"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

Comparative Theology - Roman Catholicism - Theological Differences

  • Video


Comparative Theology - Roman Catholicism - Theological Differences Transcription

 We are going to hear about Islam, God willing, and a week after that we are going to hear about Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism, to understand, because, anybody ever had like, somebody knock on your door, and try to give you their faith? I love those people! I love when they come to my house, they come in, they get a cup of tea, they get a massage so they can relax while they are hearing the truth, because, we have to be able to do what? Speak the truth!


Today we are going to hear a little bit about, the difference between Coptic Orthodoxy, or Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There are a lot of noise on the Facebook about the meeting between H.H Pope Tawadros and Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic church, and everybody is saying, "Why are we so complicated, why can't we all just get along? So what if they signed a paper, and we accept their baptism, isn't that great? Isn't that something that we can all, like, agree about, and come to a common ground, to understand why we are who we are, and what we do what we do?".


There is some confusion as to what took place between the Coptic Pope and the Roman Catholic Pope as regard to accepting or refuting the baptism of believers from the other church, so what happened was, Pope Francis and Pope Tawadros they got together and said, let's make a statement, OK? So they signed a statement, a common statement, and there is a difference between a statement and an agreement! They made a statement saying... I will read it right now in an article where all this drama went on and a lot of misunderstanding took place on social media. It says this, I will read it really quick:


"In Obedience to the work of the Holy spirit who sanctifies the Church, keep her throughout the ages and leads her to full unity, that unity to which Christ Jesus prayed, today we, Pope Francis and Pope Tawadros II, in order to please the heart of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as that of our sons and daughters in faith, mutually declare that we, with one mind and heart, will seek sincerely (pay attention to that) not to repeat the baptism that has been administered in either of our churches for any person who wishes to join the other. This we confess in obedience to the Holy Scriptures and the faith of the three Ecumenical councils assembled in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.

We ask to God Our Father to guide us in the times, and by the means of the Holy Spirit (...) to full unity in the mystical body of Christ. 


So, what is happening here? All the statement says is that "We are going to try really hard to make this happen". Nothing has been agreed, (yet) we have Bishops writing stuff on Facebook saying, we have to defend the faith...

We need to pay attention to the word. We need to read all the word and make sure that we understand, nothing was agreed between the Coptic Orthodox Church, and Catholicism.

They say, "What would that be such a bad thing if they did agree? Shouldn't we all be one happy family? Isn't that what Christ wants?" Of course he wants it, but not at the cost of the truth, and not at the cost of the Orthodoxy of our faith that has been handed down to us from generation to generation.

Why does it matter? "They have priests, we have priests. They have sacraments, so do we, they have a Pope, so do we, so we're ready to go, that's perfect..."


Here we are, there are misunderstandings...


The first thing is... and I am not going to read all these things, if you want to read, you can read (by yourself), but I am going to give you summaries.




The Catholic believes in something called "The Primacy of Rome". Because, St.Peter was the elder among all apostles, and The Lord Jesus spoke a word to Peter and said "On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it", so what happened was, the church at all times was one church. Over time, as Rome became the political (center) of the world under Ceasar, they said, "No, no! Rome should be on top!"Actually, every church was given the jurisdiction to be overseeing, but they said, "Hey, we are the seed of Rome, under St. Peter".

However, nowhere, in the scriptures, nowhere in the church tradition was St.Peter ever called the Bishop of Rome. Could you imagine that? Not even was St. Peter the Bishop of Rome for us to say that Rome should be the head of all the churches. I want to read you a statement... This is why there is a difference between us and the Catholic church, otherwise they have sacraments, we have sacraments, why can't we just get along...


This is a dogma that they made, a dogma is like an official teaching canonized by the church, like, "this has to be taught this way". Let me read you a statement, it says this:


"If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office (the Roman Pope) of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church, this (...) throughout the world".


So what they saying is, the Roman Pope is supposed to be the leader in all things, in doctrines and beliefs and in anything, anything government of the church, just by the mouth, or the words of the Roman Pontiff. And it says this,


"... and if anybody does not agree to this, but not the absolute fullness of the supreme power, this power of his is not ordinary immediate both over all and each of the churches, and over each and all of the (...) faithful, let him be anathema".

