That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). Iconography was not accepted in the early church.
You did an awesome job explaining Orthodoxy! As a 25 year Convert hardly anyone who isn’t Orthodox gets everything correct but you certainly did! Bravo!☦️ There are over 1million Orthodox in the United States and half are Converts. My own small town Colorado Parish has gained over 200 people in 4 years. I’ve heard that more Liturgical Protestant Churches have grown too.
@Cheve Cheve yes and no. No in the sense that it does have some theological distinctions between it and western Christianity in general (Roman Catholic or otherwise), but yes, because they were effectively one and the same church prior to the Great Schism of 1054, and I would at least say they share more in common than they don't (although you probably won't hear many Catholics or an Orthodox openly acknowledge this). The divergance was gradual over some time, in part due to parts of the Roman/Byzantine Empire wanting political power and self-governance, and part due to western and eastern Christianity in the Roman/Byzantine world being shaped by slightly different moral and theological challenges and experiences, but the split was more or less official in 1054, and it's never really been mended for a variety of reasons.
Amanda Sura : The current use of icons proves that the “Orthodox” broke away from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Tertullian wrote, “Similtude is interdicted” (that is, ‘images are prohibited.’) 4. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64. 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 6. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 7. There are no early church leaders speaking in favor of icons and no physical evidence that icons were used in the early church.
@@yeoberry Do you have photos of your loved ones? Is it OK to have photos of your loved ones framed and hung on the wall, but when it comes to pictures of Jesus, who is our best friend, and the saints, it is idolatery? Icons are not idols, they are pictures of our loved ones, because we love Jesus and His saints and want to look at them and talk to them. And before you say the saints are dead, here is a verse from the Scripture "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” Mark 12:27
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church. The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 225-300 million.
At 1:40 he states that " There are many Orthodox Churches, as opposed to, for example, one Roman Catholic Church." The Orthodox Church is not defined by administrative unity, but spiritual, doctrinal, and sacramental unity manifesting itself in intercommunion and concelebration of the Eucharist. It should also be noted that even though the Roman Catholic Church has administrative unity in that all authority flows from the Papacy, the Roman Catholic Church technically speaking is not a Church. It is a Papal communion consisting of 24 Churches : 1 Western Church - Latin, 1 Armenian Church - Armenian, 3 Alexandrian Churches - Coptic, Eritrean, and Ethiopian, 3 West Syrian Churches - Maronite, Syriac, and Syro-Malankara, 2 East Syrian Churches - Chaldean and Syro-Malabar, and 14 Byzantine Churches - The Church of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro, Albanian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Macedonian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.
Of course, not all Christians who follow these non-Western rite liturgies are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. For example, most Egyptian Christians (some 10 million Christians) are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - an Oriental Orthodox Church which historically accepts the Nicene creed but not the Council of Chalcedon. Accordingly, it is not in communion either with Rome or with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Coptic Catholic Church is by comparison relatively small in numbers.
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc I agree. The Oriental Orthodox Churches - over 80 million Christians world wide - include the great majority of the Christians of Egypt (some 10 million), Eritrea (some 3 million) and Ethiopia (over 50 million). In rejecting the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, they took their stand on the Nicene creed and the teachings of St Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. In reality, they now represent the substantial historical continuity of the Christian church in Egypt and Ethiopia. They should not be confused with the Coptic, Eritrean, and Ethiopian 'Catholic' churches which are in communion with Rome, while following the Alexandrian rite - these have relatively few members. The Roman Catholic church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches have made great ecumenical progress over the last 50 years. In 1984, Pope John Paul II and the then Syriac Patriarch agreed a fundamentally important common statement : that the schisms after Chalcedon had arisen only because of differences in terminology and culture and had no real basis.
Coptic and Chaldean are not part of Catholic in anyway, they are Orthodox more so than Catholic. I go to an Middle Eastern Orthodox church in America that Has services for Coptic, Chaldean/Assyrian. Basically most Middle Eastern Church would fall under Orthodoxy, not the Catholic Church. But Coptic and Chaldean has nothing to do with Catholic. There has been alot of dividing of the Orthodoxy, just the devils way of trying to divide. But here in America, we have a Middle Eastern community center and an Orthodox Bishop that has tried to bring us together and even has classes for Americans to learn Aramaic, Syriac for Liturgy.
***** ...well than, Protestant or Evangelical teachings are absurd, it's interprets Testaments literary as an exact and that makes much worse than Roman Catholicism, that's why they are the easiest target for the new wave atheists to bring them to ridicule when faced the exact...
The Patriarchs are not the bosses of the Bishops. The Patriarch ARE Bishops. And with each Bishop we have a complete Church. The Patriarchs are simply the Bishops in certain cities which have a high place of honor, but it's not a superior-subordinate relationship.
