What exactly is the "Church"?

[Erose]

Divorce and remarriage is recognised and permitted to a limited extent out of economia for the spiritual well being of the parties involved. We don't pretend a marriage never existed, but we do recognise that due to our fallenness, marriages can and do die.
Something you will find no evidence of in the Early Church is Annulments. In this area Rome has clearly changed.
Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History

Nor will you find remarriage after a divorce while the spouse till lives permissible either in the ECF.

I do agree that I question at times the number of annulments given out, and I do think that there is some abuse here. Annulments should be rare, and no where near common practice IMO.

 

[Basil the Great]

I have heard that the number of annulments issued has risen dramatically in recent decades, but do not know if this is true only in the U.S. or worldwide.

 

[Erose]

I have heard that the number of annulments issued has risen dramatically in recent decades, but do not know if this is true only in the U.S. or worldwide.

I know this is outside the scope of this thread, so I will be short here; but I wonder if this is caused by more and more couples entering into marriage, without a understanding of what marriage is, and thus not fulfilling the requirements of a valid marriage. The process of an annulment is suppose to determine whether or not the couple actually entered into a valid marriage. How many get married with no intent of ever having children, or remaining faithful, or really understanding what marriage is in the first place. Society, i.e. television, which is the predominate catechesis tool concerning life, teaches that marriage is really nothing more than a committed romantic relationship, that lasts as long as the romance remains. How many ignore what the priest or preacher is telling teaching them, and stick with the idea that TV teaches them? I don't know. But annulments should be rare, which they once where.

 

[PeaceB]

Now please go and find where the unfettered historical Ekklessia is and how it always was connected to the 7 sacrements if Jesus Christ.

That is an interesting point. Can a "church" that does not have the 7 Sacraments even be said to be a true Christian Church?

Dominus Iesus

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

 

[Apex]

If you ask a Protestant what the Church is, they'll probably give a variety of answers, although one of the most common is "all Christians"--this answer, unfortunately, has no Scriptural basis, especially since the application of the term "Christian" has widened considerably over the last two thousand years. Although if we narrowed the definition considerably, then it would be another story.

However, I don't blame Protestants entirely for this, since I can see from the Catholic Catechism that Rome has a likewise humanist understanding of the Church, perhaps that is where Protestantism got it. In defining the Church, the Roman Catechism states,

752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.

Now it is clear that Rome does understand the Church as the Body of Christ (and so do Protestants), but instead of proceeding from that definition, she ends with it. Which is a problem. Scripture starts from that definition, the Church "is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1:23). Rome starts with the Church as something external to God, which becomes the Body of Christ. In Orthodoxy, the fundamental definition of the Church is God's Body and Fullness. The transformation is rather of the people being united to the Church. This perversion in definition engenders a radically different Roman theology in general, for instance, also from the Catechism,

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Now in Orthodoxy, clergy preside in the Church, but the idea of clergy having power over the Church would be sacrilegious, in fact arguably blasphemous.

Further down the line, Catholic ecclesiology seems to have created the idea that the Church can sin. Cardinal Marx, for instance, recently said the Church should apologize for not having been supportive enough of gay rights: Cardinal Marx: Homosexuals deserve an apology from the Church

Now I'm not going to address how inane that is, but I will point out that in Orthodoxy, sin is precisely stepping away from the Church, a sundering from Her. Repentance and Communion as are a rejoining and a repairing of the damage.

The most potent of this dreadful theology can also be found in the Catechism. Concerning the Church, it is said: Here below she knows that she is in exile far from the Lord [769]. This is simply heretical in the highest degree, the Church is the Lord's Body and Fullness, and in joining with it, we become One with him--how is that exile?

So while the Pope and the Filioque might have engendered the Great Schism, it is clear that they are hardly the only things that separate us today. Catholic theology has diverged enormously from Orthodox theology, and saying there are cosmetic similarities like clergy, doesn't mean there is necessarily a lot of common ground.

The Greek word ἐκκλησία (church) does not have a single exact meaning, it is a multifaceted term. Depending on the context, it can have various meanings.

 

[Halbhh]

Okay, so you agree more is required than just belief to be a member of the Church?

Yes! To be exact, Christ told us plainly that certain things are absolutely required of us, without any qualification of any kind, absolute requirements, more than one. First faith, which is central, primary, and then more after, also essential. I don't blame you for not reading my post above you first responded to -- I bet you found so many posts just not worth reading through, and that's a challenge all of us face, whether to read past one sentence in the total waterfall that is the internet.

 

[The Times]

That is an interesting point. Can a "church" that does not have the 7 Sacraments even be said to be a true Christian Church?

Dominus Iesus

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Notice the 7 colours?
Could they be prophetic?

That is.....

