No Catholic should be offended by this. It is a matter of respect for both the individual priest and the Orthodox institution. Several Catholic websites have a similar attitude as you, saying things like "While the Catholic Church recognizes all Orthodox sacraments as valid since their priests and bishops maintain Apostolic Succession, it can be a violation of Orthodox teaching for Catholics to receive their sacraments, and this should be respected."
Orthodox Christians who have received their First Communion are allowed to receive Communion and Confession in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why any Christian who is not Orthodox wouldn't be able to receive the Sacrament of Penance in your Church as any Baptized Christian is allowed to receive the Sacrament of Penance. Judging based off the video since he said the only Sacrament Catholics can receive and remain Catholic is Matrimony
As a Catholic, I appreciate your clarity on the Eucharist. It’s an unfortunate reality today that many in the Catholic Church no longer believe in the Real Presence, or maybe never did. The serious manner in which the Orthodox Church approaches the Eucharist has me considering Orthodoxy. God bless you and your work.
I left Protestantism and thoroughly examined both in deciding where to go. I learned bad examples exist in both, especially where they are an established “norm.” It’s important to separate the truth from the individuals who claim to hold it. That said, believe they are brothers. Separated, but brothers, so I hope one day they can enjoy communion together again.
@@englishlearningcenter1470 a Catholic priest may have no issue with an Orthodox Christian receiving communion, but you would need to be prepared to receive Communion on the hand and likely from a layperson (extraordinary minister of holy communion).
Very sad indeed, i am also a catholic. There is a crisis in the Catholic Church, one of many, Catholics need to be educated more about the faith and believe it more. Catholic curiculum needs to be reformed!
But here is the crux of the dilemma I am in : Jesus changed Simon's name to cephas . Cephas in Aramaic is rock or petras in Greek / Peter in English . Jesus says " you are rock ( Petrus - male masculine name ) , and on this rock ( petra - neautral - Rock / actual rock literally ) I will build my church " . In modern culture = you are called rocky ! , And on this stone hard confession of yours , I will built my church . Peter settled the first ecumenical council . ALL went to Peter to settle disputes and heresies . Peter after jesus is mentioned over 200 times , others are only mentioned less than 50. Judas always mentioned last and Peter always first . Jesus also said following " I will give you ( singular ) the keys to kingdom of heaven and to bind and loosen " . Also guided by the holy spirit the seat of Peter can settle / have the last word to settle heresies and make believe concrete and doctrine . The orthodox can never have the last word to settle disputes because all are equal ..supposed there is a 50: 50 for and against ? Who's the last word ? Holy see is above governments . Orthodox had to rely on cosying up to secular governments like USSR . Plus our lady of Guadalupe and Fatima miracles etc These are my arguments on orthodoxy . Don't mean to offend , but want to be re educated if possible . God bless
As a Catholic, I also pray for re-unification between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I also think that it cannot be humanly possible because of the difference in doctrine and a painful history between. It is only possible through Jesus Christ that we can achieve unity. I also believe that communion is also a way of acceptance of church doctrine. Therefore, our differing points of doctrine makes inter-communion invalid. Ecumenism is good and all but it's better not to cross boundaries out of respect to one another.
I'm amazed that I came across your video. I was raised a Catholic but we at Eastern Time always went to my father's Orthodox Church. We crawled to the cross we blessed the baskets we went to confession and we received holy Communion. I'm 66-year-old now. And this was way back in my younger years of 8 to 12 years old.
As a Catholic I respect your point of view. Yet many Catholic Priests I have met have told me that the Catholic Church as a whole believe that the Sacraments in an Orthodox Church are valid. And also in a case of emergency they would recommend to take communion in an Orthodox Church.
@taylorrowe2002 no offense but it's not about what you think. The Orthodox Church prohibits the heterodox from receiving Communion so to do otherwise is downright disrespectful
I think we should point out it is only very recent that we as Catholics recognized orthodox sacraments as valid and allowed any orthodox to take communion at Catholic churches. Prior to this orthodox and Catholics held eachother to same view
I respect the rules of the Orthodox Church, but I have my own view on that topic. Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians are followers of Jesus Christ. Our Lord does not want divisions between his children. And we are fed by the same body. But its not due to me to decide about that. Let's just respect each other and remember we are in Christ.
Question at the end, please..my fiance is Orthodox and I am Catholic. I attended an Orthodox divine liturgy today for the first time. The priest invited me. I really enjoyed it! I was not sure about taking communion. After watching this video I am glad I did not because if the priest denied me I would have felt very embarrassed! So I just sat and watched everyone else. The priests wife handed me a square piece of bread as I sat and I am not even sure what it was?
I know this is an old question, but what she gave you was antidoron (lit. "in place of the Gifts"), which is some of the bread blessed but not used for Communion. As it isn't sacramental, anyone can receive it. But it is still blessed and should therefore be treated respectfully.
I always thought it was funny how the RCC allows for Catholics to take communion in the EOC, but the EOC won't allow it. Kinda like how I can buy fireworks here in Ohio, but can't shoot them off here! 🤣
Hi Bojan, as a Catholic who loves the Orthodox and hopes for unity, I respect your answer on this, for as Catholics we should have respect for what the Orthodox believe in this area. If for example I was to go into an Orthodox Divine liturgy and almost 'sneakily' receive Communion despite the Orthodox believe we can't - this would do harm to any sort of trust between the two sides. May God bring us together if that is his will.
Why ortodox monk usualy have long hair, while in 1Cor 11, 14 S.Paul say that nature teach to man to not let hair grown? Very good channels, sory if i make some mistake but i'm not english
4:15 "Where for example, you might dislike this or that Bishop, and you simply switch jurisdictions - especially amongst the laity - I don't think that should be done" - I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts on this in general. For example, my local bishop (Catholic) instituted a rule that before the start of the Mass, the priest would stand at the lectern, and ask for anyone who had a birthday or anniversary in the coming week, or any guests that were visiting, to stand and be recognized. The priest would then call on them one at a time, have a few seconds of conversation with them, and then ask the congregation to applaud. Sometimes this process would take over ten minutes. The bishop's idea was to build a sense of community within the congregation. However many laity and even some priests felt that this activity was inappropriate so close to the sacrifice of the Mass. My parish priest transferred to a new diocese after 30 years at our church as a result of this and other decisions by the bishop, and many laity followed him. What are your thoughts on this situation? Do similar things not happen in Orthodoxy? Is it our duty to follow our local bishop regardless of what they do?
So I guess we(orthodox) can't take catholic communion. What if we do as a child? When I was little and my grandma died I went with my mother to a catholic mass and I wanted to take communion, however the priest didn't give me. My mother went there and got it and brought a bit back for me, which I took. Is this bad, I mean when I was little I didn't know what you had to do before orthodox communion and when I learned that taking it without preparation is a sin I was frightened, but also comforted by religion teacher that as I didn't know it won't be considered that as far as I don't do it like that again while knowing how it should be done.
