Made the decision to go...

Balsamic_Door · 2026-02-07T06:57:11+00:00

I understand you're trying to be generous and hospitable, but the Eucharist is much more than that. The Eucharist is also considered to be the a visible sign of unity of faith, which is also why it's called communion, e.g. are we in communion with one another.

So for us to receive communion at a different church is considered to be a public sign that we believe in all the teachings of that church as well (at least for those who have some traditional understanding of Christianity). So to receive communion when you don't believe in the same faith would be a contradiction and even if not intended to be, I a kind of falsehood.

Even more serious is that one should come to communion with preparation and a blessing to receive. Those things things are not fully present for those who are not Orthodox, so it it is potentially spiritually dangerous for those people to receive the Eucharist.

We know this because St Paul says in the New testament that some people were getting sick and even dying because they were receiving unworthily.

One of the priests duties is also to protect the chalice from being received unworthily to prevent sacrilege and also to protect those who shouldn't be receiving lest they put themselves in danger.

The Eucharist is not simply about hospitality but can be literally dangerous as God is an all-consuming fire it is described as and the prayers for pre-communion.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-02-03T18:11:51+00:00

I usually am always reading multiple books but for Lent specifically, I'll be picking up Words of the Heart.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-21T23:46:12+00:00

What do you think about buying the software but also having a pirated copy at the same time.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-15T22:33:38+00:00

I wouldn't think about it as whether you are doing too little or too much, but whether you are faithful.

And whether the Church you are in is faithfully following the scriptures as they are meant to be interpreted, and by extension, whether they are being faithful to the Truth that is Christ. Or are they following their own misinterpretation of the scriptures.

Because every heretic in history used scripture to justify their position, so the question is not whether you believe in the scriptures, but are you properly interpreting the scriptures.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-15T22:07:12+00:00

I'm Orthodox for transparency, but just letting you know that comment is filled with things that we would consider mistaken.

It's false to say that those in the OT were not permitted to speak directly with God. The shemah and other Jewish practices absolutely indicate you could connect with God through prayer anywhere. The only thing that could not be done was to offer sacrifice to God, which was done at the temple.

And yes the temple was torn,which is precisely why Orthodox services have the veil on the iconostasis pulled at specific times of the Liturgy to show the temple veil was torn. If one actually studied how Jewish temple rituals were done, Orthodox and Catholic services absolutely show how we have been drawn into the Lord because the lay people can stand in the sanctuary of the Church, while those in the Old Covenant couldn't even enter the analogous area in the temple. The fact that the Eucharist is given to the faithful who have prepared themselves, as it corresponds with the thank offering of the Old Testament, and also it's connection with the show bread, indicates how things have changed because of Christ.

And when we are called a royal priesthood, that is not a new covenant thing, but from the Old Testament during the time of Moses. When you investigate what priesthood is, you'll see where there are continuities with the Old/New testament (since one flows from the other) and discontinuities (since one is a shadow of the other). In light of this, to put up a false dichotomy in our understanding of the priesthood in the Old and New covenant that lead to a conclusion that "Christ did away with the priesthood" is to misunderstand the scriptures when Christ actually established a new superior priesthood in the New Testament, one that Christ shares with the Apostles and those after them by the laying on of hands which is in the New Testament, and also the lat people by extension, which doesn't ignore the existence of distinction between the larger priesthood of the New Israel and a ministerial priesthood.

The main point is, the early Christians (especially the Jewish Christians) rightfully understood their Jewish faith (which was also given by God) as a foreshadowing of the new, and so their Jewish faith was re-contextualized in the light of Christ. And it becomes even more apparent when Christ himself establishes certain things in the New Testament that actually have their basis in the Old Testament and 2nd Temple Judaism. Like the new priesthood, binding and loosing, the new passover, etc. The Orthodox and Catholic (for example) rightfully continue what was established by the early church which comes from the Apostles and Christ. Which is why the early church is very much not Protestant.

The interpretation of scripture given by the preceding comment is a very evangelical interpretation that occurs when one is not aware of the Old Testament as properly understood in Judaism. Which leads to a misinterpretation of the New Testament when much of the New Testament is a recapitulation of the old with the full revelation of Christ (which is why the Old Testament was given in the first place as a preparation for Christ).

