r/OrthodoxChristianity

Today I went to liturgy, my priest gave a homily talking about how the holy spirit enters us during baptism/chrismation. I had a mental health freak out and had to leave early because this has not been my experience. I don’t even recognize myself anymore because of how bad my mental health has gotten since chrismation 10 months ago. I have emailed my priest about this multiple times. Last time we talked about it when I was suicidal he had me read some prayer out loud and I felt better for a couple days.

Why is there no permanence in help from the church? Why is every remedy so weak? I feel like I need to be tied to a chair and exorcised like in a horror movie. I genuinely believe I have demons tormenting me constantly. If not, I am just extremely mentally sick. I am constantly reaching out for help in every direction, I am also in therapy. I am just at the point where I can’t stand hearing any testimony where Christ or the church saved their life. It feels like nails on a chalkboard for me. Why am I not worth saving?. I am really starting to hate God beyond what words can describe. I was doing really well before I took the leap and turned to Christianity.

I have been an Eastern Orthodox Christian my entire life. I was baptized as a baby, and I have never had to experience leaving the faith and rejoining it, and never plan to because of how my faith is 100% in Jesus Christ, the son of the living God.
My boyfriend though, has grown up without that viewpoint. Religion has always made him iffy, and he never believed in anything that anyone has taken him to. He has been in a Jehovah’s Witness Church, and I’ve taken him to two liturgies in two different Orthodox churches.
I’ve tried to present him with a couple different cases of it, for example, like my dad being in the same page but later believing, but it just always made him uncomfortable every time I bring it up and I can’t help but feel bad and selfish when he wants time alone.
I give up all the time after that, but I’m not sure how to help. We want to get married and have children, but I want him to get baptized and get married in the church before that happens. But I guess the whole different perspective of having a God is just too much for him to handle.
Would it be alright if I married him without all the steps towards God? I feel like if I do that though the whole point of having him possibly believing in Jesus is just not going to happen.

Hi I'm orthodox and i wanted to shared my experience with intrusive thoughts. I have had an ugly past(blasphemy done impulsively, sexual sins, being lukewarm just to name a few. Then after a death of a loved one I took a drastic turn and would go to church often and reunite with my faith. Then one day I was met with intrusive thoughts (July of 2025 I believe) and since then they haven't stopped. I went to confession and two therapists because I was depressed and I tried everything. A kind monk showed up in my life unexpectedly and told me these thoughts dont count. However this is my problem: in March for a week and now in May and June, so for 2 months straight, these thoughts seem to come out of my mouth when im anxious or sad or mad. Is this mouthing of the blasphemies voluntary? Have you heard of it or experienced it yourself before? Thanks for reading my post and I'd like to see your input.

I want to use incense to occasionally cleanse/protect my home. I feel uncomfortable with smudging even if with herbs other than white sage because it's still not a practice I have ties to, which is why I intend to use a thurible/censer (I heard a hand censer with bells is recommended for laymen). However, I'm also wary of the potentially strong smell a charcoal disk could produce. I have a spiritual friend who once tried burning incense with a charcoal disk and they said the smell is very strong, and I don't want to set off my smoke alarm or worry my neighbors. Is it possible to use something like a cone/pinecone shaped incense (without backflow) and sway it around in a thurible the same way one otherwise would with a coal disk? Or would the swaying and wind make the cone incense less effective?

I've been in love with orthodoxy for a few years now, and I've only just managed to muster the courage to attend a local church. I'm kind of in the middle of nowhere, so the nearest church is 35 odd minutes away(UK based). The liturgy was beautiful, but I didn't feel as connected to god as I had anticipated. The priest was a very nice man, but I also didn't feel like this was a man that I could confess my life's sins to. There is another church a similar distance in the other direction from me, they have liturgies alternating weeks, so I would need to wait 2 weeks to visit there. Any advice would be great, I'm feeling kinda of lost and a little disheartened.

God bless.