The thing is there have been certain times between multiple Orthodox churches and the Catholic church where there were official agreements made where Catholics and Orthodox could receive from each other in emergencies most of these have been rescinded by the Orthodox church, there is still some debate about the matter for example if a Catholic is dying and there is no Catholic priests, some Orthodox bishops have allowed in certain circumstances for these people to receive the sacraments, but it has to come from the Bishop. All in all, I have no problem not being able to receive the Eucharist in Orthodox Church because I receive it in my own Church. I also wouldnt want an Orthodox to come and receive in a Catholic Church when he doesnt aknowledge certain things we hold to be true, but in emergencies I would support a certain level of sharing of the sacraments.
Hello, i'm born catholic, but i thinking to convert to orthodoxy (i belive in orthodoxy but i prefer wait a bit), and so i attend a russian orthodox church, and they know that i am born catholic, but they give me the communion,is that ok?
thank you for this video! One of my Catholic friends has received the Eucharist at an Orthodox church several times and so I've been pondering how to talk to her about it for a while
I would never presume to receive communion in violation of the rules! I do believe that the Roman church allows our priests to give communion to the orthodox in emergencies. There are rumors that some orthodox in areas where there are no orthodox churches do attend the Roman services and receive communion without identifying themselves. I have no idea if this is true. I do know many orthodox would not darken the door Of a Roman church which I think is sad.
@@rdbare4216 I found this www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/who-may-receive-communion-and-why In short, the section "Eastern Orthodox in a Catholic church" says that Eastern Orthodox must ask on their own for the sacrament and they must be properly disposed.
@@redlander55 That’s very interesting! I emailed my parish priest but have not received a reply. He is far from being a canon lawyer. However I believe that he may know the truth of the matter. Regarding the article, some Anglicans/Episcopalians have retained Roman Succession. There are also a number of Roman priests who became Episcopalian. In my opinion we need to be wary of declaring that their sacraments are not valid! Maybe not, but maybe so...I have attended some of those services and there is a presence normally found in apostolic churches but not in other Protestant churches. That’s merely my impression. Also I know for a fact that personal belief about nature of the Eucharist is variable among Anglicans. I am sad that no Eastern Orthodox seem to allow Romans to receive communion but I also respect their standards.
@@redlander55 Our pastor said Orthodox were allowed to receive Eucharist in Roman churches only if they were unable to travel to an Orthodox Church. But I now wonder: do all varieties of Orthodox have intercommunion? I know some groups have recently excommunicated each other. 😟 And, even if Catholics permit Orthodox to receive communion, I gather the Orthodox clergy doesn’t approve. Correct?
The other way around is possible: we Catholics allow Orthodox Christians to receive communion, reconciliation, and extreme unction with only two conditions: the Christian seeks these sacraments freely and of their own accord and that they are properly disposed (ie free of mortal sin or willing to confess it and do penance in the case of confession).
It's interesting and I've never considered that It's not against Catholic cannon law but it is against Orthodox cannon law. That definitely makes it quite presumptuous on the Catholic part. If you step into another Bishop's church, you are walking into their sphere of authority. When that bishop is in union with your bishop, it's no problem... but when they aren't, spiritually, it's your problem.
One question is why do the churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Athens/Constantinople allow Catholics to take communion? I heard it's actually a "common" thing that happens among the Greek Orthodox churches. The slavic churches seem much more stricter on this matter
The short answer is no, Orthodox Father Confessors following the teaching of the fathers tend to treat sin as sin. Sin being a sickness which needs to be healed, the response to any individual sin relates to how it effects the person, some sins are always regarded as more serious but it is because they are the result of other sins having already controlled the mind and heart and often involve disrespecting the image of God in another person.
Only those baptized by the Orthodox church can receive the holy communion from my understanding. but in saying that Russian Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox do things slightly different from each other, so they are not recognized in the same way. So Conversion and Baptism is the way forward if you so choose.
How do you know you are in a state of Grace? And what does union with all the Popes and Patriarchs mean? That would actually be impossible. It is impossible to be in union with Pope Pius XI and Francis or Benedict! Sacraments are not an honour conferred on 'right thinking'. They involve discipline, obedience and community.... choose your discipline, obedience and community.
Thanks for a good clear video, it is going to be useful for educating other non Roman Catholic westerners too. And do not forget the bread issue, that is what put a stop to the attempted reunification at Flurina-Florence, the use of yeast or the lack thereof is a big thing down at the level of the nave. Everything else can be argued out but the bread was beyond resolving by the bishops, in the end the prosphora backing grandmothers kept the faith alive.
I want to thank you for answering my question. Now I have another one about confession and its secrecy. I have heard that the passed laws requiring that the priest report certain crimes when they are confessed to him. This law was passed during the time of the czars. There is also a controversy related to the Malankara Orthodox Church. They have a requirement similar to the Catholic Church regarding annual confession. However they took names and some priests (I don't know how many) recorded these confessions and used that information for purposes of extortion and blackmail either for sexual favors or money. I wonder if you could comment. The secrecy of confession in the Catholic Church is absolute and bad things happen to priests who repeat what they hear in confession. Here is a link with further information; www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/indias-supreme-court-to-hear-complaint-over-mandatory-confession-in-oriental-orthodoxy-37136
Catholics should very much be in agreement with this sentiment. The Eucharist is not a means to union. Ultimately, it is union. It signifies/symbolizes a union in faith which does not exist. We must pray for truth and unity in truth. Pray for both our churches
@@BanterWithBojan Hey Bojan, would you do a video on with the Prosphora and communion wine 🍷 tastes like? The reason why I ask is because for me, the bread tastes like a baguette but what about for the churches that use the Prosphora? Godbless!!!
Actually there exists a way. There was a custom, You could do a Spiritual Communion. It could go something like this. Lord God. Yes I believe that this is truly your most precious Body and Blood. While our Churches are not in Communion with each other. I would like to offer up that pain of separation. May it hasten the day that we are united. As I realize that the walls of our separation do not extend up to Heaven, I ask You to come into my heart.
2:19 Why include the Filioque here? I think the Orthodox have some good arguments against the papacy, though I ultimately fall on the Catholic side. But in regards to the Filioque, from what I know there is no way to try to say that belief in the Filioque was a post-schism innovation or an innovation at all. It has a long history in the West starting with the Latin Fathers, and some of the Eastern Fathers seem to support it as well. It's untenable to just say that the Filioque is a heresy.
I included it because it is one lf the major reasons for the schism due to which cannot partake of the Eucharist in Orthodox churches, and a no. 1 teaching that Catholics tend to label as "not big of a deal". :-)
Hundreds and hundreds of years of history and theology say otherwise but I’m sure that it is “no big deal” and those in the past to present are just making a fuss.
@@ethanlotter6270 No, he didn't. He believed in the Filioque. But St. Augustine has generally not been viewed positively by Orthodox anyway, so why would you want to follow him on the Filioque even if he disagreed with it?
Actually both sides excommunicated each other, and papal supremacy doesn’t exist in the eastern churches (neither does the Filioque). Eastern Catholic Churches are Sui Iuris (autocephalous) from the Pope. The Pope only has supremacy among Roman Catholics, in the east our Patriarchs are the head of the churches, and the pope is seen as a first among equals (the Catholic version of the ecumenical patriarch). The primacy of Peter is a better way of of putting it, not Papal supremacy. The pope doesn’t get involved with the matters of Sui Iuris churches. Your answer contained misinformation and wasn’t entirely accurate.