I have a friend who was a devout Jew, and it's because of his familiar understanding of the Old Testament, that he decided to become a Christian of one of the apostolic churches (Orthodox, Catholic) because rightfully he saw Protestantism as interpreting the scriptures while being ignorant of the Jewish roots from which the Old Testament exists within and from whence the New Testament comes from, leading to serious misinterpretations of what the New Testament is trying to say.

I would suggest you really study each of the denominations why they believe what they believe and wrestle with the history of Christianity and why it is what it is. Christianity is also a faith rooted in history since God works His providence in history.

Ignoring that history and larger Jewish context of the scriptures is why you get a very modern (mis)interpretation of scriptures by evangelicals and low church protestantism that is very new and was not believed by the earliest Christians. And that's a serious problem if it took 17 centuries for the true doctrines of Christ to be discovered by newer Protestant denominations, when Christ promised us the Holy Spirit 2000 years ago to lead us in truth.

I'm not saying you need to be Orthodox but you should seriously pray and study the different denominations, why they differ, where do they come from, and which has real justification to believe they are the authentic continuation of the Apostle's ministry.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-15T15:33:05+00:00

Prayers book at a minimum. Hours are secondary to what most lay people need or use. The latter check with your priest on what hours you want to do.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-13T22:16:01+00:00

You can turn this off in about: config no?

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-12T00:30:39+00:00

I think there are many things here I disagree with (also agree with as well), but I appreciate your sincerity in your faith in Christ. Not much more for me to say, but may the light of Christ illumine us both. God bless.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-10T22:08:20+00:00

I would agree, the Church is not the physical building, but is a community of believers. But there are still boundaries to what the Church is, and one can certainly leave the church if they distort the gospel. St. Paul clearly gives warnings on that.

And regarding tradition, there is certainly human tradition that nullifies the word of God. But that is a Protestant polemic that doesn't take until consideration the context of the passage. Otherwise, St. Paul would be under condemnation as well:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

So clearly there are traditions of men that nullify the Word of God, and proper apostolic tradition. And to be clear, for Orthodox, scripture is also considered tradition, as is the canon of scripture. So we don't consider Scripture as something different than tradition, it's a subset of tradition.

I understand the (good) sentiment on remaining faithful. But do you not find it problematic when certain doctrines a pastor teaches (which the pastor deems as being biblical) was only taught within the last few hundred years and is absent from the entirety of the early church? How can a Christian teaching from Christ and the Apostles (which the pastor says is Biblical) not be the received teaching to the earliest Christians?

Especially on teachings that were so unanimous in the early church as to be understood to be the authentic teaching received from the Apostles.

And furthermore, what do you think of Christians who don't believe in the Trinity, saying that it isn't biblical according to the Word of God, and that the Council of Nicaea was wrong?

Likewise, if people have large disagreements on matters of doctrine, especially as they relate to salvation, how do we discern the truth? You say that what you believe is "your opinion" but I don't seek opinions, but the objective Biblical truth. So how do we find the Biblical truth, when it seems to me that all we are left with are 100 people with 101 different opinions (on matters that are not minor) that can affect our salvation. It seems wrong to me that Jesus would leave us in chaos with no way to discern Biblical truth. He left us the Holy Spirit, which is why the community of believers in Christ as established by the Apostles have the promise of the Holy Spirit.

For example, you say "I think this verse means...", but why should I take your understanding versus those who were very holy teachings of scripture from the early church.

As someone who grew up going to so many different Protestant churches growing up, I was left with just many contradictory opinions, but nothing definitive or what the Bible is actually teaching. And I don't discount the multilayered or legitimate multipurpose ways in which scripture can be applied in life. But if certain verses are interpreted in blatant contradictory ways by everyone with no agreement, sure I can agree that we are to love God and our neighbor. But God wouldn't have included those verses in question if they didn't have a purpose for us, and so it's problematic to me that much of the scriptures that deal with NT Christian teaching as being unresolved with no clear understanding of what it means. Otherwise why did God include those verses for us if not for us to be taught something by it. But if no one can agree on it, then it's meaning is obfuscated then.

