exert control over the entire empire/Church. The forgeries that Father is referring to support this. The Donation of Constantine pretended that the West had been given to the Pope for instance. Arguments for universal papal authority and then infallibility came later.
Fascinating to ponder the impact of Arius centuries after his condemnation. In no small way, the animosity between the West (especially western Europe) and Russia today is a consequence of the Arian heresy. Words matter. Just one Latin word has impacted all of subsequent world history. A unified Roman empire may have been able to keep Islam contained to Arabia and Persia.
The church was in union with western churches prior to 1054 that had the Filioque. To say that it’s an irreconcilable heresy at this point is to say that we shared communion with open heretics for hundreds of years.
1054 is a particular point that is used largely for the purpose of outlining a boundary marker for the schism. That being said, all scholarship acknowledges that the Great Schism did not happen in a year, or even a decade but spanned the course of 100s of years. It was a slow development that escalated towards a definite break in communion. There is definitely a lot of ambiguity around this period because the schism was largely an organic phenomenon as opposed to being something like a legal process. The theology of the filoque was a development in the west, it didn’t just spring up out of nowhere. It was when it was added to the Creed without any consult of the other patriarchs that the controversy became a focal point for many in the East.
There are heresies that are addressed later in time as being heretical but were held by Church fathers prior to a council. For example, chiliasm is heretical according to the ecumenical councils however there were a variety of fathers who believed some form of chiliasm before those councils were convened. This doesn’t mean that those fathers were not sanctified nor does it mean that the ecumenical councils are false. It means that a very specific doctrine had to be assessed and addressed by an ecumenical council. People can believe in a false doctrine unknowingly and there is grace for them due to their ignorance but when these doctrines become a focal point in the Church and create controversy, is when it’s necessary to address them in a synod or council. The teachings of Origen became particularly harmful later in time when people were taking his writings to their logical conclusion. Even though Origen had long reposed, it was necessary for the Church to address his writings and regard “Origenism” as a heresy incompatible with the Orthodox Faith..
Fascinating! 🙏💕☦️🕊
Thank you Fr.!
Take it out & overlook it!!
Your professor friend there was not alone. I'm a 63-year-old, thoroughly Jesuit educated, daily Mass going "Roman" Catholic (although I could really do without the "Roman" bit; I'm not a Latin-speaking citizen of a long-dead "empire"). And since I was about 18, I don't say the "filioque" during the Creed at Mass on Sunday, either. I can't be alone.
"Together with the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified." Correct. So how on earth do we get to the Holy Spirit's proceeding "from" the Father AND the Son? Theological nonsense.
Our Orthodox brothers and sisters are correct; and we've had this wrong forever.
And as Steve below also pointed out, don't get me started on our entirely warped idea of "original sin".
No, it cannot
It’s still a little confusing, but thank you for adding a little clarity.
This is far above my pay grade…
But can it be acknowledged by the eastern orthodox churches that the Catholics are still Christians? A difference in the understanding of who is sending the Holy Spirit, how is it a deal breaker? That’s where I get confused. The Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Son…? I know plenty who will call Catholics satanic over this and I think it’s a little crazy.
As for the unleavened bread, is that a heresy? When Jesus sent His disciples to “go make ready the Passover,” there were specific things that they did which could only be on the Passover. One item specifically was getting offered lamb, which could only be done in the Temple. Secondly, during the first 2 nights of Passover, the Jews eat 2 Passover meals/Seders. So the difference between Thursday and Friday is moot. Also, what we understand as Thursday night, it’s actually a Friday evening on a Jewish clock.
Anyways, thank you for this video.
Yes, the Orthodox recognize RC as Christians.
Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 declares Anathema to anyone who would alter the Nicene Creed. Filioque does exactly that.
Παρακαλώ μπορείτε να βάζετε ελληνικούς υπότιτλους...
I do not know if its okay if to ask for prayer here but my name is Hector if you guys don't mind praying for me
Thank you Father. May I request to have closed captions generated for this video? It's hard to make out some of the dialogue due to the hardness and echo of the location.
Without having even watched the first second, the answer is no. There can never be compromise with schism and heresy. The Holy Spirit cannot come from the Son and not come from the Son at the same time.
Orthodoxy leads to salvation and provides everything that is necessary to achieve it. No wordly approval or cooperation is needed. Interfaith dialogues are good and all, but not at the risk of compromises to the Orthodox faith.
If you skip to the end, Fr P’s answer was that no, there cannot be compromise on the filique. 🙂
Amen. It's helpful to outline the issue for our western RC and Protestant friends at least.
What Charlemagne did to Irene should be considered the largest hit to women’s rights what he did to to priests by making them celibate was just as bad
I'm not aware of this. What did he do to Irene?
@ do you think he and Leo would have pulled the same move if a man was emperor she was a queen regnant and it took them like 700 years before they allowed another queen regnant.
No.
Catholic University of America Press has a series of Fathers of the Church. 100+ Volumes.
The Filioque was introduced to England by St Theodore at the Council of Hatfield in 680. The Franks came later, probably influenced by Alcuin of York.
It’s not the use of Filioque itself, it’s the heretical interpretation that developed later on.