So how does a Catholic that has received baptism and confirmation, and also first communion in the Catholic church, need to do to be able to recieve communion in an orthodox church?
But here is the crux of the dilemma I am in : Jesus changed Simon's name to cephas . Cephas in Aramaic is rock or petras in Greek / Peter in English . Jesus says " you are rock ( Petrus - male masculine name ) , and on this rock ( petra - neautral - Rock / actual rock literally ) I will build my church " . In modern culture = you are called rocky ! , And on this stone hard confession of yours , I will built my church . Peter settled the first ecumenical council . ALL went to Peter to settle disputes and heresies . Peter after jesus is mentioned over 200 times , others are only mentioned less than 50. Judas always mentioned last and Peter always first . Jesus also said following " I will give you ( singular ) the keys to kingdom of heaven and to bind and loosen " . Also guided by the holy spirit the seat of Peter can settle / have the last word to settle heresies and make believe concrete and doctrine . The orthodox can never have the last word to settle disputes because all are equal ..supposed there is a 50: 50 for and against ? Who's the last word ? Holy see is above governments . Orthodox had to rely on cosying up to secular governments like USSR . Plus our lady of Guadalupe and Fatima miracles etc These are my arguments on orthodoxy . Don't mean to offend , but want to be re educated if possible . God bless
I would like to start with: "The rock is the unity of faith - not the person of Peter" - Saint Cyprian, III century (also venerated in RCC) Good sir, I understand all of your claims but (forgive me) most of these "constructions" are based on "ROMAN CATHOLIC MYTHOLOGY" - a mythology wrapped in a 'foil' of theology . Motive for this is papal obsession for earthly power. ORTHODOX CHURCH is CHRISTOCENTRIC ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH is PAPALCENTRIC From generation to generation Roman Catholics are indoctrinated to believe that the founder of the church is Peter the apostle, however, ORTHODOXY TEACHES US - that founder of the Church, is Christ - himself ! The living God. Church is our Lord's MYSTICAL BODY ! Now please, read this very carefully. That BODY (His Church) gathers together - Heaven and Earth - in catholicity* ! Our Church is IN this world but SHE is not FROM this world !!! Catholicity (Greek word) is very abstract and from the perspective of the Church it means "fullness or perfection-wholeness" embodied in Christ mystical body (His Church). Catholic doesn't mean Universal , that is a primitive and pointless Latin translation. Now , (regarding the divine nature of Christ's Church ) one of our differences is caused by this: For centuries , the popes are trying to proclaim earthly Rome (located in this world) as a center of something that is not from this world - Church of Christ ( Our Lord's mystical body) and yet , Roman pope, a mortal and sinful man, claims to have absolute authority over God's Church - Christ's mystical body !!! Geographic location as a center of something Devine as God's mystical body ? A mortal man with the authority above everlasting God !!?? Now you see that Roman*(Geographical concept) + Catholicism*(abstract concept) is logically incompatible concept. It is a contradiction and nonsense in it's very essence. It is a creepy heretical teaching. It wasn't always like this. Back in the days when the Roman Patriarchal See was a "sacred branch" of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Orthodox church, things use to look much different . Roman bishops use to be a great defenders of Orthodoxy and orthodox Catholicism. Regarding this, let's recall the famous roman pope Saint Gregory the Great and his famous words : "Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." -Pope Saint Gregory the Great (or as he is known in the Orthodox Church, Saint Gregory the Dialogist; Book VII: Epistle XXXIII) Official name of the Orthodox church is One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - which means , Orthodox believers are Catholics as well - the only catholics ! Catholics with big "C". In the eyes of Orthodoxy roman catholicism is not catholicism at all . If RCC claims that Peter was the one who built the church I would like to remind them that the FIRST CHURCH "built" by Peter was the Church of Antioch - the oldest Patriarchal see of Orthodox Church - EVER . Undeniable historical fact. Now you can see where are the "keys" Much later Peter left to Rome to organize a Christian communion in Rome . Now, even with that "earthly - geographical " approach , we can see who's right. A thousand years a go - Rome (as one of the patriarchates of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ) CAME OUT from the Church. Rome, once separated from Christ's mystical body has lost a link to Holly Spirit. Instead of authentic Orthodox Catholicism, Rome started to preach Roman Catholicism - a deviant and spiritually polluted version of Orthodox Catholicism. Previously , patriarchal sees of Church ( some even older then Rome) granted Rome with a ceremonial position "first in honor but not in power" because Rome was the old capital of the empire. " Not in power" because no human can claim a power above something Divine. Rome position was "PRIMUS INTER PARES - First among the equals " - Patriarchal sees of Church. Unfortunately , a mortal men - roman bishops wanted earthly power over God's Church.
If by "can they", you mean "do they", the answer is yes, and much more than you might think, mainly involving Greek Catholics. In the Middle East and Eastern Europe, this is quite common, and it is actually quite frequent in the U.S., do mainly to the history of the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches in this country. Only Orthodox converts and those who belong to jurisdiction that have no Greek Catholic counterpart, do you find a reflexive rejection of the very idea. But historically, intercommunion has been more the rule than the exception, especially where Orthodox and Greek Catholics live cheek-by-jowl.
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic says that Jesus wad anointed by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was annointed by the Holy Spirit then how can the Holy Spirit proceed from him?
@@pipsasqeak820 and what does that do to their relationship with their confessor ? You do know that we Orthodox are not allowed to receive the sacraments of the latin church , or the Episcopal/ Anglo Catholic Church They have to confess receiving sacraments from Heretics. Did you know that ? Now you do .
The denial of the Filioque is ridiculous. Forget the historical context or any arguments used at the time. We know from Genesis to Hosea to the Gospels to Ephesians 5 to Revelation that Christ created Man and Woman to image The Trinitarian nature of God and what He wants with us. Validly Sacramentally married Husband and Wife cease to be two but become one flesh while retaining individual personhood. Just like the Trinity. The Orthodox do not deny this, and emphasize it in their marriage rituals. In Genesis the Trinity refer to Themselves together in the plural and say, let us make mankind in Our Image. So in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them. To deny the Filioque while observing the following is willful ignorance and the hardening of one’s heart: Woman is begotten of man (Eve from Adam’s side) just as the Son is begotten of the Father. From the most intimate expression of unity and one flesh love between a man and a woman proceeds a third person of equal dignity and the same substance: a child. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the unity and love of the Father and the Son. If you deny this, then your concept of the Trinity does not correspond to the image of Himself that God gave us. Jesus is equal to the Father, but does not consider equality something to be grasped, and so He submits to Him, and then the Father glorifies Him. Likewise, this is identical to what is mandated throughout the scriptures that a wife should submit to her husband in all things despite equal dignity with him, and that he must love her completely and self sacrificially as Christ loves and the Church, and thus glorify her and raise her up to be exalted for man is the glory of God, but woman is the glory of man as St Paul says. Truly. Denying the Filioque is blindness. I love most Byzantine theology but this is one error that is simply ridiculous.