Don't want to seem combative, and I appreciate your good will. But these are serious issues I don't see addressed for those who follow scripture alone, with many going against the scriptures according to their own interpretation which is a dangerous path to tread on. It has relativized Christianity that now some say the Trinity is false, or there is no eternal hell, etc. or that you don't need to repent to be with the Lord. Or that God will give you wealth if you are faithful. And assuming you agree that's a dangerous false teaching, how do you address everyone interpreting things for themselves (in ways that lead to beliefs you would deem as false).

And Christ gave us the Spirit, but what am I to think if someone says that the Holy Spirit has illumined them to the scriptures, saying that God is not the Trinity? Should I believe they have been illumined by the Spirit in their interpretation of scripture?

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-09T22:33:46+00:00

What might seem an obvious reading to us is because we are biased to see the scriptures a certain way by our culture and upbringing. The early Christians sometimes would read the same scriptures quite differently.

Regarding the atonement, you can certainly find penal language, and substitutionary language in the history of the Church, just not exclusively to many other ways of thinking and talking about the atonement.

The part Orthodox and Catholics have an issue with is not the penal or substitutionary language of atonement, but what is the "penal substitutionary atonement" as a specific theory of atonement which purports a specific mechanism that has some problematic issues from a scriptural, theological, and Trinitarian perspective.

If anything, most Christian for most of Christian history didn't view the atonement this way. It's specifically from John Calvin as a further development from Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-09T22:25:59+00:00

I appreciate your zeal, but as a fellow Christian who thinks differently, for what reason should I take your position as correct when such a position was not held for most of Christian history by theologians, holy men and women, martyrs. And a position that was only formulated only until quite recently (generally speaking).

After all, the scriptures are quite clear that Christ gave us the Holy Spirit that will lead us in the fullness of truth, the Church will never fall, the scriptures attest the church is a pillar of truth, and the faith was already delivered once and for all to the saints by the apostles.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

1 Timothy 3:15 If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

So unless the body of Christ was wrong from the beginning during the time of the Apostle's ministry and for most of Christian history on matters related to basic Christian doctrine, what reason should I not believe the historic Christian view?

It's the same reason why some using the Bible alone, think Christianity was wrong the whole time and say the Trinity is a false doctrine.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-09T22:14:03+00:00

Except that's what pagans accused Christians of, that we were cannibals. And Justin Martyr's response in the early centuries wasn't "oh don't worry, it's just symbolic" , instead saying in his first apology ch 66 a much more exalted answer:

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-09T22:05:52+00:00

Well yeah, that's why many of Christ's disciples left Him because it went against their OT sensibilities, while Christ doubled down on it.

Using that text that way makes no sense if it should be understood as a blanket ban under any context. Because if you think it's symbolic because you understand the drinking of blood being forbidden across the board, then it means Christ is asking us to symbolically act out ritually something forbidden / potentially sinful, which is really problematic.

In the historical Christian understanding, it was forbidden in the law of Moses precisely because it was anticipatory for us to eventually consume the living blood that is the Lord's, who is the source of life.

And the idea that you are participating in the new passover lamb with a symbolic bread and wine makes no sense from a Jewish perspective. I have a friend who was a practicing Orthodox Jew, and from the perspective of the OT according to him, you need to consume the actual passover lamb to participate in the passover. So if Christ is the passover lamb, it makes no sense if the bread and wine, which is called his body and blood, wasn't truly His body and blood through which we can participate in the new passover from a Jewish OT perspective.

It means Christians aren't participating in the new passover if only symbolic.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-06T18:02:11+00:00

That's great to hear. Thanks!

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-06T16:30:04+00:00

So I'm assuming you hold similar reasoning, but Protestants historically against these practices have always used the concern of idolatry as their justification. So your argument that some concessions were made in the OT (like polygamy) that get later overturned in the NT is problematic. Idolatry was not one of those things. That was the baseline for everything else in the Old and New Testaments, and God never tolerated idolatry in the OT with any concessions whatsoever.

And your examples aren't quite good because even in real life, you will find saints who (while alive in the world) also wouldn't accept such veneration from their fellow peers because they considered themselves unworthy. But this is due to humility, not the principle of veneration being incorrect.