What does it mean?

Whoever doesn't accept this teaching, he should be what? Excommunicated.


So, it is okay for us just to go, shake hands, take a picture, sign an agreement, and that's it, and we can take communion and baptize other churches, when they believe that it is a teaching of the church to what? "If you do not accept the Pope of Rome to be in charge of the whole church in all matters, you should be what? Excommunicated".

"Why can't we just hug and get along?" No, because this is a dogma. This is a dogma that is being taught.


Mathew 16:19 says this: "And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom", Jesus is speaking to Peter, and he is saying this:

"I am going the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosened in Heaven".


Who knows what this means? What does this verse mean? This verse is giving authority to the Bishops and the Apostles, so a Bishop is a rank (...) not just St. Peter, saying "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom...", NOT JUST St. PETER, BUT ALL OF THE APOSTLES AND THE BISHOPS, will have the keys to the Kingdom.

So, this primacy of Rome, meaning Rome is the head of the church, we can't accept in the Orthodox church, and that is a major difference.

Also, as I said, there is no historical evidence that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome! So, imagine, we are going to build a dogma on the fact that Peter is the Bishop of Rome, and Peter was never the Bishop of Rome! So, there is a major difference between us and Catholicism on this spot.


Where else do we seen, in the Bible that St. Peter was not the head of the church? Who knows? Where was he in the council, but he was not the head? In the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts chapter fifteen, there was a Bishop in Jerusalem, named James the Apostle; he was the head of the Council.

Now, can you imagine, in the first century, the first council of the church, if there was a primacy of Peter, if St. Peter was the head of the apostles, who should have been leading the first Council of the history of the Church? St. Peter, right? St. Peter should have, if we believe that. But James is the one that led that, so it is very important to understand that we already have, in the context of the Scriptures, a mistake within this knowledge of the Primacy of Rome.


Then you have another point where St. Paul actually confronted St. Peter, when St. Peter was trying to tell... I am sorry, the Jews had something they call the "Jewdyisers", telling people within the church that you have to worship in a certain way, and you have to have the Jewish form of worship, and the only way that you can actually be a follower of God is if you became like Jews. You had tome circumcised, you had to follow all the Jewish laws...

Those people, those Jewdyisers were telling the Gentiles, the new believers, "You have to be Jews".

Now, St. Peter being a Jew, he would eat with the Gentiles; he wanted to reach out to the Gentiles, and as soon as he saw the Jewdisers, these Jew people, he went (to their side), and pretended like he didn't know the Gentiles, and St. Paul did what? St. Paul confronted and told this:

"Now, when Peter had come to Antioch, (St. Paul speaking), I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed".

So, we already see that this Primacy of Rome is not consistent with Scriptures.


Then you have something called:




Does anyone know what Infallibility mean? It means, that the Pope cannot make a mistake as regard to Doctrine.

Now I want you to imagine this now; the Pope as a human, cannot make a mistake in regard to Doctrine, and so the Pope is infallible, he cannot make a mistake. So imagine, if the two Popes would have signed an agreement: "Alright, go get baptized in the Catholic church, the communion in this Church", that means you would have to accept that the Catholic Pope would say anything, and we would take it as what? The law of God! 

For example, what if the Catholic Pope would come out and say, "The sin of Homosexuality is not wrong, it is just a genetic thing", and we would say: "Well, he is the Pope, he is infallible".

We can't accept that! We can't accept that somebody who's speaking out saying something with a distorted perspective, or saying that we don't believe in the Creation story, the Creation story is a Myth, so we are going to say that the Big-Bang Theory if how the world came to being is the true way that we understand the creation of the world. Would we accept that? Would you guys accept that the Pope could just say something like that, and he does no make any mistake?


So, we have dogmas that say: "This sea of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error in accordance with the Divine Promise of Our Lord and Saviour to the Princes, his disciples"... I am not going to go through it all.


Then there is something called the "Philiocre..." .




I want you guys to repeat the Creed after me. When we say the creed together, in the Orthodox church we say this:

"Yes we believe in the Holy Spirit (sing it with me), The Lord, the Life-giver who proceeds from the (...)".

Either I couldn't hear, or it didn't sound right, I don't know...