One part of the analogy concerns the union of a father and a _mother_, resulting in a son, the other part concerns the Father and the _Son_. IMHO this comparison doesn't work.
@@artemiostriantafyllou7986 What do you think that it means when Genesis says that so in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them? Does it mean that God had 10 fingers and 10 toes and 4 limbs as Spirit without a body before the incarnation? Does it mean that without a body He had a pre-existing sexuality? No. Of course not. It means that God created humanity divided into two sets of complimentary beings that only found their completion when united as not two but one flesh, in love. In Hosea, Isaiah the Song of Songs, Ephesians 5, and Revelation, we as members of the Church are called bride and Christ is the Bridegroom. If you are a man and Christ is your Bridegroom, does that mean you have a gay relationship with Christ? When Jesus Christ gives you His Body to receive inside of yourself as bride in the form of the Eucharist, and you become not two but one flesh, the literal process of Theosis, is that akin to having gay sex with Jesus???! Of course not. How blasphemous. Why then? Why is it not gay? What is my point in saying all of this. My point is this: God is not like mankind, God was not made in our image. We are made in His image. Thus, male and female are not categories that existed before God created the world. They are simply an iconic representation of the Trinity and the principles of unity and multiple persons becoming One in Love in the Trinity that existed before time. Fatherhood, Sonship, Motherhood, being a bride, these are states of being that God created to reflect a reality that already existed in Himself from before creation. St Paul says that I am like a bride of Christ, despite being a man. There is nothing gay about it, and to think that it is is to make God in mankind's image rather than mankind in God's image. To say that the absolutely perfect mirror image of the relationship between the Father and the Son doesn't correspond to the image of a relationship between a Husband and a Wife doesn't work because Jesus is God's male Son and not His wife is also to make God in mankind's image rather than mankind in God's image, for the same reason. The Bible literally says in multiple places that male and female are the image and likeness of God, and of God and the Church. Maleness is representative of the source, the one who gives and donates, and femaleness of receptivity and submission. That is why we are all in a bridal/feminine relationship to Christ, because we receive from Him. Yet Christ receives from His Father. Throughout His own ministry, Jesus used bridal analogies almost constantly. As non first century Jews, they go over our heads, but look: here are three independent sources explaining. They are protestant, so ignore the lack of emphasis on the Eucharist or the protestantisms, but they make the point glaringly clear: free.messianicbible.com/feature/ancient-jewish-wedding-customs-and-yeshuas-second-coming/ www.gotquestions.org/Jewish-wedding-traditions.html www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/the-jewish-wedding-analogy.html From cover to cover in the Bible, God keeps calling Himself Bridegroom and we are bride. That doesn't just apply to women. It doesn't make it polygamy, it doesn't make it gay. Likewise, there is nothing about mother and father that is incompatible with Son and Father. All of those terms are just human images that God created to show us His love for us. I will prove it to you: God also compares His love for us to a mother nursing her child (multiple places in Isaiah) and Jesus compares His love for us as that of a female Hen nurturing her chicks (Luke 13:34) (Matt 23:37). God is neither female nor an animal. Father simply instead, entire created world is filled with images and icons to point us to Him and help us understand Him. Therefore, the Filioque is absolutely real. Pray about it if you do not believe and ask God to protect you from lies and cover you with His Most Precious Blood and to reveal to you the Truth, or pray to the Holy Theotokos. But do not harden your heart. The parallel between the Trinity and what the Bible Straight up says is God's image in Genesis 1 and Genesis 5 (male and female) is PERFECT. Its almost as if the Holy Spirit wasn't kidding when he inspired those words to be written lol. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon us. Most Holy Theotokos and glorious St Joseph her Spouse, please pray for us.
Easy: They're wrong, and the claim is dumb. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; may it be done to me as you have said" are not the words of a woman being "raped by God".
@@thekingofsomewhere Forgive me for such a horrible question. It's just you see RTE In Ierland Made a anti Christain Sketch where God went to jail for Sexual harrasment claims. Basically they Mocked God and called him a Rapist. Ierland once a Country so God fearing country now thinks that God is not just an abuser but an Sexual abuser
You know coming from an Eastern Catholic myself, I think sometimes the Orthodox hold a supremacy that their better than everyone else, instead of reading their gospel and seeing who our lord Jesus really is, he is not a bunch of rules and Regulations, rather he is the loving savior who is the same for Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. Stop holding a supremacy that you’re better, Jesus said whoever comes first will be last; and whoever is last will be first.
You are wrong. An Orthodox may receive the Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. And A Catholic may receive the Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church. On only one condition; you need to be baptized. As far your personal position with the status of your soul that is your own concern. So YES you may receive. Catholic and Orthodox are one in Faith, there is no different at all. Been there and done it. No problem.
No, if you are a Catholic you absolutely under no circumstances are permitted to receive the Eucharist in our church, what you are saying it only from the perspective of the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox.
No Catholic should be offended by this. It is a matter of respect for both the individual priest and the Orthodox institution. Several Catholic websites have a similar attitude as you, saying things like "While the Catholic Church recognizes all Orthodox sacraments as valid since their priests and bishops maintain Apostolic Succession, it can be a violation of Orthodox teaching for Catholics to receive their sacraments, and this should be respected."
You can. But only in an emergency.
Orthodox Christians who have received their First Communion are allowed to receive Communion and Confession in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why any Christian who is not Orthodox wouldn't be able to receive the Sacrament of Penance in your Church as any Baptized Christian is allowed to receive the Sacrament of Penance. Judging based off the video since he said the only Sacrament Catholics can receive and remain Catholic is Matrimony
i guess Im kinda off topic but do anyone know a good website to stream newly released movies online ?
@Marcelo Bishop Flixportal :P
@Adrien Dakota Thanks, I signed up and it seems like a nice service :D I really appreciate it!!
As a Catholic, I appreciate your clarity on the Eucharist. It’s an unfortunate reality today that many in the Catholic Church no longer believe in the Real Presence, or maybe never did. The serious manner in which the Orthodox Church approaches the Eucharist has me considering Orthodoxy. God bless you and your work.
I left Protestantism and thoroughly examined both in deciding where to go. I learned bad examples exist in both, especially where they are an established “norm.” It’s important to separate the truth from the individuals who claim to hold it.
That said, believe they are brothers. Separated, but brothers, so I hope one day they can enjoy communion together again.
In reverse, let's say if an Orthodox goes to a Catholic Church to take comunion, I would ecourage him to talk to a priest, at least.
@@englishlearningcenter1470 a Catholic priest may have no issue with an Orthodox Christian receiving communion, but you would need to be prepared to receive Communion on the hand and likely from a layperson (extraordinary minister of holy communion).
Very sad indeed, i am also a catholic. There is a crisis in the Catholic Church, one of many, Catholics need to be educated more about the faith and believe it more. Catholic curiculum needs to be reformed!
But here is the crux of the dilemma I am in :
Jesus changed Simon's name to cephas . Cephas in Aramaic is rock or petras in Greek / Peter in English . Jesus says " you are rock ( Petrus - male masculine name ) , and on this rock ( petra - neautral - Rock / actual rock literally ) I will build my church " . In modern culture = you are called rocky ! , And on this stone hard confession of yours , I will built my church .