Jeff Turner : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
Covenant Caswell I recommend reading the article in full, but this excerpt addresses a portion of your comments. Although I would find it odd that you would use Origen to try and argue against Orthodox beliefs, considering Orthodox do not consider him a Church Father, but believe he fell into heresy. Same thing with Eusebius he held christological heresies. “... Council of Elvira Another historical evidence cited by Rev. Carpenter against icons is the Council of Elvira which decreed: Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and veneration. One thing I noticed was that the English translation given by Rev. Carpenter differed slightly from that given by Steven Bigham: Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur. It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls. (in Bigham p. 161) There are problems with Rev. Carpenter’s translation of the Latin text. The literal translation of “parietibus depingatur” is “paint the walls” (passive voice). It is not clear where his rendering “placed in churches” come from. Bigham’s more literal translation allows for a more flexible and even ambiguous reading of Canon 36. Carpenter’s translation seems slanted so as to lock one into an iconoclastic reading. With respect to the Council of Elvira’s Canon 36, Steven Bigham notes that we don’t know of the immediate circumstances and that the canon may have been intended as a temporary restriction (Bigham 2004, p. 161 ff.). This problem is not apparent in Carpenter’s discussion of the text. See Gabe Martini’s discussion about the challenge of translating the Council of Elvira. Good historiography calls for a careful handling of the evidence. In many instances scholars don’t know the immediate circumstance of a particular text or decision so they make educated guesses. In making guesses it is important that they use a tentative tone rather than a dogmatic tone. Carpenter on the other hand makes bold, unqualified statements. He writes: The prohibition was against any images in the church buildings to forestall the danger of those images becoming icons. Hence, the 19 bishops at the Synod of Elvira were objecting to the presence of art in a church because of the temptation it presented; for example, they would object to our stained glass, saying that it had the potential to become idolatrous (p. 115). There is so much we don’t know about the Council of Elvira and so little about what prompted Canon 36 that it is amazing to read Carpenter’s bold, audacious conclusion. This kind of bold language is something of a tradition in many Protestant fundamentalist circles, showing up in sermons or Sunday School lesson, but such dogmatism is completely out of place and inappropriate in a scholarly context, especially not in a refereed journal article! Rev. Carpenter’s citing the Council of Elvira is something of a Protestant tradition that goes back to the Reformer John Calvin. In my article Calvin Versus the Icon I made the following assessment about Calvin’s handling of patristic literature: However, in dealing with patristic literature it is not enough throw out names and councils as Calvin did. One must show how these references demonstrate a universal consensus among the church Fathers (i.e., Vincent of Lerins’ famous canon: “What has been believed everywhere, always and by all” Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). In the field of constitutional law the legal scholar’s strongest argument rests upon the findings of the Supreme Court, not the lower courts. Calvin’s references to one minor bishop (Epiphanius) or one local council (Elvira) or the polemical work sponsored by a king (Libri Carolini by Charlemagne) are all minor league stuff in comparison to the universal authority of an Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) and the reputation of highly respected church Fathers (John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite). Carpenter’s handling of historical evidences and sources from early church fathers and church councils is much like amateur lawyers attempting to practice law before the Supreme Court. The American legal system consists of a network of hierarchies. We cannot pick and choose court decisions to live by; this will result in judicial anarchy! For Orthodoxy the Seven Ecumenical Councils have settled doctrinal controversies thereby restoring unity to the Church. Having ignored or outright rejected the Ecumenical Councils Protestant Christianity has become a confused cacophony of doctrines and creeds...” I strongly recommend reading article in full: blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/a-response-to-john-b-carpenters-icons-and-the-eastern-orthodox-claim-to-continuity-with-the-early-church/
@@saenzperspectives : I strongly recommend reading this article in full: themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons but here's an excerpt on Elvira: "That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Given that there is no real question about this canon’s authenticity, it appears to settle the debate. Eastern Orthodox Apologists (EOAs) typically deal with Elvira’s canon 36 by either belittling it or obfuscating it or both. The Council (or “Synod”) of Elvira is frequently belittled by being labeled an unimportant local assembly, not an ecumenical council, with no authority over the church. Such descriptions are irrelevant historiographically. We cite Elvira not dogmatically, seeking instruction; if we did, we’d also have to follow their resolution for clerical celibacy. We cite it as historical evidence of what the church at the time practiced. Just as Elvira can be legitimately cited as evidence that the practice of clerical celibacy was prevalent (at least in the west) and was gaining support by the early fourth century, so too it is evidence about the church’s attitude toward images. Neither are binding on the contemporary church. We can depart from its canons, either because we believe in Sola Scriptura and don’t accept church councils as finally authoritative or because we recognize that, indeed, Elvira was a local synod and not an ecumenical council. However, the history and practice of the early church is the issue, not dogma. Elvira is historical evidence, regardless of whether one accepts it (or any