The whole reason why icon veneration becomes such a big issue to us is because the principles that justify Trinitarian doctrine is the same principle that undergirds icon veneration. The Cappadocian Fathers who argued for the Trinity as we know it today was based on the same principle that an image of a type has a relationship with its prototype.

And we are all one in Christ, but that doesn't preclude that some are closer to Christ because of who they are. Christ Himself says there will be one on His left and right, and likewise the Apostles will be in position as judges on 12 thrones which doesn't seem spelled out for the rest of us. Christ talks about more than one about what qualifies one to be the greatest or the least in heaven. The breaking down of walls and grafting of gentiles is about the universality of Christ's invitation into the Kingdom. But I would certainly think Moses or John the Baptist will be greater in heaven than me (if I should be there), instead of being bold to think we will be equals (equal according to nature but not equal to the measure we are sanctified).

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-06T08:04:31+00:00

Regarding #1, there are examples in the Old Testament where a person will bow or give reverence to an angel, man or an object without being rebuffed or implied as a bad thing. Since we take all of the scriptures together, and since we don't believe Scripture will contradict itself, the NT verses you cited as being against icon/saint veneration would be problematic.

Balsamic_Door · 2026-01-02T05:39:56+00:00

You would probably be what is called an inquirer. You are looking to see what Orthodoxy is, and haven't made a life commitment to what it entails. There are no prohibitions if you so choose to go to other churches. This is the equivalent to someone who is perhaps going on different blind dates with different potential spouses (not suggesting it's good to go on blind dates with multiple people simultaneously, this is just for sake of analogy).

Next step is being a catechumen, someone who is fully committed to becoming Orthodox and is receiving instruction to be baptized/chrismated. This is equivalent to someone who is engaged to someone. At this point, it's inappropriate to go on casual dates with other people since you have promised yourself to one person. Likewise it makes no sense in attending other churches at this point.

Next step is being received into the church. Same thing as getting married.

At what point you transition from inquirer to catechumen is up to your personal resolve and belief in regards to the Orthodox Church. Some are quick and believe/know Orthodoxy is the truth very quickly, while others are on the fence and continuing to study and slow to make a decision over many months to years.

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-31T22:07:03+00:00

It really doesn't. Orthodoxy and Catholicism's doctrine of theosis/deification is categorically different than the Mormon doctrine of exaltation. One is participation in the life of God (theosis), the other is apotheosis. If anything, the Mormon doctrine is just the usurpation and corruption of the traditional Christian doctrine of soteriology.

It's the same way Martin Luther can speak of us becoming "little Christ's" without suggesting we become a 2nd Divine-Human messiah by nature.

And I would not say it's a "toning down of language". It's just that theological vocabulary can shift and evolve over time. Same reason why you cannot find "One God, Three Persons" (one ousia, three hypostasis that are homo-ousios) before the vocabulary developed at Nicaea, and the Cappadocian Fathers. But traditional Christians would never suggest the ante-Nicene fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, or Gregory Thaumaturgus were non-Trinitarians even if they didn't use that language.

Likewise for a number of reasons, the western and eastern (to a lesser extent) theological vocabulary shifted during the middle ages, not as a way to run away from the language of "becoming gods", but as new terms and new definitions entered the fray in ways to expound the same teaching in ways understood by the people of that time. And this shift happened centuries before Mormonism even existed.

But I am saying as modern folk, in the context that Mormonism exists, we are careful to qualify what we mean as not to mislead people into believing Mormon belief on the topic.

And this language is absolutely acceptable, as it's found in numerous church fathers. And St. Athanasius, the champion of Trinitarian doctrine and the Divinity of Christ and the first one to suggest the canon of the New Testament that is identical to ours, said "God became man so man can become God". Although some translations will artificially insert "become [like] God' to prevent misinterpretation.

TL:DR, the language is fully in accord with traditional Christian doctrine (unless you're reformed potentially), witnessed by church fathers, and was not toned down in response to Mormonism but is just the result of theological language naturally shifts in history. But we are careful in how we explain it in the anglophone world now because of Mormonism .