Peter settled the first ecumenical council . ALL went to Peter to settle disputes and heresies . Peter after jesus is mentioned over 200 times , others are only mentioned less than 50. Judas always mentioned last and Peter always first .
Jesus also said following " I will give you ( singular ) the keys to kingdom of heaven and to bind and loosen " .
Also guided by the holy spirit the seat of Peter can settle / have the last word to settle heresies and make believe concrete and doctrine . The orthodox can never have the last word to settle disputes because all are equal ..supposed there is a 50: 50 for and against ? Who's the last word ? Holy see is above governments . Orthodox had to rely on cosying up to secular governments like USSR .
Plus our lady of Guadalupe and Fatima miracles etc
These are my arguments on orthodoxy .
Don't mean to offend , but want to be re educated if possible .
God bless
*clicks on video, already aware of what the answer is going to be*
*Sad Ecumenist Noises*
Yup, sad ecumenist right here
As a Catholic, I also pray for re-unification between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I also think that it cannot be humanly possible because of the difference in doctrine and a painful history between. It is only possible through Jesus Christ that we can achieve unity.
I also believe that communion is also a way of acceptance of church doctrine. Therefore, our differing points of doctrine makes inter-communion invalid. Ecumenism is good and all but it's better not to cross boundaries out of respect to one another.
I'm amazed that I came across your video. I was raised a Catholic but we at Eastern Time always went to my father's Orthodox Church. We crawled to the cross we blessed the baskets we went to confession and we received holy Communion. I'm 66-year-old now. And this was way back in my younger years of 8 to 12 years old.
As a Catholic I respect your point of view. Yet many Catholic Priests I have met have told me that the Catholic Church as a whole believe that the Sacraments in an Orthodox Church are valid. And also in a case of emergency they would recommend to take communion in an Orthodox Church.
yes but the Orthodox view it different, that is from the Catholic side.
As a non-Orthodox, you should not present yourself for communion in an Orthodox Church.
@taylorrowe2002 no offense but it's not about what you think. The Orthodox Church prohibits the heterodox from receiving Communion so to do otherwise is downright disrespectful
@taylorrowe2002 so according to RCC, God thinks the Orthodox Church is heretical, but not heretical enough for the Real Presence?
Cuz Catholic is universal
I think we should point out it is only very recent that we as Catholics recognized orthodox sacraments as valid and allowed any orthodox to take communion at Catholic churches. Prior to this orthodox and Catholics held eachother to same view
Pope Francis says one of the goals of the church is to have full communion
I respect the rules of the Orthodox Church, but I have my own view on that topic.
Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians are followers of Jesus Christ. Our Lord does not want divisions between his children. And we are fed by the same body.
But its not due to me to decide about that. Let's just respect each other and remember we are in Christ.
Question at the end, please..my fiance is Orthodox and I am Catholic. I attended an Orthodox divine liturgy today for the first time. The priest invited me. I really enjoyed it! I was not sure about taking communion. After watching this video I am glad I did not because if the priest denied me I would have felt very embarrassed! So I just sat and watched everyone else. The priests wife handed me a square piece of bread as I sat and I am not even sure what it was?
I know this is an old question, but what she gave you was antidoron (lit. "in place of the Gifts"), which is some of the bread blessed but not used for Communion. As it isn't sacramental, anyone can receive it. But it is still blessed and should therefore be treated respectfully.
You could at a Byzantine Catholic Church in communion with Rome
I always thought it was funny how the RCC allows for Catholics to take communion in the EOC, but the EOC won't allow it. Kinda like how I can buy fireworks here in Ohio, but can't shoot them off here! 🤣
Hi Bojan, as a Catholic who loves the Orthodox and hopes for unity, I respect your answer on this, for as Catholics we should have respect for what the Orthodox believe in this area. If for example I was to go into an Orthodox Divine liturgy and almost 'sneakily' receive Communion despite the Orthodox believe we can't - this would do harm to any sort of trust between the two sides. May God bring us together if that is his will.
Does that mean a Catholic cannot receive confession from the Orthodox Church?
@@frankpontone2139 almost none of what you said is true
So nice to see you !
Why ortodox monk usualy have long hair, while in 1Cor 11, 14 S.Paul say that nature teach to man to not let hair grown?
Very good channels,
sory if i make some mistake but i'm not english
That is actually a 'mistranslation' of sorts.
orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx
The penultimate paragraph explains this.
@@artemiostriantafyllou7986 thanks
4:15 "Where for example, you might dislike this or that Bishop, and you simply switch jurisdictions - especially amongst the laity - I don't think that should be done" - I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts on this in general.
For example, my local bishop (Catholic) instituted a rule that before the start of the Mass, the priest would stand at the lectern, and ask for anyone who had a birthday or anniversary in the coming week, or any guests that were visiting, to stand and be recognized. The priest would then call on them one at a time, have a few seconds of conversation with them, and then ask the congregation to applaud. Sometimes this process would take over ten minutes. The bishop's idea was to build a sense of community within the congregation. However many laity and even some priests felt that this activity was inappropriate so close to the sacrifice of the Mass. My parish priest transferred to a new diocese after 30 years at our church as a result of this and other decisions by the bishop, and many laity followed him.
What are your thoughts on this situation? Do similar things not happen in Orthodoxy? Is it our duty to follow our local bishop regardless of what they do?
Not! Can not!
@taylorrowe2002 And what does this verse and the word about Filioque have to do with it?? This is thematically unrelated. What is this all about
So I guess we(orthodox) can't take catholic communion. What if we do as a child? When I was little and my grandma died I went with my mother to a catholic mass and I wanted to take communion, however the priest didn't give me. My mother went there and got it and brought a bit back for me, which I took. Is this bad, I mean when I was little I didn't know what you had to do before orthodox communion and when I learned that taking it without preparation is a sin I was frightened, but also comforted by religion teacher that as I didn't know it won't be considered that as far as I don't do it like that again while knowing how it should be done.
I believe Orthodox can receive Catholic Eucharist once they are not in a state of sin. You were just a small child.
We must pray fervently for intercommunion between Catholic and Orthodox.
We are a long way off from that
I wish we could have full communion between our churches. *sad*
The thing is there have been certain times between multiple Orthodox churches and the Catholic church where there were official agreements made where Catholics and Orthodox could receive from each other in emergencies most of these have been rescinded by the Orthodox church, there is still some debate about the matter for example if a Catholic is dying and there is no Catholic priests, some Orthodox bishops have allowed in certain circumstances for these people to receive the sacraments, but it has to come from the Bishop.
All in all, I have no problem not being able to receive the Eucharist in Orthodox Church because I receive it in my own Church. I also wouldnt want an Orthodox to come and receive in a Catholic Church when he doesnt aknowledge certain things we hold to be true, but in emergencies I would support a certain level of sharing of the sacraments.
I have heard that in some extreme cases Orthodox bishops have given permission for Catholics to receive
yes, there were literally deals made at times allowing Catholics to receive in emergencies, but those have mostely been taken back.
We will unite again, hopefully.
This is why I like Eastern Catholics
Listening at school break...
