How would you greet a bishop?

genez said:

Billy Graham had led ministers to the Lord. Wake up. Religion has become a business.

One would think those child molesting priests have yet to have the Holy Spirit enter them in regeneration.

Click to expand...

Go back an read the OP. No particular denomination was specified, and there are plenty of them which have bishops.

genez said:

How highly you exalt yourself.

Click to expand...

Where? This is a serious accusation, and I don't appreciate it being leveled at me apropos of nothing.

Prove your responsibility by how well you feed (teach) your flock.

Click to expand...

I don't have a flock. I'm a layperson.

Anyone (with some teaching ability) can teach something.

Click to expand...

* and the permission of their bishop (which I don't have!)

Very few know how, and what to teach.

Click to expand...

All the more reason to trust those who do, who have been recognized by the Church accordingly and made bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, etc.

David Cabrera said:

And you think pastors don't get into sexual immorality?

Click to expand...

Of course not... Do you think all clergy believe the Word of God?

dzheremi said:

All the more reason to trust those who do, who have been recognized by the Church accordingly and made bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, etc.

Click to expand...

You are missing my point. Most in positions of authority are weak in their understanding. If they were not? They would not hide tucked away in a denomination.

When the Word of God is accurately taught... and, received by believers filled with the Spirit? No denomination exists. Its simply a local church with Christ as its head.

The reason denominations exist is because of religious people worshiping tradition, and rebuffing any correction that might come its way. The love for the traditions of men is the culprit.

genez said:

Do you think all clergy believe the Word of God?

Click to expand...

I think most do, yes. Most churches and denominations have a training and screening process for their clergy, to ensure that the priests/pastors/ministers understand and believe the Christian faith before entering into their role as church leaders.

Of course there will be denominational variations in doctrine; Christians have been quarrelling with each other since New Testament times. But do most clergy believe that through the work of Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that we should live in the way that Jesus taught? Yes.

PloverWing said:

I think most do, yes. Most churches and denominations have a training and screening process for their clergy, to ensure that the priests/pastors/ministers understand and believe the Christian faith before entering into their role as church leaders.

Of course there will be denominational variations in doctrine; Christians have been quarrelling with each other since New Testament times. But do most clergy believe that through the work of Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that we should live in the way that Jesus taught? Yes.

Click to expand...

Jesus taught the following in Mat 23:9, when speaking in regards to titles used of men...




How many believe the Word of God?

Jesus could not have made it any simpler. Just like the Lord's command to Adam not to eat of the wrong tree. Very simple to understand.

Its willful denial and belligerence when someone claims to be an expert in teaching the Bible.. and what they teach defies such a command. And, even make an effort to acquire apologists to explain away their error.

Its shameful.

Very few are genuine teachers of God's Word. Many may teach 'from' it, only to exploit it to their desired outcome. A few get it right. Likewise.. Jesus said: Few will find it.

PloverWing said:

Do you share the Gospel with all clergy, or is this a jab at Orthodox clergy in particular? Most members of the clergy know the Gospel quite well already.

Click to expand...

Knowing is not obeying....
And i share it with all " people"
There is no elitism allowed...

genez said:

Jesus taught the following in Mat 23:9, when speaking in regards to titles used of men...

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’
for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."​

How many believe the Word of God?

Jesus could not have made it any simpler. Just like the Lord's command to Adam not to eat of the wrong tree. Very simple to understand.

Its willful denial and belligerence when someone claims to be an expert in teaching the Bible.. and what they teach defies such a command. And, even make an effort to acquire apologists to explain away their error.

Its shameful.

Very few are genuine teachers of God's Word. Many may teach 'from' it, only to exploit it to their desired outcome. A few get it right. Likewise.. Few will find it.

Click to expand...

Okay, you've lost me.

If you're concerned about the title "father", lots of churches don't use the word "father" for their clergy. I usually address my pastor by his first name.

If you're saying that you disagree with most Christians about the content of the Christian faith, maybe we should just part ways here and acknowledge our religious differences.