councils) as authoritative. Elvira, as one of the most important church councils after the close of the New Testament and before Nicea (325) is solid documentation for the practices of the early church at that time. It is an official testament, issued by representatives of the church in Spain, substantiating the church’s practice on images. This is a major obstacle for EOAs. They do not argue, as do many Catholic apologists, that their church evolved over time, but that their practices preserve the pristine liturgy of the early church, with unbroken continuity. Hence, Elvira’s canon 36 is extremely problematic to their cause. The nineteen bishops from the Iberian Peninsula did not necessarily discourage Christians from art, even of biblical or Christian subjects. They were not rigorously aniconic, like Tertullian. However, they drew a red line with the church. They were not as lax as aniconism allows. Art was not allowed in churches where it had even the potential to be used in worship. These bishops make the distinction between mere decorations (“pictures”), on the one hand, and “objects of worship and adoration,” on the other. Pictures are not banned outright. Hence, the counsel was not rigorously aniconic. But the council was against any images in churches in order to prevent those images from becoming icons. That it warns against decorations so that they do not potentially become “objects of worship” (i.e. icons) suggests that there were no such icons in the church by the early fourth century. Being a debate-ending piece of historical evidence, Elvira’s canon 36 is subject to much attempted obfuscation. Some claim the standard translation-“Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration”-is inaccurate. Bigham, among others, suggests the following translation: “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.” While this debate on the precise translation may create a sense of uncertainty about what canon 36 actually says, none of the proposed translations changes the two relevant statements: that pictures were not allowed in churches (a moderate aniconism) and that the Synod of Elvira did not want what is “worshipped and adored” depicted in images. Karl Josef von Hefele (1809-1893), a German Roman Catholic church historian and bishop, quotes the original Latin (placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur) and comments that “these canons are easy to understand” and that “the ancient church did not tolerate images” and that “the prohibition conceived is in very general terms.” Another way to obfuscate this apparently straightforward statement is by reinterpreting it and narrowing its intent. According to von Hefele, Anton Joseph Binterim (1779-1855), a prominent leader of Catholics in Prussia, believed that canon 36 forbade only that anyone might hang images in the church according to his preference, to prevent inadmissible images. Why not, then, require the permission of the bishop or presbyter for an image? Some claim that canon 36 forbids only images representing God (because it says adoratur), and not other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also says colitur (“is honored”). Even if it were a temporary canon (due to the Diocletian persecution), and nothing in the text suggests it was, it still demonstrates that if images could be excluded entirely, they played no indispensable part in Christian worship by that time. Decorations are dispensable. Icons (if used) are not. Bigham concludes that since both iconoclasts and iconodules have cited this canon in favor of their own positions in the history of the Church, “it is not a stretch to say that no one knows the exact context or meaning of this canon, rendering it moot as a piece of ‘evidence’ for any one position.” This is a logical non-sequitur. Some people’s refusal to accept lucid statements does not mean that the statements aren’t lucid. Finally, Bigham belittles Elvira’s canon 36 as “a frail, little donkey.” The reality, however is that Elvira’s canon 36, as the resolution of nineteen bishops, is weighty historical evidence of the use (or lack thereof) of imagery in the early church."
prmatei vulcanescu : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
The apostolic church strictly prohibited icons: 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Tertullian wrote, “Similtude is interdicted” (that is, ‘images are prohibited.’) 4. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64. 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 6. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 7. There are no early church leaders speaking in favor of icons and no physical evidence that icons were used in the early church.
@@user-xd4rs6vr4n : Yahweh is God. Several times the NT calls the Lord Jesus "Yahweh." Your blasphemy that He's "the demon-lord" shows that you're an enemy of Christ, an unbeliever in the Word of God, who will be damned to an eternity of torment if you don't repent, confess your sin, and confess that Jesus is Yahweh.
@@yeoberry "Yahweh" is a title of God. The Father is the image of the son, meaning His personality resembles that of Jesus - loving, merciful and kind - not violent, petty, wrathful and jealous like the demon described in the books of Moses. When Jesus said that he was "Yahweh", He was reclaiming the title from the impostor in the burning bush-Hell portal.
@@user-xd4rs6vr4n : You’re a blasphemer, unbeliever, and enemy of the Lord Jesus who is Yahweh. If you think you’re a believer, you’re deceived and will be told “away from Me, I never knew you, you worker of lawlessness” (Mt 7:23.) If you don’t repent of your blasphemy and confess that Jesus is Yahweh, you’re going to hell.
We certainly do not worship the paint or the wood but we pay our respects to the Saints depicted and bow and kiss them just like we do when we visit our family and friends-and this is not obligatory-don't do it if you don't feel like it.The Catholics allow statues in churches but I don't think they worship them either-they're just ornamental or offerings
***** God is in everything.God created the materials from wich the icons are made. Christians dont worship the icon but what it represents. And early christians used icons. And what are you doing ? You forgot the old practices and adopted othes new, Orthodoxy is unchanged, from 33 AD till now.