Hello, i'm born catholic, but i thinking to convert to orthodoxy (i belive in orthodoxy but i prefer wait a bit), and so i attend a russian orthodox church, and they know that i am born catholic, but they give me the communion,is that ok?
if you are not baptized as Orthodox then Do not take communion its very wrong to do so convert first
thank you for this video! One of my Catholic friends has received the Eucharist at an Orthodox church several times and so I've been pondering how to talk to her about it for a while
I would never presume to receive communion in violation of the rules! I do believe that the Roman church allows our priests to give communion to the orthodox in emergencies. There are rumors that some orthodox in areas where there are no orthodox churches do attend the Roman services and receive communion without identifying themselves. I have no idea if this is true. I do know many orthodox would not darken the door Of a Roman church which I think is sad.
To my knowledge the Catholic Church allows orthodox christians to take communion and not just in emergencies.
@@redlander55 I wish that were so but I can find out...
@@rdbare4216 I found this
www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/who-may-receive-communion-and-why
In short, the section "Eastern Orthodox in a Catholic church" says that Eastern Orthodox must ask on their own for the sacrament and they must be properly disposed.
@@redlander55 That’s very interesting! I emailed my parish priest but have not received a reply. He is far from being a canon lawyer. However I believe that he may know the truth of the matter. Regarding the article, some Anglicans/Episcopalians have retained Roman Succession. There are also a number of Roman priests who became Episcopalian. In my opinion we need to be wary of declaring that their sacraments are not valid! Maybe not, but maybe so...I have attended some of those services and there is a presence normally found in apostolic churches but not in other Protestant churches. That’s merely my impression. Also I know for a fact that personal belief about nature of the Eucharist is variable among Anglicans. I am sad that no Eastern Orthodox seem to allow Romans to receive communion but I also respect their standards.
@@redlander55 Our pastor said Orthodox were allowed to receive Eucharist in Roman churches only if they were unable to travel to an Orthodox Church. But I now wonder: do all varieties of Orthodox have intercommunion? I know some groups have recently excommunicated each other. 😟 And, even if Catholics permit Orthodox to receive communion, I gather the Orthodox clergy doesn’t approve. Correct?
The other way around is possible: we Catholics allow Orthodox Christians to receive communion, reconciliation, and extreme unction with only two conditions: the Christian seeks these sacraments freely and of their own accord and that they are properly disposed (ie free of mortal sin or willing to confess it and do penance in the case of confession).
Thank you ~
Always!
It's interesting and I've never considered that It's not against Catholic cannon law but it is against Orthodox cannon law. That definitely makes it quite presumptuous on the Catholic part. If you step into another Bishop's church, you are walking into their sphere of authority. When that bishop is in union with your bishop, it's no problem... but when they aren't, spiritually, it's your problem.
One question is why do the churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Athens/Constantinople allow Catholics to take communion? I heard it's actually a "common" thing that happens among the Greek Orthodox churches. The slavic churches seem much more stricter on this matter
Hey, Bojan. Another Catholic question: Does Orthodox teaching distinguish between venial and mortal sin?
The short answer is no, Orthodox Father Confessors following the teaching of the fathers tend to treat sin as sin. Sin being a sickness which needs to be healed, the response to any individual sin relates to how it effects the person, some sins are always regarded as more serious but it is because they are the result of other sins having already controlled the mind and heart and often involve disrespecting the image of God in another person.
Hi Bojan, I realize you're busy moving and such yet....is there a link to "Council of Saints", yet? Excited!
This is why I'm Anglican Catholic and will always be.
Would Theodore of Tarsus be permitted to receive communion in an Orthodox Church?
I was baptized in a catholic church but I converted to orthodox. do i have to do something first before I can take communion or am I just screwed?
Talk to your (orthodox) priest!
Only those baptized by the Orthodox church can receive the holy communion from my understanding. but in saying that Russian Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox do things slightly different from each other, so they are not recognized in the same way. So Conversion and Baptism is the way forward if you so choose.
If I'm in a state of Grace and personally in union with all the Popes and Patriarchs may I receive the Sacraments?
How do you know you are in a state of Grace? And what does union with all the Popes and Patriarchs mean? That would actually be impossible. It is impossible to be in union with Pope Pius XI and Francis or Benedict! Sacraments are not an honour conferred on 'right thinking'. They involve discipline, obedience and community.... choose your discipline, obedience and community.
It’s going to be so strange not taking Communion for a Catholic that converts to the Orthodox Church.
Thanks for a good clear video, it is going to be useful for educating other non Roman Catholic westerners too.
And do not forget the bread issue, that is what put a stop to the attempted reunification at Flurina-Florence, the use of yeast or the lack thereof is a big thing down at the level of the nave. Everything else can be argued out but the bread was beyond resolving by the bishops, in the end the prosphora backing grandmothers kept the faith alive.
What if a Roman Catholic renounces the problematic dogma but can't become Orthodox due to marital issues?
I want to thank you for answering my question. Now I have another one about confession and its secrecy. I have heard that the passed laws requiring that the priest report certain crimes when they are confessed to him. This law was passed during the time of the czars. There is also a controversy related to the Malankara Orthodox Church. They have a requirement similar to the Catholic Church regarding annual confession. However they took names and some priests (I don't know how many) recorded these confessions and used that information for purposes of extortion and blackmail either for sexual favors or money. I wonder if you could comment.
The secrecy of confession in the Catholic Church is absolute and bad things happen to priests who repeat what they hear in confession.
Here is a link with further information;
www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/indias-supreme-court-to-hear-complaint-over-mandatory-confession-in-oriental-orthodoxy-37136
Catholics should very much be in agreement with this sentiment. The Eucharist is not a means to union. Ultimately, it is union. It signifies/symbolizes a union in faith which does not exist. We must pray for truth and unity in truth. Pray for both our churches
Hey Bojan, would you comment on the whole wearing masks inside the church controversy? It is as problematic as it is in America?
I fully support mask wearing in church.
Check this out: ua-cam.com/video/9cSOmwEX1tY/v-deo.html
@@BanterWithBojan Hey Bojan, would you do a video on with the Prosphora and communion wine 🍷 tastes like? The reason why I ask is because for me, the bread tastes like a baguette but what about for the churches that use the Prosphora? Godbless!!!
Actually there exists a way. There was a custom, You could do a Spiritual Communion. It could go something like this. Lord God. Yes I believe that this is truly your most precious Body and Blood. While our Churches are not in Communion with each other. I would like to offer up that pain of separation. May it hasten the day that we are united. As I realize that the walls of our separation do not extend up to Heaven, I ask You to come into my heart.
2:19 Why include the Filioque here? I think the Orthodox have some good arguments against the papacy, though I ultimately fall on the Catholic side. But in regards to the Filioque, from what I know there is no way to try to say that belief in the Filioque was a post-schism innovation or an innovation at all. It has a long history in the West starting with the Latin Fathers, and some of the Eastern Fathers seem to support it as well. It's untenable to just say that the Filioque is a heresy.