PloverWing said:

Okay, you've lost me.

If you're concerned about the title "father", lots of churches don't use the word "father" for their clergy. I usually address my pastor by his first name.

If you're saying that you disagree with most Christians about the content of the Christian faith, maybe we should just part ways here and acknowledge our religious differences.

Click to expand...

What does the Bible say?

Are we to vote on it by numbers of those who chose to reject truth? Where does that place you?

I did not lose you. You were shown that you are lost if you find that confusing.

dzheremi said:

I don't know how it is that people can be so informal about the apostles or their disciples when they themselves were not.

Click to expand...

They are so informal because they have no respect.

dzheremi said:

So what is there to say about that? I think we're having different conversations by this point.

Click to expand...

IMHO I think we are seeing the end result of Protestantism. A real lack of respect, not caring, a real hatred for the Original Church, and misuse of Scripture.

dzheremi said:

And yet Christ was incarnate as a man, not as a text. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Click to expand...

You would be surprised how many evangelicals don't understand that and place text as the most important thing

dzheremi said:

Yes; how could they not be, when He Himself is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life?

My point, in case it was not clear, is that to deny proper honor to those whom Christ has given the responsibility of shepherding His flock amounts to nothing less than an implicit denial of the incarnation itself. You exalt the book or the speech or the whatever as something separate from the presence of God in the man or men who have written it, canonized it, or spoken it, dividing the life-giving Word from His creation in the name of not exalting a man...all the while paradoxically recognizing that Christ is a man!

So, as Christ is incarnate as a man, blessing our nature in Himself by assuming it from the ever-virgin St. Mary the Theotokos (cf. St. Gregory Nazianzen: "That which is not assumed is not saved"), would it not make more sense to 'exalt' a man as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (as Christ specifically told us would happen; Matthew 10:19-20), as our Lord's incarnation itself is what makes such an indwelling possible? Or are we going to pretend as though the incarnation only affected the Word of God Himself, and did not have any effect on the wider world or the people in it? Or maybe it only affected the world insofar as people in it may preach from a text that you recognize? (But would not have were it not for the work of great saints such HH St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, the fathers of the councils at Carthage that accepted HH St. Athansius' canon, etc.)

I'm sorry, but I cannot follow such a position that implicitly denies that our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ became man by the power of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. That's what the incarnation is. That's why we have a New Testament at all.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!

David Cabrera said:

Either a bishop, Patriarch, Pope, Ecumenical Patriarch. How would you greet that person? With a kiss, reverence?

Click to expand...

I would watch and see what others do. At least, I would do a handshake and a bow, and call him "Father".

genez said:

You are missing my point.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Most in positions of authority are weak in their understanding. If they were not? They would not hide tucked away in a denomination.

Click to expand...

You're right. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Denominationalism is historically a post-Protestant thing, whereby after the Protestant reformation (and particularly after the original reformers, with the "radical reformation") splits over doctrinal matters, praxis, etc. proliferated, as each man read from the Holy Scriptures whatever seemed to them to be the case.

Prior to this (which is rather late on the Christian timeline), there were also divisions, but they were schisms whereby entirely different churches were created: in the wake of Ephesus in 431, the Nestorians/Persians cut off communion with the rest of the Christian world over the Christological title "Theotokos" and what they felt was the unfair treatment of their teacher Nestorius; in 451, in the wake of Chalcedon, the Egyptians and with them the Ethopians and many of the Syrians cut off communion with the rest of the Christian world over the Christological definition of the Tome of Leo, which they felt violated their preexisting Christology and understanding of the incarnation; in 1054, the Eastern and Western Chalcedonians officially anathematized each other over various issues that had brewed for centuries, and come to a head as the Pope of Rome and those who followed him more and more asserted the supremacy of their understandings over the entire Chalcedonian Church (see: the Dictatus Papae, 1075; it was never made 'official', as far as Roman Catholic encyclicals are concerned, but it is interesting to see as a measure of what the thinking was back then). And of course there were many other divisions that occured well before and well after these times, but the point is that only in the wake of Protestantism do we see "denominationalism" -- where one or more community that are 'on the same team' in the sense of being united in their commitment to the Protestant ideals of how a church should function nevertheless split from one another, beginning a sort of cascade of splits within splits. The earlier divisions are not like this because they had retained some sense of at least being in communion with each other on the local/regional level based on a shared faith (i.e., the Nestorians in Persia with the Nestorians in India; the Egyptians with the Syrians, Ethiopians, and Nubians; the Chalcedonians with one another, etc.), whereas in denominationalism, that really isn't even a part of the picture. If some guy down the road preaches a wildly different message than you, or even not that different but differing on some matter that you feel particularly invested in, then darn it, we're gonna pull up stakes and make our own church! Even if they're across the street from each other, like two Mattress Firm mattress stores or something.

