This was probably asked before, but I'll ask anyways.
I was wondering why does Armenian Apostolic Church use unleavened bread while the rest of the Oriental Orthodox communion uses leavened bread? Are both part of the Holy Apostolic Tradition? If not, which is truly Apostolic, leavened or unleavened? I'm genuinely confused.
Currently I'm deciding whether I should become Eastern or Oriental Orthodox. I have looked at many debates and many arguments from both sides, and it seems to me that both sides have extremely strong cases. However, I'm currently more leaning towards EO for a couple of reasons. I'll name just some of them:
I would say that reason #2 is the main one, since all previous councils were considered ecumenical primarily because the large Sees [Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch] accepted them over time (not necessarily right away).
I'm always looking for the truth, and if the truth leads me to OO, so be it. Can someone give me reasons why these 2 points I presented don't really hold up? God bless!
Edit: for point #1, I don't mean that theology of Miaphysitism originates with Apollinarius, but the phrase itself (mia physis), but St Cyril interpreted it in an Orthodox way where humanity and divinity are distinct within one incarnate nature.
I'm an Orthodox, but I've never attended a Catholic Mass. I'm really curious what it's like to attend, but I don't really know what I should and shouldn't do. For example, should I cross myself in the Orthodox way (right to left), Catholic way (left to right) or not at all? What else should I know, since it's my first ever Mass? All I know is I shouldn't commune, since I'm an Orthodox.
I'm an Orthodox, but I've never attended a Catholic Mass. I asked my priest if it would be fine to go there, and he said I was free to go. All I know is I shouldn't commune there. My question would be, as an Orthodox, what should and shouldn't I do (e.x. do I cross my self in the Orthodox way or not at all, etc)?
I've come across a very interesting way to interpret this verse. The interpretation is as follows:
> "Christ's promise that gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church is the same promise God made to the nation of Israel, namely that "David shall never lack a man on his throne" and that there will always be offerings being offered at the temple. We can see from history that there were times where there wasn't a king of Israel and making temple sacrifices was impossible due to the temple having been destroyed. So the prophecies are still true, but not to be taken literally. Likewise, Matthew 16:18 doesn't mean Church will always exist, but that there will be times where the true Church will exist, then cease to exist, but ultimately, at the end, it will be standing."
How would you respond to this?
I've come across a very interesting way to interpret this verse. The interpretation is as follows:
> "Christ's promise that gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church is the same promise God made to the nation of Israel, namely that "David shall never lack a man on his throne" and that there will always be offerings being offered at the temple. We can see from history that there were times where there wasn't a king of Israel and making temple sacrifices was impossible due to the temple having been destroyed. So the prophecies are still true, but not to be taken literally. Likewise, Matthew 16:18 doesn't mean Church will always exist, but that there will be times where the true Church will exist, then cease to exist, but ultimately, at the end, it will be standing."
How would you respond to this?