Iconography is an important theological truth. A theological principal the concept of the incarnation. The truth that the invisible God, took on flesh and became visible in his creation. That changes the way we deal with the physical. Our gift of site has been given to us to honor and glorify God. Iconography is a supreme gift designed to stir up a love and devotion for who is depicted in the iconography. It is a physical, beautiful reminder of love devotion and affection; a remembrance. Orthodox iconography calls us to proper honor and veneration. We, ourselves, are living icons of God as we are made in God’s image.
John Leontakianakos : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
how about if we depict the patriarch's and the bishops' position at The CENTER among the people, rather than above the people. I believe thats the basic difference between the eastern tradition and the west.
Good point; in the first years, the Divine Liturgy would start when the bishop entered the doors into the Narthex. He would then be robed in the midst of the worshippers and would be seated in the middle of the church.
I do agree that the Orthodox teach that the image of God still exists in humanity, yet I note its only protestants in the reformed tradition who deny it. Most evangelicals and Pentecostals I know believe the image of God still to be present. Also, while most Orthodox (though not all, especially in earlier centuries) deny the western idea of Original sin, namely, that we are each individually guilty of the first sin, they still believe that this sin (which they call ancestral sin) affects us. They believe it makes us, who should be in communion with God, hostile to God, and that it gives us the knowledge of good and evil. We are separated, though in Orthodoxy each man's guilt is his own. At least, this is how I understand it. More learned people may correct me.
many say they hate repetition, but repeating this, makes the devil run away from you. Its like touching a hot iron, that is the way the devil sees it so he stays away from you. I love watching this and I subscribed. Thanks for a Great video!!!!! :D I as I get depressed for missing someone ,this is helping me and I feel so proud and happier just watching this :D I feel the warmth from God watching it!!!
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@thejamaicanorthodoxmission is it though? The overwhelming majority exists in eastern Europe and Russia, with smaller smatterings of it elsewhere like India, the Middle East, Western Europe and to some extent North America.
What's this about 40 Orthodox Churches? The number of Canonical Autocephalous (self- governing) Churches is 14, with around 4 -5 autonomous (partially self-governing) Churches. I think he is including the Triconciliarist, or Oriental, Churches as well; Which should not be done because of the insurmountable differences between the Orthodox and the Triconciliarists. There's also the fact that the Orthodox and Triconciliarist Churches are not in communion with each other and have not been for around 1500. This has to be one of the better introductions to Orthodoxy on UA-cam by a non-Orthodox Christian. I once heard a Roman Catholic Layman who thought that the Orthodox invented the Patriarchates after the Great Schism to take the place of the Pope, unaware that the Patriarchates are at least as old the first Council of Nicaea; There's also the fact the the Roman Catholic Church itself has multiple Patriarchs.
+Seth Osborne Not sure I agree on the "insurmountable" issues. While they may (emphasis on may) have been true monophysits in the past (not all evidence even supports this), the self proclaimed "miaphysitism" of the Coptic and other Oriental Churches (as opposed to the Nestorian Church) is extremely close to orthodoxy. They believe, for instance, that Christ' humanity was perfect, and that His divinity was perfect. Theydo not believe, however, that the divine nature swallowed up the human nature of Christ, like that one heretic Euteches believed. Indeed, I understand why those who converse with them regularly, and live among them, like the Antiochian Patriarch and the Alexandrian Patriarch, deem them perfectly orthodox and level, what is on a practical scale, unofficial communion. While they probably should not do this, it is understandable, because, on a practical level, Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Churches do have such an extremely similar theology as to make the schism seem ridiculous, especially to the simple, non greek speaking people of the modern world. They certainly aren't so far as say, Nestorians, or, goodness knows, Roman Catholics. Overall, my personal belief is that the two will be reconciled, and quite easily, now that better communications are available. I fear the wars in their territory might, just like in the past, cause harm to the dialogue, as, I often wonder, would they have accepted in light of the fifth council Cyrillian interpretation had they the time, rather than been subject to the Muslin hordes. Nevertheless, I think we should be cautiously optimistic.P.S. Even adding OO churches is not enough to reach 40. He's probably including old calenderist and other schismatic jurisdictions as well. Maybe even, Nestorians?
@@davidstar5008 To reconcile, the Non-Chalcedonians would have to accept the anathematisation of Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch. I don’t see that happening.
Overall an excellent and accurate summary. I would recommend you include the importance of Tradition (as opposed to the Protestant "sola scripture" view)
Thank you so much Professor for brief introduction to Orthodoxy. But according to Orthodox traditions Holy Icons are not painting and they’re not painted but written.
Many may criticize this presentation, but given that Orthodoxy is briefly described by someone from the West, for me this is quite satisfactory. I am only worried about the comments, people immediately go to convince themselves, although I understand, the European East and the United States are so culturally different that in itself this lecture is a miracle.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is one Church...with many jurisdictions: Russian...Greek...etc...whereas there are many Catholic Churches (24): one Western and 23 Eastern...