We say, "Yes we believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, the giver of Life who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and The Son, (talking about the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit with the Father and The Son together is what? Worshipped and Glorified".

Well, the Catholic added something in the 9th or 10th century, they said this:

"The Lord, the giver of Life who proceeds from the Father and the Son". Say, "Who cares?" Like, "God the Father, God the Son, they are equal, they are both God, they are both the Trinity", that is like "What is the Drama? Enough with the division, let us just be united!"


This Philliocre, is a Latin word, okay? In Latin they say: "The Lord, the giver of Life who proceeds from the Father and the Son", it is an addition to the creed that you and I have both confirmed is the Authentic Creed from the Council of Nicea. What does it say? It defines that the procession of the Holy Spirit has been not only from the Father, meaning, the coming of the Holy Spirit is not just from the Father, but is also from the Son. Big deal! What does the Scriptures say?

John 15:26 says this:

"But when the helper comes whom I shall send to you from the Father, the spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me".

So, we already have a very huge thing! Say, "I don't see what the problem is! Okay, so, they added "and the son", what is the big deal?".

Maybe your kids go to Catholic schools, and they may saying... reciting it like the Catholic Creed, and they say "What is the big deal?", and you tell your kids "No no no, we can't say it that way", and they say, "You sent me to this school, and this school wants me to say it this way". Right? You have to know why it is not acceptable.


It is not acceptable because, what we are saying is, if we say that the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son, it means that the Holy does not one (some) of have the attribute(s) that the Father and the Son already have.

I will give you an example: the Father has the Fatherhood, right? The Father is un-begotten, He is the Origin, he was never Begotten. The Son was begotten, he came from the Father, okay? The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Each person of the Trinity has their own uniqueness, and that's why we have to understand that the Holy Trinity is Three Persons, unique in a Unity. If you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you have made the Holy Spirit less than the Father and the Son.

So, I am going to say a strong statement: Is that Trinity, the same Trinity as our Trinity? If we were to say that the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son... "Proceeds from the Father and the Son", making by that statement the Holy Spirit less than the Father and the Son; are we worshipping the same Holy Trinity? We are not worshipping the same Holy Trinity, because, why, I will never confess that the Holy Trinity is less than the Father and the Son! Which is why we say, "Either they all have something together, they are all everywhere, they are all All-Powerful, (all three persons) they are all All-Knowing, but I cannot say that they the two of the them, the Father and the Son have something that the Holy Trinity does not have. That would be Blasphemy!


You say: "Can't we just baptize the Catholics, and accept their Baptism, and whatever...?" It is not to say that we can't; These are major things within our faiths. These are huge! To say that the Holy Spirit is less than the Father and the Son, is saying that it is not the Trinity. That the Trinity is not the Trinity. So I want you to understand... you may say, "it is boring", but we have to teach every once in a while here in the church, because you have to know these things, because you are going to be challenged as a family with your children, in your community, in different ways...

Somebody has a question:






That is an excellent question: Does the Catholics believe in that understanding?

They will never say it that way, but this concept of taking something out of the Bible, like I showed you in this verse here, "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" only, so this scripture tells us "From The Father", so, the first mistake is, they are taking what is not in the Scripture, number one, and number two, what they are saying is the, the Holy Spirit... and I will tell you why the Holy Spirit has a lesser of a role, in their mind.

The work of the Holy Spirit is to unify the Church, right? To lead the Church into all truth, but they say; that is the job of the Pope. That the Pope is infallible, and the job of the Pope's job is the one to unite. So, they have taken away the work of the Holy Spirit, and given it to who? The Pope! That is a very big thing! It is not just like, he is a Bishop, we have a Bishop, let's get along! No, because our understanding of Bishop is different of their understanding of Bishop. It is a very big thing!

You might say, "I am just and average Joe, I don't care about that stuff". If your kids go around reciting something, because the Catholic church is bigger, and they have all the media, and they are all over your western culture, and the school, and you kids say "Uh uh, you and your Orthodox, need to agree, because the Catholics are bigger! There is a billion Catholics in the world. You guys are just a little Coptic church of twenty million". No! Athanasius is the one who wrote, the one that composed the Creed, along with the Fathers of the Nicene Council, and they made it right. And that is the Creed that we recite with our faith. We have to know what we believe. I will never confess that The Holy Spirit is lesser than the Father and the Son.  