I included it because it is one lf the major reasons for the schism due to which cannot partake of the Eucharist in Orthodox churches, and a no. 1 teaching that Catholics tend to label as "not big of a deal". :-)
St Augustine said filioque was heresy
Hundreds and hundreds of years of history and theology say otherwise but I’m sure that it is “no big deal” and those in the past to present are just making a fuss.
@@everlastingphronema9700 I didn't say it was no big deal. It is a big deal.
@@ethanlotter6270 No, he didn't. He believed in the Filioque. But St. Augustine has generally not been viewed positively by Orthodox anyway, so why would you want to follow him on the Filioque even if he disagreed with it?
You do know , Jesus Christ himself did not deny himself to anyone. So regardless of Catholic or Orthodox denying communion to anyone is a sin.
@taylorrowe2002bot
Just imagine two people eyeing on each other but can't cuz they married to someone else.so they just having Mutual Understanding...
Actually both sides excommunicated each other, and papal supremacy doesn’t exist in the eastern churches (neither does the Filioque). Eastern Catholic Churches are Sui Iuris (autocephalous) from the Pope. The Pope only has supremacy among Roman Catholics, in the east our Patriarchs are the head of the churches, and the pope is seen as a first among equals (the Catholic version of the ecumenical patriarch). The primacy of Peter is a better way of of putting it, not Papal supremacy. The pope doesn’t get involved with the matters of Sui Iuris churches. Your answer contained misinformation and wasn’t entirely accurate.
So how does a Catholic that has received baptism and confirmation, and also first communion in the Catholic church, need to do to be able to recieve communion in an orthodox church?
Convert to orthodoxy
But here is the crux of the dilemma I am in :
Jesus changed Simon's name to cephas . Cephas in Aramaic is rock or petras in Greek / Peter in English . Jesus says " you are rock ( Petrus - male masculine name ) , and on this rock ( petra - neautral - Rock / actual rock literally ) I will build my church " . In modern culture = you are called rocky ! , And on this stone hard confession of yours , I will built my church .
Peter settled the first ecumenical council . ALL went to Peter to settle disputes and heresies . Peter after jesus is mentioned over 200 times , others are only mentioned less than 50. Judas always mentioned last and Peter always first .
Jesus also said following " I will give you ( singular ) the keys to kingdom of heaven and to bind and loosen " .
Also guided by the holy spirit the seat of Peter can settle / have the last word to settle heresies and make believe concrete and doctrine . The orthodox can never have the last word to settle disputes because all are equal ..supposed there is a 50: 50 for and against ? Who's the last word ? Holy see is above governments . Orthodox had to rely on cosying up to secular governments like USSR .
Plus our lady of Guadalupe and Fatima miracles etc
These are my arguments on orthodoxy .
Don't mean to offend , but want to be re educated if possible .
God bless
I would like to start with:
"The rock is the unity of faith - not the person of Peter" - Saint Cyprian, III century (also venerated in RCC)
Good sir, I understand all of your claims but (forgive me) most of these "constructions" are based on "ROMAN CATHOLIC MYTHOLOGY" - a mythology wrapped in a 'foil' of theology . Motive for this is papal obsession for earthly power.
ORTHODOX CHURCH is CHRISTOCENTRIC
ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH is PAPALCENTRIC
From generation to generation Roman Catholics are indoctrinated to believe that the founder of the church is Peter the apostle, however, ORTHODOXY TEACHES US - that founder of the Church, is Christ - himself ! The living God. Church is our Lord's MYSTICAL BODY !
Now please, read this very carefully. That BODY (His Church) gathers together - Heaven and Earth - in catholicity* !
Our Church is IN this world but SHE is not FROM this world !!!
Catholicity (Greek word) is very abstract and from the perspective of the Church it means "fullness or perfection-wholeness" embodied in Christ mystical body (His Church).
Catholic doesn't mean Universal , that is a primitive and pointless Latin translation.
Now , (regarding the divine nature of Christ's Church ) one of our differences is caused by this:
For centuries , the popes are trying to proclaim earthly Rome (located in this world) as a center of something that is not from this world - Church of Christ ( Our Lord's mystical body) and yet , Roman pope, a mortal and sinful man, claims to have absolute authority over God's Church - Christ's mystical body !!!
Geographic location as a center of something Devine as God's mystical body ?
A mortal man with the authority above everlasting God !!??
Now you see that Roman*(Geographical concept) + Catholicism*(abstract concept) is logically incompatible concept. It is a contradiction and nonsense in it's very essence.
It is a creepy heretical teaching.
It wasn't always like this. Back in the days when the Roman Patriarchal See was a "sacred branch" of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Orthodox church, things use to look much different . Roman bishops use to be a great defenders of Orthodoxy and orthodox Catholicism. Regarding this, let's recall the famous roman pope Saint Gregory the Great and his famous words :
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."
-Pope Saint Gregory the Great (or as he is known in the Orthodox Church, Saint Gregory the Dialogist; Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)
Official name of the Orthodox church is One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - which means , Orthodox believers are Catholics as well - the only catholics !
Catholics with big "C".
In the eyes of Orthodoxy roman catholicism is not catholicism at all . If RCC claims that Peter was the one who built the church I would like to remind them that the FIRST CHURCH "built" by Peter was the Church of Antioch - the oldest Patriarchal see of Orthodox Church - EVER . Undeniable historical fact.
Now you can see where are the "keys"
Much later Peter left to Rome to organize a Christian communion in Rome . Now, even with that "earthly - geographical " approach , we can see who's right.
A thousand years a go - Rome (as one of the patriarchates of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ) CAME OUT from the Church.
Rome, once separated from Christ's mystical body has lost a link to Holly Spirit.
Instead of authentic Orthodox Catholicism, Rome started to preach Roman Catholicism - a deviant and spiritually polluted version of Orthodox Catholicism.
Previously , patriarchal sees of Church ( some even older then Rome) granted Rome with a ceremonial position "first in honor but not in power" because Rome was the old capital of the empire. " Not in power" because no human can claim a power above something Divine.
Rome position was "PRIMUS INTER PARES - First among the equals " - Patriarchal sees of Church.
Unfortunately , a mortal men - roman bishops wanted earthly power over God's Church.
WAIT HE DIDN'T SAY HANDS IN THIS ONE EITHER!!!!!......THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR BOJAN!!!!!
@taylorrowe2002bot
If by "can they", you mean "do they", the answer is yes, and much more than you might think, mainly involving Greek Catholics. In the Middle East and Eastern Europe, this is quite common, and it is actually quite frequent in the U.S., do mainly to the history of the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches in this country. Only Orthodox converts and those who belong to jurisdiction that have no Greek Catholic counterpart, do you find a reflexive rejection of the very idea. But historically, intercommunion has been more the rule than the exception, especially where Orthodox and Greek Catholics live cheek-by-jowl.
An area without a Catholic Church? That has an Orthodox Church? That isn’t too common
Maybe you are visiting Russia or something
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic says that Jesus wad anointed by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was annointed by the Holy Spirit then how can the Holy Spirit proceed from him?
Because Procession in Latin and Greek mean 2 different things and we all are fighting over strawmen.
@@vincenzorutigliano5435 Could it be that we really don't know what we are talking about?