Moses Myers The Orthodox Church is a communion of independent "autocephalous" Churches. In the Catholic Church, there are no independent autocephalous churches. The Eastern Catholic "Churches" have been reduced into "ritual subsets" of the Roman Church and are under a Cardinal who heads the Congregation of Eastern Churches in the Roman Curia (the Papal bureaucracy) and are NOT, in any sense, autocephalous.
While I will grant you that you are correct in theory and principle, it definitely doesn't appear to be that way in practice, what with jurisdictions squabblung akd fiscontinuing fellowship with one another (Greek and Antiochian, Ukrainian and Russian namely come to mind as groups who seem to at least flirt with discontinuing fellowship).
Interesting presentation. It was very fair and generally well done. However, I'm not sure of your split of Christianity into 4 groups including Pentecostals as a separate category. I would have had these four categories: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Pentecostals are unique, but they are really another Protestant denomination. They would hold to the same Protestant convictions about justification by faith and salvation by grace. They also, unambiguously, come directly out of the broad Protestant tradition. The Eastern Church is formally split between Eastern and Oriental. This happened at Chalcedon in the 5th century and occurred due to the Orientals (Copts, Syrians etc) rejecting the two natures of Christ.
@Robert Sparkman I agree that Pentecostals ultimately stem from the Protestant reformation and probably shouldn't be distinguished from the rest of Protestantism, but I think you could make a case for a *different* fourth group--that of Restorationist movements like Mormon denominations. They are often lumped into Protestantism, but they do not have origins in Protestantism and largely reject Protestant beliefs. Theologically they tend to be closer to Orthodox teachings than to Protestant teachings, although unique enough that they can't be grouped with the older traditions, either.
Fr. Andrew Stephen Dammik in his series "Orthodoxy and heterodoxy " states that he believes that Pentecostals are almost unique enough to seperate them from Protestants.
This is a good, though simplistic, explanation of what Eastern Christianity is all about. Historically, it is important to emphasize that Christ establish HIS CHURCH, which was neither Greek in the East nor Latin in the West, from which Protestant traditions were derived with their varying doctrinal interpretations and practices that differed from what existed in the Church prior to its division in 1054 AD, And with no Reformation having occurred in the East, the Orthodox claim to Original Christianity is based upon the fact that its theology remains unchanged from what was conceived and promulgated at the original Seven Ecumenical Councils that took place when the Church was undivided and One.
Maybe there wouldn't be less confusion if the Orthodox reached out more and explained themselves better... Don't forget that most people outside of the Islamic Middle East and the former communist bloc have little to no idea who you are and what you actually believe and do. Part of this is due to Soviet communism closing its territories off from the rest of the world for 80 years, and the rest is due to the large failure of the Orthodox Church to reach out to those who aren't already within her walls or ethno-centric communities.
@@Tyler_W There is so much material on the internet nowadays, you can easily google it. As to the Orthodox being a failure to outreach, that’s a common misconception. You yourself list reasons why that was, but somehow you downplay them. Until the 19th c. the only free Orthodox country was Russia. Russia sent many missions to Christianise the vast plains of Siberia and later Alaska. In the 19 c. There were missions to China and Japan. In the 20th c. there were missions from individual priest and monks from Greece in Africa, South Korea, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Pacific, Central America. We were late to the game due to historical circumstances (Ottoman Empire) and lack of resources, but the Orthodox Church is doing missions around the globe today.
Since the Eastern Orthodox Church IS the Body of Christ (Christ is 100% human and 100% divine); it is NOT a "network of Churches". The Church is simply organized that way to preserve the integrity of the different cultures and languages of its people in all the different parts of the world. Nevertheless, it is One Church, One faith, One baptism, ONE God, as stated in our creed. The Holy (Eastern) Orthodox Church does not need a Pope as head, because the head of our Church is Jesus Christ Himself! The Church, (Christ's body), is both human and divine. It's members are composed of flesh and blood and those who have passed on, our brothers and sisters the Saints, are spirit; hence the pictures and icons of our family in the Church! If anyone would like to learn about true Christian Orthodoxy, read and learn from the Fathers of the Church, not from secular sources or unconverted men, or university scholars because all they have is a piece of paper with a stamp on it. They are devoid of true understanding when it comes to spiritual matters. Be careful! There are a lot of 'wolves in sheep's clothing' out there these days! Sadly even within our Church!
Just as a note. The monks that become bishops are first monastic priests (called hieromonks). These are the unmarried share of priests. Only these hieromonks are eligible for the episcopal rank.
Iconography is not art. Iconography is a language. It speaks to us. Jesus the Christ is the WORD of God. the Bible is a book describing the word of God. It is written text. Just like Iconography is written text. The word “iconography” is derived from the Greek words “eikon” meaning “image” and “graphos” meaning “to write.” The icon image is a visual symbol of the invisible. Icons express in images the spiritual realities that are inexpressible in words and inaccessible to our rational mind.