Again, it might seem insignificant to you, but to the Church it is something very very very important!


Then there is something that is actually a big deal, it is the concept of...




What is Original Sin? Without getting in to too many words; Original sin in the Catholic mentality and in the Protestant mentality, is... saying that sexuality, coming from a saying of St. Augustin, that sexuality and procreation is... I don't know the exact words, but they are basically saying that it is wrong. Saying that "Sexuality is wrong, and if you have to do it, go ahead, but do it... don't be excited about it". Saying that if a child comes from sexuality, which is normal, which is what happens, that original sin will pass through, in the sexual act, to the newborn child.

Say. okay, what does that mean? Do we have original sin? It depends on what we understand of the original sin.

What the Catholics and the Protestants are saying, not only do we have a nature, like, when Adam when he sinned, the nature of the humanity became corrupt. "Do you know why you have troubles in your relationship? It is because of Adam sin. Your nature, your human nature became corrupted. Your view of the world became distorted, your relationship with God became broken. That is the result of the Fall; you received corruption, or the condition of the death".

What the Catholic say, not only did you receive corruption, but you actually received the sin of Adam. You are guilty of the sin of Adam. That, in Adam, we sinned. So, when I stand before the Throne of God on the Last Day, He is going to say, "Abouna Paul, you ate from the tree of good and evil". Say, "Wait a second; that was Adam's sin!".

They are saying...

The only Church father who mentioned this concept of Original sin, the only church father, it is St. Agustin. It was much later.

When we teach something in the Church, we can't just say, "A church Father said something"; there has to be something unique, for us to accept a saying. What has to be the condition for us to accept a church father's saying? Who knows? Somebody say the word: Consensus!

Not just because one of the church Fathers said that "St. Mary is the Archangel Michael", that we say, "Okay, St. Agustin said...". That is an exaggeration of course.

There has to be a consensus from the different church fathers from different generations all over, that it was a teaching that was passed down from the apostles, to the disciples on, and there is a consensus!

So, even if, may God give a long life to our Popes: Pope Shenouda, Pope Tawadros, our Pope... 

If they would have said a teaching that was wrong. You say "but come on, he is our Pope!". Do we blame the Pope? We do not blame the Pope, but we say, if there is no consensus, if we can't find this teaching among all the Church fathers, we cannot accept it! 


What is this concept of original sin? What is it saying is, you will be guilty of Adam's sin, and if it is true, your children will have the guilt of your sin.

So you robbed a bank, your innocent and beautiful children will stand before God, and He will say what, "You robbed the bank", and he will say "I didn't do anything!".

That is why in Ezechiel it says, "The guilt of the father will never be put on the son", in Ezechiel chapter 18.

The scripture tells us that we will not receive the original sin, and you say, "Who cares? I have sinned anyway!".

I will tell you why it matters. This is why you have to understand what Jesus Christ can do for your life.

Jesus was born of St.Mary, right? He took his humanity from St.Mary. If St.Mary has original sin, that means, it passed through to Jesus Christ, because he took our humanity! That doesn't make sense! Did Jesus have sin, ladies and gentlemen? He has no sin!

So, what the church did, is they came up with another teaching, I will get to it, and it is called "Immaculate conception", saying, St.Mary was conceived without stain, without original sin, so now we are getting to more new teachings that came up in the 18th century. Immaculate conception, there is like, The Church of The Immaculate conception, you guys have heard that before? There are hundred churches out there that are called The Church of The Immaculate Conception, saying that St.Mary was born without original sin, so when she had Jesus, He was born without original sin.

Let me tell you why there is a problem: Why did St.Mary die then? Sin is what causes death, so if St. Mary did not have original sin, if St. Mary did not have our normal fallen humanity, then, St. Mary should have never died. She should have lived forever.

Also St. Mary when she prayed, she said, "My Lord and my Savior".  St. Mary, why did you need a savior? So we exalt St. Mary above all of creation, but we do not say that she was born without original sin.

So, one bad teaching is bringing on another bad teaching, and you say, how does that affect Jesus?  