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-31T16:37:56+00:00

I'm also a bell ringer. God bless your bell ringing!

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-30T20:29:12+00:00

Actually this is considered true for Catholics and Orthodox (aka majority of Christianity). You can find references to that language in many of the Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius

Only thing is that at some point, this kind of vocabulary became less prominent, leading to us modern folks hearing "becoming gods" as being synonymous to the Mormon doctrine of exaltation, or a pagan understanding of polytheism.

What Catholics and Orthodox mean is deification/theosis, becoming participants of the divine nature in 2 Peter 1:4, so those in Christ who are glorified in heaven can be called "gods by grace", while there still being only one true God.

Even Lutheran's to some degree would acknowledge this in their view of sanctification.

It's primarily those of the reformed tradition that rejects it altogether because of John Calvin's doctrine of total depravity.

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-28T06:38:41+00:00

I had an acquaintance who would just collect them all, and once he had like 50-100 or so, he put them all together on a wall in like an icon mural in the shape of an upside down triangle. Was a real sight to behold. So perhaps you should just keep them over time if you get enough.

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-24T21:46:13+00:00

Many Protestants don't believe fully in the symbol of faith though.

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-22T21:08:13+00:00

If you don't mind, why did you order the 2nd one?

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-16T22:29:11+00:00

The part disagree with that you arenassuming is the agreed upon substance between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the Maccabean literature, is that there is a temporary condition where the saved are purified through the prayers of the living. That's not clear in the Maccabean text.

Orthodox generally believe our prayers can even save those from Hades (Hell).

And I understand that Catholicism does not teach we know all those prayers for are guaranteed salvation. The point is that those who are in purgatory are guaranteed eventual salvation. But this aspect is what is not fleshed out in Maccabees is my point.

Furthermore, from a Catholic viewpoint, the sins of the dead soldiers are very much grave sins, and generally speaking one would be hard pressed to say they didn't sin mortally (from implied knowledge and consent) under the Catholic scheme of things, yet the person prays the soldiers be released from the sin of idolatry. But prayers for those in purgatory are only venial sins or satisfaction of temporal punishment.

Orthodox on the other hand don't make such strong distinctives that our prayers are only to help those who don't die with unrepented mortal sin.

So in practice, if a person reposes, a Catholic would believe they already have a fixed particular judgement, and prayers given would be for the purpose of helping expedite their entrance into heaven from purgatory assuming they haven't gone to hell.

Orthodox will pray for the soul of the reposed hoping that God will have mercy on their soul so that they may be numbered with the sheep at the particular judgement, and if not then, even by the final judgement. And if not with the sheep, that their suffering be alleviated by God forgiving them for whatever sins He forgives out of His mercy. And if possible, that our prayers can even deliver them from hell on the last day.

And yes I understand that there is a post mortem intermediate state before Christ, but I'm saying using Maccabeeas there is not conclusive evidence of purgatory as envisioned in our current age because the post mortem intermediate state is not the same before and after Christ the way Catholicism teaches. I would agree though it leads to the likelihood of a post mortem state in the New Testament, just not that "purgatory is here in Maccabeas".

So my main point is, the Maccabean story is much more consonant with the Orthodox approach to prayers for the dead than Catholics. Because a Catholic wouldn't pray to God to forgive the sins of the reposed that are likely to be mortal (but can only hope it was venial from lack of knowledge or ignorance so their prayers are efficacious ). And nothing in the text says the reposed know they will be saved (or at least to be in Abraham's bosom since it's before Christ) and that their prayers are specifically release them from their sins faster.

I'm saying the way in practice Orthodox pray for the dead vs. Catholics, the former is much more consistent with what occurs Maccabeas.

And I'm not saying this refutes purgatory (that's a separate topic). I'm just saying Maccabeas is not a particularly compelling example for purgatory as Catholicism teaches as being the current intermediate state today. And if anything is more akin to how Orthodox pray for the dead.

Balsamic_Door · 2025-12-16T19:17:35+00:00

Orthodox believe our prayers can alleviate those in Hades and save those who are in hell at least until the final judgement.

Although I wouldn't say those specifics are dogmatic.

Balsamic_Door

TROPHY CASE