John Leontakianakos : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
In a society that was predominantly illiterate iconography served a great service as the entire gospel was "written" out in images. A necessary theological truth.
This talk is alright, but barely touched the surface--understandable given time constraints. He didn't touch on the importance of sacraments, the Eucharist, and asceticism, as well as the fact that there are more than ten canonized American Orthodox saints. And yes, Oriental Orthodoxy should be included in that list of Christian traditions. Coptic Orthodox Church is suffering persecution and martyrdom to this day.
Not good not necessarily bad its just the passions or rotten desires that are bad and that make the world a sucky place. Greed for instance, and hate and selfish ambition. Other than that it was created good the creation is good. And also Orthodoxy says matter can be sanctified by the grace of God and his uncreated energies. Most importantly the human body which is interconnected to the soul, no division is made between soul and body. Just like Jesus was God and Human, union of the divine and human natures.
Ronald Duck in Orthodoxy, matter matters....the physical world is our connection to God because we are sentient...of course we believe that the world is corrupted, but through God all things will be restored.
I most point out that he stated the orthodox churches are intertwined, but in addition the autocephalous churches are in communion with one another and convene at synods, councils, and synaxis.
Thank you for your "brief overview of Orthodoxy" as a convert from protestant Christiany I find your teaching fair. However it still lacks authenticity in that the claims of Apostlic succession since Pentecost A.D.33. This is not just a matter of pedigree, but rather of spiritual charisma/authority. The surity of truth & practice against theological heresy, St. Paul speaks of this in 1 Timothy 3:15-16. As well as many other passages in his epistles. The blessed Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a teacher to lead & preserve the true faith. There is a great deal of spiritual joy & Peace that can be experienced in childlike faith, love & obedience to the blessed Holy Trinity. I don't have to have it all figured out to receive saving grace. In fact my mentally challenged daughter lead our family to God. Thanks once again for your concise overview. ✝
ORTHODOXY is more appealing to me, as in Salvation IS life long process! Of carrying your cross and worship. Not a one time thingy. (Which makes a lot of sense!) I get it now, the use of images/icons in church, very well integrated into all the saints worshiping together upwards to the dome, as Window into heaven of Jesus Christ with angels and apostles. No one is saved alone! People help each other towards salvation. I can see how Orthodoxy retained its traditions, practice and Church.
Catechism is based on the Creed and the Creed is the ancient document that declares what it means to be a Christian... what we believe. www.oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith (Catechism is going to be pretty much the same because our Liturgy is the same, feasts and fasts... beliefs the same. Besides the Creed, Sacraments are explained (the Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Marriage etc.) The rest is learned the rest of your life. Orthodoxy is lived, and it’s how we learn.
You're kind of arguing semantics here. Mainline Protestants, regardless of denomination, essentially agree on core ideas, and there aren't hundreds of thousands of different sects, and what random relatively and comparatively small sects do exist, like Mormons, Jehovah's Witness and the like, most Protestants and the like don't even consider them Christians, let alone have fellowship with them as such.
Eastern Catholics follow Orthodox traditions. Veneration of Icons is Orthodox, although not contrary to RC practice, whereas veneration of statues is specifically RC tradition and not compatible with Orthodox practice. I’m curious….hypothetically, is it acceptable for Eastern Catholics to venerate statues?
the one holy apostolic church, the orthodox church. so funny when he said there is only 1 catholic church. there is roman and byzantine catholic and syrian catholic and ukrainian catholic...
Православље Maxboy50 : They are holy or apostolic if they bow to icons. That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
Remember that Charlemagne appropriated the "Holy Roman Empire" The HRE was already in existence in the East. This covenant between Charlemagne and the Patriarch of Rome Gave the Pope infallibility and changed the Nicene Creed forever in the West. This is where the Roman Catholic Church strayed and left communion with the rest of Christianity. This error still exists today. Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory, transubstantiation are all inventions that are outside of the Ecumenical Councils.
come to think of it I have heard of haunted paintings that people buy on ebay,,, . Im not suggesting that orthodox paintings are haunted but Im just saying if evil can in some way attach itself to a painting and cause destruction in a home then it makes sense that holiness can also be attached to painting and bring peace and love to a home
Romka Tomka the orthodox venerate the icons they don't worship them. They are an earthly reminder, a representation/interpretation in a visual form we (humans) can relate to.
Romka Tomka it's impossible for one to commit idolatry when he/she prays before an icon....because we only pray to God and he is not an idol...the icons are a glimpse of heaven. Icons focus the mind, body and spirit in prayer.
8ElionAdvancing8 : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
The patriarch is not the head, Christ is the head. This course is missinforming, i hope it is just out of some sort of benign ignorance and not something else.