I’ve been flooded in sin lately with my drug addiction, can’t do anything lately but smoke. I don’t now if I should attend liturgy because my head/heart are all over the place.

I am Turkish and EP acted very anti-Turkish and Pro-Greek in 1919-1922. They sponsored rebellions in Pontus.

They betrayed the Ottoman Empire but cutting ties with the state after the armistice. I am not a fan of the Ottomans especially during WW1, but it was my state after all and the state of Christian minorities.

Atatürk's characterization of it as a "hotbed of sedition and treason"? I would like to join EP, but these things make me hesitant.

As any person interested in world religions would have noticed, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of different religions, cults and ancient and modern faiths, many of them having hundreds or thousands of years of theology and knowledge and making a coherent systemic faith, How do we as Christians be confident of our religion being the truth in this environment?

One might say that other religions have internal logical contradictions or errors, and you will be right in case of a lot of faiths especially those we know and study commonly like Islam and Judaism as they have a coherent readily available system of thought that can be poked at, but there are other systems which don't seem to have such contradictions as they by their nature are fluid and mystical, be it Esoteric Faiths, Pagan Religions, Cults of different fake gods and goddesses, Tribal religions, one may not find many such holes to poke here, and it is impossible to study all these millions of faiths and find criticisms in all of them, so then how can one be sure in the Christian Faith?

1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Romans 10:1-10

Especially those last two verses really seems to affirm a kind of faith alone view to me. What's the Orthodox reading of this passage?

I went to church and outside was a non native speaker and he ask me for money for his baby milk and paper and he also has to go back to his country tomorrow i give him money and then some other person from the same country as the first person comes to ask me for money with the same picture as the first guy yet claiming they dont know each other i didnt give him money should i have given him money?

Hey guys, I have been going to orthodox churches for 7 years and am going to get baptized in August. The thing is that every time I get closer to becoming an orthodox christian I get flashbacks,white flashes voices of religious trauma and childhood trauma and panic attacks. When I stop going to church and start doing my own thing it stops. This has been happening for years and honestly I dont know what to do,I do want to become orthodox but since it is tied to something very tramatic in my past going to church is extremely difficult,enjoying worship is extremely difficult etc.

Thank you

Hello so I'm currently converting to the Orthodox faith, but I'm stuck with this choice between what parish I truly want. One parish has an amazing community for my kids and has plenty of places to play after litergy or if my kids are disruptive during litergy, but the priest is hard for me to talk to and is very busy and not very warm he's the kind of guy you come to him always he isn't gonna come to you with anything and it's hard to pin down for appointments and makes me nervous. The other parish doesn't have a lot of play space, but the priest is very warm, welcoming and I can talk and trust him it feels easiest to talk to him and I have more of a thirst for the faith when he's the priest I talk to. In your opinion which is more important the community and space or the priest? I can go every other week between them if you think both are a good idea I'm just stuck on what I want.

Hi everyone,
I’m a Greek Orthodox Christian, and I have a question I’ve been wondering about.
Would it be considered appropriate for an Orthodox Christian to wear both a crucifix necklace and a Star of David necklace at the same time?
For me, the crucifix represents my faith in Christ. The Star of David isn’t meant to replace that or suggest I’m practicing Judaism—I simply appreciate its biblical and historical significance, especially its connection to King David and the roots of Christianity in the Old Testament.
I’m interested in hearing the Orthodox perspective. Is this generally acceptable, discouraged, or considered inappropriate? Are there any teachings from the Church or the Fathers that address something like this?
Thank you, and God bless.

As title suggests don’t want to give my church painful coldsores. Thank you!

About a year ago, I decided I wanted to join an Apostolic Church. At first, I was drawn to Orthodoxy, and for the first time in years I attended Divine Liturgy. I loved it, but I was also seriously considering Catholicism.

After about a month of attending Mass and seeing some friends begin RCIA, I turned away from Orthodoxy. Looking back, I think I came up with a lot of weak reasons not to pursue it, and I was confirmed in the Catholic Church this past Easter.