Revelation 1:4 mentions that the seven spirits are before God's throne. Revelation 3:1 indicates that Jesus Christ "holds" the seven spirits of God. Revelation 4:5 links the seven spirits of God with seven burning lamps that are before God's throne. Revelation 5:6 identifies the seven spirits with the "seven eyes" of the Lamb and states that they are "sent out into all the earth."

 

[Sola1517]

If you ask a Protestant what the Church is, they'll probably give a variety of answers, although one of the most common is "all Christians"--this answer, unfortunately, has no Scriptural basis, especially since the application of the term "Christian" has widened considerably over the last two thousand years. Although if we narrowed the definition considerably, then it would be another story.

Let me ask you what you think of this protestant definition.

The Church is the mystical body of believers united by the blood of Jesus that meet together to participate in worship through sacraments/ordinances/rites, teaching, and Gospel proclamation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Greek word ἐκκλησία (church) does not have a single exact meaning, it is a multifaceted term. Depending on the context, it can have various meanings.

Quite true. One of the meanings it most definitely does not have is a religious bureaucracy with its corporate headquarters in Rome.

 

[Apex]

Let me ask you what you think of this protestant definition.

The Church is the mystical body of believers united by the blood of Jesus that meet together to participate in worship through sacraments/ordinances/rites, teaching, and Gospel proclamation.

Any definition that claims to be the only definition is wrong.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

okay - how is one saved?

Through participation in God, particularly His death and Resurrection.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

who is in charge?
I do not know of any viable institution that does not have someone in charge

God is in charge. We have overseers (bishops), but they manage things in a more decentralized way. They are not considered infallible, and no bishop can intrude in the affairs of another bishop without a synod of bishops convening and approving it. Any doctrinal proclamation by a council of bishops, is only valid if it is received by the laity and monastics, since they too are the Body of Christ. Our Church is held together by the Holy Spirit, whom we trust to guide and rule us, as Christ promised.

Patriarch Bartholomew appears to be a main leader, tho there do appear to be more. Perhaps an EO can answer?

He's has the place of honor among bishops. His authority, however, is limited to his See, Constantinople. He also is the Patriarch of Greek Orthodox Church outside of Greece, meaning he can call synods in governance of that Church--and most of the actions of wider governance outside his See, must be from this synod, rather than from the Patriarch unilaterally.

What's up with all the gold? No homeless where he lives? Can find better use for all that gold and gems. Sell all you have and give away to the poor, said Jesus.

There actually isn't a lot of gold there, and it probably isn't pure gold. The staff and necklace are the bishop's insignia.

Why don't Protestants criticize actual multimillionaires in their ranks, like Joel Osteen, for living in opulence? Instead they only whine about things like gold being used for religious purposes (which it is in the Bible)?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That an interesting perspective. It appears to be the same as the one expressed by some in the Church of Christ protestant denomination who at one time said of themselves "We have no creed but Christ and no book save the bible". Have you looked into the "Restoration" movement denominations?

How old are they?

We can start with the actual definition of the word:

Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly or congregation.” Ekklesia is commonly translated as “church” in the New Testament.

We're not talking about just any Church, but the Church of Matthew 16:18.

"Church" is just a word in out language that expresses the concept of ekklesia in Greek or qahal in Hebrew. Those two words simply means "assembly, gathering, called out." If we are part of those God calls, if we hear the voice of the Shepherd and respond to His call... we are part of the ekklesia or qahal.... the church. Respectfully, beyond that, Scripturally speaking, is man adding to the meaning of the word. We have turned a simple word that means "to be called out" into an institution. It isn't... it is purely and simply a PEOPLE.

If you respond to His call, you come to the Church to be joined with it. The Church is indeed an assembly (a particular assembly, the Body of Christ) which means it is not a purely individualistic affair; if you are not initiated into the assembly, you are not part of an "assembly".

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Jesus built His church on a rock
Jesus changed simon's name to peter
Jesus gave peter the keys and the power to bind and loose
Jesus asked peter, three times, to feed His sheep

And, according to Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Peter's office is the Episcopal office in general. Peter is the first bishop.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Okay so you don't believe that a baptized person only is a Christian?

Sure, they generally are, at least in a looser sense (as are some people who aren't baptized). That doesn't make them a part of the Church though. You don't become a true member of the Body of Christ, until you partake of His Body, except in very irregular cases (say a person is dying and wants to be baptized Orthodox, but cannot partake of Communion due to unavailability).

Do you know what a steward (vicar) is?

Yes, but in this case the Kingdom is the King's Body and Fullness. At least in Orthodoxy. So keep that in mind.