Filioque has a proper understanding (through the Son in an economic sense) and the heretical double procession. For centuries the first one was the understood interpretation. It wasn’t until just before the schism that the Roman flipped and decided no double procession is the “proper” interpretation even though the popes of Rome had previously condemned the position and agreed that they couldn’t add it to the Creed.
source?
❤☦❤🕊
Rome must return to the one Holy catholic Apostolic Church of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical council's decision
In the Hersey there is no salvation only eternal damnation
.
Нема компромиса са тамом.
Nah. Doesn't make sense this way. The Holy Spirit is not a secret from Jesus. The Holy Spirit, The Father, and Our Lord Jesus Christ are ONE God. To say that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from The Father is to say that Jesus plays no role and that is erroneous... One Holy Triune God does not keep secrets from one another, they act simultaneously with the same motives.
The West, aka Rome, did not lose connections and there was no loss of interpretation or knowledge. St Jerome had long since wrote the Holy Bible in Latin as interpreted from original in 383 and the schism didnt occur until 700 years afterwards. Latin was universal language in Jesus's time as well as up until Constantine in Constanople ... The East was conquered by ☪ANCER.
-the early church taught Monarchical Trinitarianism, the Father has the hypostatic properties of begetting and procession which the Son and Holy Spirit do no possess
-the Son and Holy Spirit are not diminished in ontological status
-the Trinity is One Will; there are no "secrets", only distinct hypostatic properties of each Divine Person
-Greek was actually the lingua franca of that period, even in Rome; the Septuagint was in Greek and was the standard OT text.
-St. Jerome's translation was not standard across all regions and he rejected the Deuterocanon as inspired (but kept it for pedagogical purposes)
-the Latin West didn't even accept Revelation as canonical until the 7th century
-Constantinople is not the embodiment of the whole Orthodox Church. Orthodox lands being captured has no bearing on what is true or false.
-Muslims conquered Spain, Southern France, Hungary, and parts of Italy, all predominately Roman Catholic and mostly in the West.
-likewise the Latin schismatics were quickly overwhelmed in the 16th century by Protestant schismatics and much of Western Europe today is Protestant still
-the West was also conquered by humanism, materialism, and Freemasonry
@@fahn777 Agreed. Abba Almighty is the only person in our Holy Triune God that can beget. This is given.
However, we as christians, while reciting The Creed are making an assertion of our Faith & Belief in the here & now. We are not professing what we believed prior to Our Lord coming down from Heaven, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and be born a mortal man in flesh through The Blessed VIrgn, Our Mother. Therefore, we should absolutely recognise Jesus's instructions when HE told us that HE would send us the Paraclete.
I understand your perception- I agree. However, you should take into consideration our negligence as The Church [prior to schism when we were a whole] when our teachings contributed to heresy such as Arianism, the false rendition of islam's interpretation of Christianity/Sacred Scripture, as you mentioned, Protestantism and the rest of the so -called 'deoniminations' of Christianity ... All of them originating out of no loyalty to the Church and its proper instructions on how to Abide In Jesus.
I know you know that Jesus has long ascended to The MOST HIGH where HE is seated at Abba's right hand and I know you know that Jesus has been handed all Power & Glory to Judge the Living and the Dead therefore you must also realise that there are NO secrets kept from HIM as the Holy Spirit proceeds at HIS Command.
Now I have had the same discussion with many Orthodox and what is troublesome is that none are willing to admit common knowledge as given in the Holy Gospels and in Book of Revelation... and this worries me for all of you!
@@fahn777 Dear, everyone spoke Latin in Israel. Israel had long been under Roman Rule for well over 100 yrs before Jesus was born. Jesus and Pilate did not have interpreters during their discussion and Matthew the tax collector did not either. They were multilingual. Yes, we know the Gospels were written in many different languages including Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. And that is due to each of the disciples native language and how they learned to be scribes. But this does not relay that they didn't speak Latin. We all remember the post above our Lord's Crucifixion where Pilate had it nailed in Latin that Jesus is King of the Jews.... so this is not even a debate because it is given.
Please know I love you, I have much respect for all my Orthodox faithful as I believe in One True Faith and not men. But I do however believe that Roman Catholicism gives the best detailed explanation, interpretations, and instructions on the Faith that Jesus taught, practiced, and commanded...
😘📿
@gotogd1233 Don't give me that false piety and condescension. Have fun with Luce, Pacha Mama, popes who like watching horses have sex (Alexander VI) and Chicken Dance Novus Ordo.
@@fahn777 Your comment was void of integrity and sums up the problem with those who claim that they are Orthodox... Furthermore, it explains the lack of Logos [CHRIST] in your theology, the teachings, as well as in practice. Concluding that you are not faithful to Christ and HIS instruction.
There are 6 things the Lord HATES and the 7th HIS Soul DETESTS: Proverbs 6.16
Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth:
1Haughty eyes,
2 a lying tongue,
3 hands that shed innocent blood,
4 A heart that deviseth wicked plots,
5 feet that are swift to run into mischief,
6 A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and
7 ⚠him that soweth discord among brethren.
GET A LIFE IN CHRIST
No.