Since then, I’ve continued studying Church history, and the more I study, the more I feel I may have made the wrong decision. I’m really struggling with the doctrine of the papacy, and I’d appreciate some advice from you all.

The biggest objections I can’t get past are:

-The “Papal Circle”: it seems like the papacy is often proven by councils and doctrines whose authority already depends on accepting the papacy.

-First Council of Constantinople was held without papal approval or participation, yet Catholics still accept it as ecumenical.

-I don’t see clear evidence for Vatican I’s universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility in the first millennium.

-The condemnation of Pope Honorius seems difficult to reconcile with later Catholic claims.

-Canon 3 of Constantinople I appears to base Rome’s primacy on imperial status rather than divine institution.

-Papal authority looks like a historical development rather than something universally recognized from the beginning.

-St. Gregory Palamas’ essence-energies distinction seems to expose problems with the Catholic understanding of Absolute Divine Simplicity.

-Also the fact that Gregory Palamas’s ideas were condemned by the Catholic Church, and now Eastern Catholic are allowed to venerate him. It seems like a contradiction, because EED and Absolute Divine Simplicity are not merely semantics, but fundamental truths about God.

I’ve already confessed my “schismatic behavior” with my priest and most of my points he literally agreed with or couldn’t answer. So that makes Catholicism even harder for me to stand behind.

Thank you for any input or advice, I’m going to Divine Liturgy tomorrow to speak with an Orthodox Priest and see what he thinks.

I grew up in a Methodist church in a pretty “lukewarm Christian” household. After not much research I quickly realized Methodism doesn’t make sense and I have been very curious, but hesitant, to join Orthodoxy. Protestantism in general seems to really have its issues. As everyone here already knows, Orthodoxy is so different than the lovey dovey stuff that lots of Protestantism teaches. There are many traditions and teachings that are kind of confusing to me and I would love to research more. For example, praying to saints (prayer in general seems different too), theosis, and salvation. I am currently reading “Welcome to the Orthodox Church” by Frederica Mathewes Green. It is great so far, but some of this stuff is really confusing. It is likely because I grew up in the west and hadnt even heard of Orthodox Christianity until maybe 2 years ago. So, some of this stuff is completely foreign to me. As someone who wants to do more research on these things, where does one recommend I go next after this book?
And to previous Protestants, how did you know choosing Orthodoxy was the right choice?

Peter Heers is desperate for his views on compulsory rebaptism to be seen as the traditional Patristic view. As a result he has to explain away an awful lot of inconvenient evidence. One difficult piece of evidence is the Council of Constantinople of 1484 that accepted Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy by chrismation. 

Heers claims that Roman Catholics were still baptising by triple immersion in the 15th century. He states, “By this time, the Latins had not yet universally abandoned the practice of baptizing in three immersions, so the canonical presoppositions for the application of economy remained mostly intact among the Latins.” Peter Heers, ‘On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria,’ Orthodox Ethos, 2022, pp. 212. Thus the Council of Constantinople of 1484 is not contradicting the Oros of 1755 that demanded that the formula (trinitarian) and form (triple immersion) as BOTH needed for a valid baptism. Heers supposes that the change to baptism by pouring happened between the 16th century and the 18th century.

It is this claim that I wish to challenge in this post. 

The main problem is the lack of sources. Few Greek Orthodox texts from the 13th to 17th centuries have been published and almost none have been translated into English. For example Fr. George Dragas in his article ‘The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholics into the Orthodox Church” mentions that Patriarch Germanos II of Constantinople (in the 13th century) wrote a treatise that mentions that some Latins were baptising by pouring but this treatise has yet to be published by remains in manuscript.

I will look at two texts that show that baptism by pouring was normative for Roman Catholics in the 14th century (at the latest) and was known to Orthodox theologians. While critical of Roman Catholic baptismal practices, they were not seen to invalidate their baptisms.