@@robertwaguespack9414 Most likely
if an orthodox person defiled a catholic consecrated host would it be the same as defiling an orthodox one
No ! But there are Uniate churches in the US that encourage Orthodox to receive communion in Uniate churches.
That's the whole Catholic church period. We allow orientals and eastern orthodox to take our scaraments without asking
@@pipsasqeak820 and what does that do to their relationship with their confessor ? You do know that we Orthodox are not allowed to receive the sacraments of the latin church , or the Episcopal/ Anglo Catholic Church They have to confess receiving sacraments from Heretics. Did you know that ? Now you do .
But Jesus built His Church on the Rock that is St. Peter Bishop of Rome
The denial of the Filioque is ridiculous. Forget the historical context or any arguments used at the time. We know from Genesis to Hosea to the Gospels to Ephesians 5 to Revelation that Christ created Man and Woman to image The Trinitarian nature of God and what He wants with us. Validly Sacramentally married Husband and Wife cease to be two but become one flesh while retaining individual personhood. Just like the Trinity. The Orthodox do not deny this, and emphasize it in their marriage rituals. In Genesis the Trinity refer to Themselves together in the plural and say, let us make mankind in Our Image. So in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them.
To deny the Filioque while observing the following is willful ignorance and the hardening of one’s heart:
Woman is begotten of man (Eve from Adam’s side) just as the Son is begotten of the Father. From the most intimate expression of unity and one flesh love between a man and a woman proceeds a third person of equal dignity and the same substance: a child. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the unity and love of the Father and the Son. If you deny this, then your concept of the Trinity does not correspond to the image of Himself that God gave us. Jesus is equal to the Father, but does not consider equality something to be grasped, and so He submits to Him, and then the Father glorifies Him. Likewise, this is identical to what is mandated throughout the scriptures that a wife should submit to her husband in all things despite equal dignity with him, and that he must love her completely and self sacrificially as Christ loves and the Church, and thus glorify her and raise her up to be exalted for man is the glory of God, but woman is the glory of man as St Paul says. Truly. Denying the Filioque is blindness. I love most Byzantine theology but this is one error that is simply ridiculous.
... wat
One part of the analogy concerns the union of a father and a _mother_, resulting in a son, the other part concerns the Father and the _Son_. IMHO this comparison doesn't work.
I mean, St. Aquinas was creative on defending the Filioque too, but that is a bruh moment.
@@artemiostriantafyllou7986 What do you think that it means when Genesis says that so in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them? Does it mean that God had 10 fingers and 10 toes and 4 limbs as Spirit without a body before the incarnation? Does it mean that without a body He had a pre-existing sexuality? No. Of course not. It means that God created humanity divided into two sets of complimentary beings that only found their completion when united as not two but one flesh, in love. In Hosea, Isaiah the Song of Songs, Ephesians 5, and Revelation, we as members of the Church are called bride and Christ is the Bridegroom. If you are a man and Christ is your Bridegroom, does that mean you have a gay relationship with Christ? When Jesus Christ gives you His Body to receive inside of yourself as bride in the form of the Eucharist, and you become not two but one flesh, the literal process of Theosis, is that akin to having gay sex with Jesus???! Of course not. How blasphemous. Why then? Why is it not gay? What is my point in saying all of this. My point is this: God is not like mankind, God was not made in our image. We are made in His image. Thus, male and female are not categories that existed before God created the world. They are simply an iconic representation of the Trinity and the principles of unity and multiple persons becoming One in Love in the Trinity that existed before time. Fatherhood, Sonship, Motherhood, being a bride, these are states of being that God created to reflect a reality that already existed in Himself from before creation. St Paul says that I am like a bride of Christ, despite being a man. There is nothing gay about it, and to think that it is is to make God in mankind's image rather than mankind in God's image. To say that the absolutely perfect mirror image of the relationship between the Father and the Son doesn't correspond to the image of a relationship between a Husband and a Wife doesn't work because Jesus is God's male Son and not His wife is also to make God in mankind's image rather than mankind in God's image, for the same reason. The Bible literally says in multiple places that male and female are the image and likeness of God, and of God and the Church. Maleness is representative of the source, the one who gives and donates, and femaleness of receptivity and submission. That is why we are all in a bridal/feminine relationship to Christ, because we receive from Him. Yet Christ receives from His Father. Throughout His own ministry, Jesus used bridal analogies almost constantly. As non first century Jews, they go over our heads, but look: here are three independent sources explaining. They are protestant, so ignore the lack of emphasis on the Eucharist or the protestantisms, but they make the point glaringly clear:
free.messianicbible.com/feature/ancient-jewish-wedding-customs-and-yeshuas-second-coming/
www.gotquestions.org/Jewish-wedding-traditions.html
www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/the-jewish-wedding-analogy.html
From cover to cover in the Bible, God keeps calling Himself Bridegroom and we are bride. That doesn't just apply to women. It doesn't make it polygamy, it doesn't make it gay. Likewise, there is nothing about mother and father that is incompatible with Son and Father. All of those terms are just human images that God created to show us His love for us.
I will prove it to you: God also compares His love for us to a mother nursing her child (multiple places in Isaiah) and Jesus compares His love for us as that of a female Hen nurturing her chicks (Luke 13:34) (Matt 23:37). God is neither female nor an animal. Father simply instead, entire created world is filled with images and icons to point us to Him and help us understand Him. Therefore, the Filioque is absolutely real. Pray about it if you do not believe and ask God to protect you from lies and cover you with His Most Precious Blood and to reveal to you the Truth, or pray to the Holy Theotokos. But do not harden your heart. The parallel between the Trinity and what the Bible Straight up says is God's image in Genesis 1 and Genesis 5 (male and female) is PERFECT. Its almost as if the Holy Spirit wasn't kidding when he inspired those words to be written lol. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon us. Most Holy Theotokos and glorious St Joseph her Spouse, please pray for us.
What do you think of people who accuse God of Raping the Theotokos?
Easy: They're wrong, and the claim is dumb.
"Behold the handmaid of the Lord; may it be done to me as you have said" are not the words of a woman being "raped by God".
@@thekingofsomewhere Forgive me for such a horrible question. It's just you see RTE In Ierland Made a anti Christain Sketch where God went to jail for Sexual harrasment claims. Basically they Mocked God and called him a Rapist. Ierland once a Country so God fearing country now thinks that God is not just an abuser but an Sexual abuser
You know coming from an Eastern Catholic myself, I think sometimes the Orthodox hold a supremacy that their better than everyone else, instead of reading their gospel and seeing who our lord Jesus really is, he is not a bunch of rules and Regulations, rather he is the loving savior who is the same for Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. Stop holding a supremacy that you’re better, Jesus said whoever comes first will be last; and whoever is last will be first.
You are wrong. An Orthodox may receive the Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. And A Catholic may receive the Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church. On only one condition; you need to be baptized. As far your personal position with the status of your soul that is your own concern. So YES you may receive. Catholic and Orthodox are one in Faith, there is no different at all. Been there and done it. No problem.
No, if you are a Catholic you absolutely under no circumstances are permitted to receive the Eucharist in our church, what you are saying it only from the perspective of the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox.
Bad
False Answer.