So you already exist in the knowledge of the fullness of God's presence? I haven't seen anything in Orthodoxy that would make me believe that Orthodoxy has a very similar understanding of God's Presence as Catholics. Obviously we are all in God's presence, as God is everywhere. Perhaps we don't recognize this fact, or whatever else. I would imagine that we would agree that when we are before the altar and the Sacrament, that we enjoy an even more intense presence of Jesus right? When we receive the Lord in the Sacrament, we enjoy an even more intense presence of Jesus again right? And I don't think you would disagree that once we truly see God face to face, that this is another level of intensity.

Yes, but that's not considered something you have to wait for death for in Orthodoxy. That's a mystical experience that an awful lot has been written about, and it is considered a goal for everyone, clergy, monks and laity. The most important steps to attaining it are intense humility and contrition. Many of our saints have written extensive "manuals" on it. It's considered part of the process of uniting with the Church.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I do appreciate the efforts of our EO friend for starting this thread. There is much to be admired in the EO Church, as well as in the Catholic Church and the OO Church. However, as a Protestant, one main reason why I do not feel compelled to convert to either the EO Church or the CC or the OO Church, is that the three of them split long ago and have failed to again become one. It just does not seem logical to me to accept a thesis that says the EOC is the one true Church, thus implicitly leaving out in the cold, not just Protestants, but also Catholics and Oriental Orthodox. Likewise, how can one believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, thus implicitly (or explicitly if one accepts the Cantate Domino Papal Bull) leaving out in the cold Protestants, EO and OO?

Now the thing that I like most about the EO Church is their emphasis upon prayers for the dead, without holding to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. However, this is not enough to get me to convert, especially since it seems to me that while they do reflect the Early Church in the main, including the doctrine of 7 sacraments, I doubt very much that divorce and remarriage was allowed in the Early Church, save perhaps in very rare circumstances. Hence, if the EOC has changed it's position on divorce and remarriage from the Early Church, as seems likely, then it is hard for me to believe that the EOC is the one true Church. Having said this, virtually all Christian bodies today have a quite tolerant view of divorce and remarriage.

Let me just conclude by saying that if by some miracle the EOC and the OOC and the CC could once again become one Church, then I believe that a huge burden would fall upon Protestants to seriously look at joining the unified Church.

The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox commonly share in Communion, and even sometimes, at least in Egypt, in administrative duties. So we're not really "leaving them out in the cold".

As for "Catholics," they excommunicated US. Then they raped us, they pillaged us, and sent back their loot and relics to fellow Catholics. There are stolen relics still in the Vatican. The Pope used his position to torture and kill people who refused to acknowledge him (and torture people into confessing to heresy), Catholics spread by the sword in a way comparable to Islam, starting with Charlemagne and continuing into colonialism. Popes had harlots and fathered illegitimate children openly. Homoerotic paintings were commissioned to grace the Sistine Chapel. Galileo was tried for heresy for defying Aristotle, and forced to recant. At this point, it is obvious Rome was a joke. Rome changed from a church into a worldly empire, they started openly selling forgiveness, they forbade anyone but clergy to partake of the wine, they became unbearable. The Pope sold out to the temptation offered to Christ by satan, to be made ruler of the world. The Vatican even decorated Franco, who was a complete monster. And guess who established the Vatican state of today? Mussolini.

You are saying we are being cruel for saying this is abominable and unacceptable? That is not Christ's Church. No one is forcing Catholics "out in the cold," Catholics are welcomed to join back to the mother Church whenever they want, they just have to renounce their innovated and unacceptable teachings. No one is leaving them out, they are leaving themselves out.

As for Protestants, they had contact with us from the beginning. They only wanted to tell us to change our teachings and convert to Protestantism. No one is keeping them out either, except themselves. The Orthodox Church is the original Church, ancient and unchanging. Our teachings are those of Christ and the Apostles. No one at the last supper said, "Okay, Jesus, I agree with on most things, but I disagree on this and that point. Still, you know, we're all brothers, right?" No, the Orthodox Church is the Body and Fullness of Christ, guided by the Spirit of Truth. You depart from her, it is because you have a disagreement with the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit of Truth is not a cacophony, but a united, unchanging doctrine; how can a cacophony of dogma be united to the Spirit of Truth?

Divorce and remarriage are still only allowed in rare circumstances. You have to have a reason like abuse or adultery. It is quite arguable that it is harder to get a divorce in the Orthodox Church, than to get an annulment in Catholicism, since "not understanding what marriage is" or "my spouse wasn't as wealthy as I expected" are not considered valid reasons to dissolve a marriage in Orthodoxy, whereas they are in Catholicism. Catholicism, on the other hand, won't dissolve a marriage for things like abuse or adultery.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

no group is saved -
where do you get this stuff -
if you are saved, it will be as an individual
and not as being a member of a group

Wrong. We fall as individuals, but we are saved as a member of Christ's Body. We fall alone, but are saved together.