Jesus received from St. Mary the correct understanding of the original sin, but we don't use that word, we use "Ancestral sin", which means what: when Jesus was born, he was born with mortality, the ability to die, because of his humanity. Jesus received the ability to die. He received our human nature. Why did Jesus receive my human nature? If he doesn't have your human nature, if he has St. Mary's unstained human nature, then you will never be saved.

If Jesus does not have your humanity then you will not be saved. St. Gregory says this: "What the Christ did not assume to himself, he did not heal".

You have a bad attitude, you have a bad habit, you have a sin that you can't get over. The only way you can get over. The only way that you can get over it is if Jesus have your fallen nature. What do I mean by fallen? Not that he sinned, but fallen means, Jesus got tired, he got thirsty, he got angry, he had our human emotions. Jesus had all of these things, but by living a perfect life, he healed our nature.

So, back to original sin. Where would they get the teachings from?

In Romans 5:12, the western churches, the Catholics and everybody, were reading the Bible in Latin, and the rest of the church was reading in what? Greek. In Latin, Romans 5:12 says this:

"Therefore, just as through the one man, sin entered the world, and death entered the world through sin, thus death spread to all men, because all sinned".

You say, "Okay, that makes it clear that there is original sin, why, because it says all sinned."

In Latin, this is where the mistake is. It says, the last phrase is "In Cuamnes Recoverant", meaning, in whom all have sinned. Saying that in Adam, all sinned, making all guilty of Adam sin. We don't accept that.


The Greek, when it was written originally by St. Paul's hand, says this: "Ef Opantes Himartun". Because all sinned, which is not only the actual wording of the scripture, but the faith of the Orthodox church.

So, the original saying, the Greek says, "All sinned", meaning, all sinned, not because Adam sinned, I am a sinner, no. Because Adam sinned, now I have the potential to sin. Again, you might not think it means anything, but we as Orthodox and Catholics, we will never agree until we fix these things. Because, you will never be saved if we accept original sin. Does that make sense? If you do not, if Jesus does not have yours and mine human nature, you have given up your salvation. You see how it is a big deal?

"So, you are saying Catholics will not be saved?" I am not saying any of that. I am saying, I know what the truth is. If you want to get in through the chimney, if you want to break a window to get in the house, good luck! All I am saying is, the truth of what we believe matters!

That what I believe in, Christ having my human nature, that he could heal that nature.


Once again, I said, the original sin, and immaculate conception, combinations Christ, outside of Human nature, making him not truly human. 




Then there is Purgatory and Indulgences.

Anybody ever hear of Purgatory? Let me tell you what Purgatory is:

Purgatory is, when you die, you go to this other place for thousands of years to be purified. This is a Catholic teaching, still taught in Catechism, in the Catholic church catechism.

So, if your children go to a Catholic school, they are going to be taught that, when they die, either you go to be with Jesus, or you don't, you go the opposite direction. But no! There is Purgatory.

Jesus died on the cross, he did as much as he could, but you need to be purified because you did a lot of bad things. So, what is going to happen is, you are going to go to this place called Purgatory, to be purified for how long? Fifty thousand years. Thousands of years!

How do we respond to that? What did Jesus say to somebody on the cross? To the right-hand thief, what did he tell him? "Today you will be with me in Paradise". Like, for sure, not that guy! Like, if anybody was going to make it today in Paradise, not St. Mary, St. Paul, but not the thief on the cross! I promise you, after forty thousand years, you will get there, and everything will be fine! Say, this is a very tough thing! So, what the Catholic church do, because if you are never going to go to heaven, because you are going to (spend) forty thousand years in this torturing and tormenting type of phase, in your life to be purified of your sins, you will say "Hey, I have another ten thousand years, I am going to sin, because I already have sixty thousand under my belt, what is another ten thousand!".

No! Do you believe that the blood of Christ is enough to cleanse and get you to heaven, with repentance. Do you believe in repentance? You will be saved after fifty thousand years! No, not fifty thousand years: "Today you will be with me in Paradise".

So, people started getting discouraged. So, they started to do something called Indulgencies. You know what indulgencies are? You will pay a certain fee to have years knocked off your purgatory sentence. So, now we are starting to build a church, and it is going to cost ten million dollars, anybody who wants to come and confess? "Look, I know what you did, it is messed up, just slip your check, I've got you covered. I will get you ten thousand off your sentence, enjoy life!"