Most likely ignorance since most people outside of dominantly Orthodox ethnic cimmunities have little to no idea what the Orthodox Church is, let alone how it's discernably different from Roman Catholicism.
another correction:orthodoxy is second in numbers after chatolics,because everything you call protestant church or else are thousands of religions not one!!!and this is facts and numbers!in rest a good video!
This claim about Protestantism isn't really true. Mainline protestants essentially agree on most core ideas, and not only are there actually not tens or hundreds of thousands of individual religions within the Protestant movement, a lot of the relatively and comparatively small ones, most of which display simple cultic behavior, like jehovah's witness and mormonism for example, are not considered Christian and mainline Protestants wouldn't have fellowship with them as such.
First time hear that in our (Orthodox) tradition children are considered not to be having the sign of original sin. Yes, they bear the image of God but human nature is still damaged from birth and it is exactly what you're saying - Salvation is the journey toward God and against sin, for Christ Himself is the Way, Truth and Life
Антон Кореневский As an orthodox theologian, I must intervene. The conception of 'damaged nature' is augustinian, and has no parallel in the eastern theologian of the Fathers. Christ became human, accepting our nature and unifying it with God. There is no damaged nature, but there is a sin, a wrong possibility that after the original sin becomes reality.
Orthodox Christians believe in Ancestral sin not original sin. Adam is responsible for his sin, but what happened as a result was death. Death has been overcome by the death and Resurrection of Christ. The problem with original sin is that the creator life (God) can’t create sin (a baby). Also, even John the Baptist recognized Jesus and kept in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary arrived to visit after the annunciation. Christ being human and divine poses a problem if there is original sin (a problem Catholics try to solve with the Immaculate Conception of Mary) but Orthodox have no problem.
There is one intercessor for believers, Christ alone. Not Mary, not Peter, not Paul. You pray to images thinking that someone will intercede to Christ on your behalf... idolatry, heresy, another Gospel.
As a Ukrainian Eastern Christian, you really need to do better research. How can anyone take you or this presentation seriously?? If you are going to teach about us---get it right!!
How about the Orthodox explain it better instead of largely isolating yourselves within your ethno-centric enclaves. Don't forget that at least half of the world have no idea what the Eastern Orthodox Church is or that it's any different from Roman Catholocism practically speaking. This is partially due to Muslim and communist conquest anf dimination that have closed Orthodox influence off into its own local communities, but it's also because Orthodox largely seem to only cater and reach out to those within their own churches and ethno-centric communities.
What possessed you to say Global... google biblical cosmology, look up at the domes of the churches and the iconography of the church's and try to find the heliocentric model. We don't live on God's Globe - our plain of existence which is held up by four pillars, has four corners is his Footstool; non of which is a ball.
It is sad that so many churches in America are more like STARBUCKS than showing the HOLY reality of God. Why are Orthodox bishops unmarried when Paul said that a bishop can have a wife? ( 1 Tim. 3:2) Protestantism promotes laziness. So many take the creed of "Faith Alone" to a point of doing nothing. James 2 says we are NOT saved by Faith ALONE.
Orthodox bishops being unmarried is an administrative practice that has evolved, not a dogma. As such, it could be modified at a future Ecumenical Synod, for example.
On the dome, as in the rest of the church there is an ORDER of where to paint everything. After the Pantokrator(Jesus) we paint the circle of angels, then the Mother of God, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Jacob the brother of Christ and maybe some of the Archangels in small circles, then beneath them are the PROPHETS of Old Testament, not the Apostles. Where the dome sites on the 4 colons, we paint the 4 Evangelists. Beneath that we go on various options, but still in an order although in many places, the painter, the priest of the church or the bishop of that area may not give so much attention on that order, so this is why from time to time you see a bit different order.
Icons are considered very significant in orthodoxy for many reasons. First of all, through them illiterate people were able to gain insight into the deper truths of religion. For example, by watching "the birth of Jesus" icon, where Joseph is far from the baby, they could understand that he was not the baby's father. Also, icons help praying. It's like watching your father on skype!! Apparently, you don't send kisses to your cell phone, but the person you communicate with. Finally, some icons ,due to various reasons, seem to be able to make this connection with God instant. I am not able to explain it well, but in Greece where I come from, but also other orthodox countries, there is a plethora of such icons, to which people pray and many miracles happen. I actually don't like the word miracle, because it implies that something extraordinary has happened. For us it is something "normal" in the sense that God, Theotokos, and the saints are not vague figures of the past. We feel them right next to us, helping us in every moment of our lives.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Tertullian wrote, “Similtude is interdicted” (that is, ‘images are prohibited.’) 4. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64. 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 6. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 7. There are no early church leaders speaking in favor of icons and no physical evidence that icons were used in the early church.