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

God is in charge. We have overseers (bishops), but they manage things in a more decentralized way. They are not considered infallible, and no bishop can intrude in the affairs of another bishop without a synod of bishops convening and approving it. Any doctrinal proclamation by a council of bishops, is only valid if it is received by the laity and monastics, since they too are the Body of Christ. Our Church is held together by the Holy Spirit, whom we trust to guide and rule us, as Christ promised.


He's has the place of honor among bishops. His authority, however, is limited to his See, Constantinople. He also is the Patriarch of Greek Orthodox Church outside of Greece, meaning he can call synods in governance of that Church--and most of the actions of wider governance outside his See, must be from this synod, rather than from the Patriarch unilaterally.



There actually isn't a lot of gold there, and it probably isn't pure gold. The staff and necklace are the bishop's insignia.

Why don't Protestants criticize actual multimillionaires in their ranks, like Joel Osteen, for living in opulence? Instead they only whine about things like gold being used for religious purposes (which it is in the Bible)?

I would refuse to wear anything made out of gold and gems, claiming to be spiritual...

I'm not a protestant. I've never been a part of Roman Catholic Church or whatever other organization to protest against. I'm just a follower of Jesus Christ, that's it.

To me, an Orthodox priest or a Protestant pastor carrying a golden staff or wearing a Rolex on his wrist are the same thing. Jesus said, it's easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle...

We must listen to Jesus and obey Him in all things. Jesus only. He is the way. We're here on earth for a short time, from dust we were made, and unto dust we shall return.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I would refuse to wear anything made out of gold and gems, claiming to be spiritual...

I'm not a protestant. I've never been a part of Roman Catholic Church or whatever other organization to protest against. I'm just a follower of Jesus Christ, that's it.

To me, an Orthodox priest or a Protestant pastor carrying a golden staff or wearing a Rolex on his wrist are the same thing. Jesus said, it's easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle...

We must listen to Jesus and obey Him in all things. Jesus only. He is the way. We're here on earth for a short time, from dust we were made, and unto dust we shall return.

Indeed renouncing wordly possessions is considered to be an important part of holiness in Orthodoxy. We have many saints who have done so, and continue to, and we look to them for spiritual guidance, frequently more than we look to clergy.

Have you given away all that you have, as they have? If not, you should look at the log in your eye

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

Indeed renouncing wordly possessions is considered to be an important part of holiness in Orthodoxy. We have many saints who have done so, and continue to, and we look to them for spiritual guidance, frequently more than we look to clergy.

Have you given away all that you have, as they have? If not, you should look at the log in your eye

Yes. A few years ago I prayed and asked God to teach me not to own anything, as it's a big big sin. So far I managed to not own anything and I surely don't own any gold or gems. It was difficult to do. I had to give up so many things that were very dear to me. My possessions, even the expensive and elaborate furniture I had made with my own hands. My tools, oh I used to worship them... My hobbies were so dear to my heart, but I counted them as loss comparing to the glory we'll inherit in heaven. I sold my big house that I took part in building. Today I rent a small modest place, I use absolutely minimum stuff, even if my socks tear I learned to sew them up. I don't buy anything unless it's absolutely necessary. I refuse any excess. I eat very simply, never dining out. If I'm hungry away from home, like when I'm traveling, a peace of bread and tap water from public washroom is sufficient for me. Sometimes I can even eat leftovers if restaurant owner allows me to... I wear minimum clothes that I wash with my hands. I don't buy fancy shampoo or detergent. I buy simple ingredients and make my own, as cheaply as I can. I ride a bike to work that was given to me for free. When it breaks, I go to a recycling depot where people leave old bikes and use the parts to fix it myself. I learned many things. Even how to mend shoes... I earn a good living, most of it, except the small minimum I need for my survival and witnessing about Jesus, I gladly. Gladly. Give away to all those, sometimes total strangers, who need it more than I do. I pray long hours day and night for the Lord to lead me to the right people who need my help and support. Not just with money, sometimes with food or clothes or paying for their bills or whatever. Or giving them my service, whatever they require help with. Mow the lawn or look after old granddad. But the main goal and purpose, is for them to see the light of the gospel of Jesus. Not just to provide them with their physical needs. I'd like people to quench their spiritual hunger first! I strive to live like Jesus. Not that I manage it well, I'm but a sinful nobody saved by the grace of God. I live as if today is my last day on this earth. It might very well be so... Every morning when I wake up, I thank God for the wonderful and precious day of another day of life and possibility to serve Him. It's a true miracle. I love you, the almighty God. I love you, our Savior Jesus Christ. I love you, the powerful Holy Spirit.