A) The first text comes from the Hesychast monk Matthios Angelos Panaretos, who lived in the 14th century. He wrote a number of treatise against Roman Catholicism that have recently been translated into English,

These include:

1.Refutation of Thomas Aquinas‘ “De rationibus fidei.”

2. Against the Papacy

3. Against the Filioque

4. On the 24 Heresies of the Latins

5. On Hot Water in Divine Mysteries

6.  Against the Unleavened Bread

The work I’m interested in is ‘On the 24 Heresies of the Latins.’ In this work Panaretos shows specific knowledge that the Latins baptise by pouring. Here is the relevant passage

“XI. The Latins do not baptize by immersion in a font, but are content with washing the head alone of the one being baptized with water poured from above, neither anointing those being baptized with oil nor pouring oil three times into the font or into the poured water, as the great Dionysios says. For this reason they are not baptized with the baptism of the Lord but are merely washed with a simple washing. The divine Apostle will now instruct us for what purpose baptism is given to the faithful, and in this way we shall understand the Latin presumption and heterodoxy in this matter as well. The blessed Paul therefore says: "As many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3-4). Baptism is therefore a type of the three-day burial and the Resurrection of the Lord. For the font is a type of the tomb. The three immersions into it are a type of the burial and the three-day descent of the Lord into the earth, and the emergence and ascent out of the font is a type of the Resurrection of the Lord. How then does one who does not baptize in this way confer the baptism of the Lord, and how does he not administer baptism far from the tradition of the holy Apostles? And how will one who has not been baptized according to the death of the Lord and the apostolic tradition partake of the Resurrection of the Lord?” (pages 12-13 of the Academia translation)

Panaretos goes on to cite the Apostolic Canons and acknowledges that emergency baptisms are valid but points out that normative Roman Catholic baptisms are not emergencies, As a side note nowhere does Panaretos consider Roman Catholic baptisms to be invalid because of this. I would encourage people to read the whole work.

(15) Matthaios Angelos Panaretos: Refutation of Thomas Aquinas' De rationibus Fidei 

(15) Matthaios Angelos Panarentos: 5 Works Against the Latins 

Here is the Pinakes reference (a database of Greek manuscripts)

Pinakes | Πίνακες - Notice : Matthaeus Angelus Panaretus 

B) Saint Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonika (died c. 1429) was author of many works as can be seen by his Pinakes entry. 

Three works of St. Symeon on Thessalonika have been translated into English and published by Patristic Nectar Publications - Dialogues Against All Heresies, Letter Against the Latins and On Prayer. In these works Symeon shows complete awareness that Roman Catholics baptise by pouring.

“There is also a problem with baptism. For they do not perform it with three immersions, but with three pourings, and without chrism.” (Symeon of Thessalonika, Against All Heresies, p. 125.

“They [the Latins] baptize by pouring and without anointing, contrary to what Dionysius writes. The anointing with chrism is not given in that moment to those who are being baptized. Neither is this done in accordance with the apostolic form.” (Symeon of Thessalonika, Letter Against the Latins, p. 281)

Symeon of Thessalonika (trans. Tikhon Alexander Pino), Against All Heresies with the Discourse Against the Latins and Chapters on Prayer, Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024)

Against All Heresies: with Dialogue Against the Latins and Chapters on Prayer (PAPERBACK) 

Pinakes | Πίνακες - Notice : Symeon Thessalonicensis archiep. 

Conclusion

Both Matthios Angelos Panarentos and St. Symeon of Thessalonika know Roman Catholics baptise by pouring. St. Mark of Ephesus would have been aware of this. The bishops at the Council of Constantinople in 1484 would have been well aware of this. Yet it took until 1755 for this to be an issue. This is clear evidence that the Oros of 1755 was not some return to some Patristic norm but an angry reaction to Roman Catholic missionary aggression not a response to a recent change in Roman Catholic baptismal practices.