Can you imagine, us as Orthodox, we are going to baptize, the communion and indulgences (...) Oh no! We are not the same faith, and we are not worshipping the same Lord Jesus of our salvation, because what, Christ's salvation isn't good enough. Christ's salvation isn't good enough, you need to be really purified because Christ's blood cannot purify you!

It is an extremely dangerous teaching! They took stuff from the book of Maccabeus, they took stuff from little passages in the Gospel that were misinterpreted, and it led us to the heresy, we say it is a Heresy of Purgatory.


Nowadays, you have some Catholics who do not accept it.

Say, wait a second: there is something within your dogmas, or your doctrines as a church, that you do not accept. So, why are you Catholic. Now, my question to you is: Are there things within your Orthodox faith that you do not like, or you do not accept, then you are welcome to not be an Orthodox! But, you cannot consider yourself Orthodox, meaning, straight in your understanding of your salvation, unless you accept the teaching of your Holy Orthodox church. Because we are not a denomination, we are "The church". When Jesus said, The Church, it never changed from two thousand years ago, and we (still) are The Church.

Over time, things started changing.

One more thing:




What is Trampsubstantion? Catholics believe that when they pray the Liturgy, the Eucharist becomes the physical actual body and blood of Jesus Christ in substance. That means what: If I get a microscope, and I look at one of the communion pieces of the Catholic church, it will show me what: that it is actual, it has DNA in it.

In the Orthodox church we do not believe in Trampsubstantion, we believe in the mysterious change of the body and blood of The Lord Jesus Christ. Meaning what: I see bread and I see wine. I eat bread, and I drink wine. But I believe it is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. How? I don't know. It is a mystery. That is why we call it (...). It is a mystery.

If we would have taken everything within God's "godness", and defined it, then we've made God this big. What the Orthodox church does is, it puts boundaries to the mystery. It says, what is not the mystery. Like, the church will say, it is a mystery, we don't know how, but we know that it is not this, and we know that it is not... so we put the boundaries to the mysteries, but we don't describe the mystery! The Orthodox Church has no problem with saying "We don't know, it is a mystery!" The same as you as a husband and a wife! Two people walk in the church, two people walk out, and they say, two is one! I see two still! "Two shall become one". How are the two one? I don't know! It is a mystery, but in God's eyes they are one! It is okay to say I don't know! We don't know! Because God is Mysterious!

So, I hope that we could purify our understanding of these things.

Lastly I want to tell you something:


I believe that the modern Orthodox criticism of Roman Catholicism is based on pre-twentieth models.

There were times when Pope John Paul II would recite the creed without saying "and the son". It is still unacceptable (It is not enough).

We would need the Catholic Church to excommunicate that dogma, or to change, or to dissolve that dogma that says, the Philiocre that says "The Father and The Son", that says the Purgatory, because... or Original sin, otherwise we will not be saved!


Once again, I want to clarify what Original Sin: What you did receive is, you received a corrupted fallen nature, because death started in Adam, and Christ overcame death for you. That's it! Christ overcame death, and he had human your nature, and he healed that nature, and made it pure so that you can be pure, so that you can actually be transformed and changed.


What I want to say is, a lot of these things are pre-twentieth models of Roman thought, and it is... I can't say that all Catholics believe everything that I have taught. I guarantee it, if they were to hear these teachings, and they were to look... many of them would say, wait a second: we can't accept that!

Until they do, we cannot be united!

Do we want to be united to our catholic brethren? Of course! But it is just like a hug and a kiss, and a shaking of hands, and let's sign an agreement... it is not like that.

So, all the drama that was on Facebook... do you want to know why our Patriarchs and leaders are so stubborn? They are not stubborn. They are defenders of the true faith.

If one signature would be enough negate a theology, that is dangerous! Then there will be a revolt in our church to defend the truth.

There are differences, we pray that one day, Rome's theology will be once again in tuned with the Orthodox way which we received from the Church fathers in the creed and in the Councils, saying nobody is above. The Pope is the first among equals. 

Rome is not the head. The church is One, and every patriarch has their sea and their jurisdiction in which they serve.


Glory be to God forever,






Transcribed by jeanounou, September2017