I imagine that's not what you have in mind when you write denominationalism, but that's the difference between being a communion and being a denomination, and since they're not the same thing, it doesn't benefit anyone's understanding to play fast and loose with words.

When the Word of God is accurately taught... and, received by believers filled with the Spirit? No denomination exists. Its simply a local church with Christ as its head.

Click to expand...

I agree; see above.

The reason denominations exist is because of religious people worshiping tradition, and rebuffing any correction that might come its way. The love for the traditions of men is the culprit.

Click to expand...

No. The reason that denominations exist is because some guys got a whiff of the Protestant approach to church, said "We can do it better! These guys still kept some of the Roman Catholic stuff, and we don't believe that's necessary!", and then proceeded to split from one another, because their own fathers had shown them how easy to was, and one of the characteristics of denominationalism is that the people involved always become dissatisfied over time with their own founders, as they find what they presume to be new truths or better expressions than what they had originally been given.

I mean, I guess you could call that 'traditions of men' if you want to, but it doesn't seem like it's born out of love for those traditions, since they don't hesitate to jettison them in favor of something that fits them better.

David Cabrera said:

Either a bishop, Patriarch, Pope, Ecumenical Patriarch. How would you greet that person? With a kiss, reverence?

Click to expand...

Since your question is framed as Orthodox (why not ask it on the AW?)

You would greet him with "Master bless" , or "Vladika bless" if you are in Rocor. Hold out your hands, right over left, bow, he will make the sign of the cross over you. Then he will place his hand in yours. Kiss the hand, then his shoulder, then his hand. Technically you can just do the hand but if you want to be precise the above. That's at least for a Bishop, metropolitan, or archbishop. I think Patriarchs are a little different.

Honestly some peoples responses about how they treat their Bishops makes me regard their respective traditions with much less respect.

We are talking about a successor to the Apostles who has apostolic authority, not some guy you met down at a bar.

dzheremi said:

Indeed.

Click to expand...

No denomination would exist today if Churches placed the Word of God above all else. But, all claim to do so, because they know its the expected thing to say.

Yet? What would end all denominationalism? A state of correct-ability.

Humility is the state of being correctable. Even when its embarrassing to be shown how stupid one had been thinking. Because, before the Lord? All men are stupid unless caused by God to be made wise in sound doctrine.

The RCC degenerated into a power thing. Not a truth thing. An ego trip system looking for justification by devising a system certain religious men knew that they could personally excel at. Then establishing their position of power they craved by demanding others must conform.

Luther knew the Spirit of God was showing him what he was shown in certain areas. Today he would be viewed as just an average Bible believing believer. But, since the RCC had become so Scripturally deviant and corrupted? It made Luther appear to be a radical. Today he would be seen as a basic believer.

No one man is 100% correct in all he believes. That is why we need many parts to the body. And, correct-ability. One receiving from another.

But we wrestle not against flesh and blood. Its a war. Fighting the good fight leads to demolishing the false and taking hold of the sound.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

“It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 3)

“Some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 4)


St. Ignatius of Antioch, Student of the apostle John, 3rd Bishop of Antioch, and follower of Christ during his ministry. 110ad