@@yeoberry I believe that the answers to your arguments can be found in the following essay orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/06/defense-of-holy-icons-part-i.html?m=1 . But if I may, I would recommend that you visit a number of churches where famous icons can be found. There you can listen to stories that people have experienced themselves and see things that are not always found in just books.
Are you people who are Eastern orthodox kidding if you can’t tell he just proved it’s a false religion and has alternate sources of authority and worships images and is not biblical Christianity just like Roman Catholicism is not with it three different sources of authority, two of which rank the Bible. Do you realize in three places in scripture, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Revelation and anathema is placed on anyone who adds to or takes from scripture. Are you comfortable with that?
I Grew up in Greek Orthodoxy. I can tell you that there was a specific time when God saved me. It wasn’t going to church and taking sacraments. So I eventually left Orthodoxy because no one really read the Bible and could answer my difficult questions. I’m sorry to say - I was not a child of God until He saved me. I didn’t do it on my own. I lived like a devil and didn’t think God was angry at my sin. Most Orthodox believers don’t think like this. It’s as if God hasn’t opened their eyes to their sin. Something seems wrong. I don’t mean to bash Orthodoxy but it seems spiritually dead.
Idolatry is Idolatry It is written thou shalt not bow down to (including kissing an icon,picture any image in Heaven on Earth or beneath the Earth or in the Sea. God says I am a Jealous God Worship only Me. amen!
Elly the unholy Vatican removed "thou shalt not worship Idol's" and cleverly hid the fact by splitting the 9th commandment into two. And where does it mention in the Holy scripture's to honour saints ??? you have been tricked and will suffer because of it. I urge you to look into it with a discerning and opened mind.
Elly I'm can honestly say 100% I am not Catholic.it's pretty obvious by my.comment's. The unholy Vatican is the HQ of the Catholic Church,The Pope (ceasar) it's leader whom with there great wealth rule and run the world (all roads lead to Rome..) you may have heard the expression. all you have to do is research it for yourself. a good starting point would be a UA-cam video by Alberto Rivera an ex-Jesuit priest and his testimonies. or Google it . be prepared to be shocked.
Elly cool,no problem. everything can be confusing it's typical of the system we have been conditioned to except and believe. God has given me the ears to hear and the eyes to see,along with his many faithful followers. God bless.
@@antoma6844 ...they didn't remove the commandment-- there's an alternate decalogue that switches, merges, and splits commandments in a different way than the "standard".
@@EllyLugosi : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
The synod of Elvira was a local synod and not a ecumenical council, it doesn’t have the same authority. And that synod didn’t say icons were intrinsically idols, but that it can lead to idolatry. Maybe that jurisdiction was more prone to idolatry than others, so the bishops in wisdom commanded to take away the icons because they were not Mature enough in their faith at that time, and needed to grow. None of what you said concludes that the early church as a whole rejected icons as a whole. The Orthodox Church is the original churcb
@@diegobarragan4904 I think you missed the point of that comment. he is pointing out that icons arent even remotely an apostolic tradition. You may want to also note that the 7th council shouldnt be considered ecumenical since they bullied or imprisoned the opposition. Also please note the strong iconoclasm that persisted for centuries afterwards. Might I recommend Dr. Ortlands video on icons for some historical reference.
@@ArcticBlits the icons have Jewish roots and are definitely apostolic. Why would I listen to an evangelical Christian for church history? When he is not even apart of the church, he is teaching from the outside looking in.
@@diegobarragan4904 Not to be rude, but saying that anyone not orthodox isn't part of the church doesn't make sense. we have the same history last time I checked. The Jewish roots to icons generally spoken of, ie the seraphim in the temple are poor examples seeing as they had very different functions. The second temple Jews, which all of the apostles happened to be actually fought with Rome over having any images made. seeing that was the culture and set of the time I don't see how one could argue that.
@@ArcticBlits evangelical Christians are not part of the Body of Christ. That’s the harsh reality. 2nd temple Judaism synagogues we’re full of iconography have you ever studied the subject? They look very very similar to modern orthodox churches. The apostle Luke himself created the first icon of the Virgin Mary holding Christ
This is wrong on certain fundamental points. That said .... it’s correct and clear in so many ways that so many non-Orthodox get wrong. Overall, speaking as a fairly committed and educated Orthodox, I’d say (to me, anyway) its pretty impressively presented.
Thank you! I am Orthodox Christian and believe that anybody who helps others to understand our church is helping our church.
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). Iconography was not accepted in the early church.
You did an awesome job explaining Orthodoxy! As a 25 year Convert hardly anyone who isn’t Orthodox gets everything correct but you certainly did! Bravo!☦️
There are over 1million Orthodox in the United States and half are Converts. My own small town Colorado Parish has gained over 200 people in 4 years.
I’ve heard that more Liturgical Protestant Churches have grown too.
Aren’t there 5-6 million orthodox christians in the United states?
Hey, I'm Orthodox and this guy did a good job! Well done! So often we're misrepresented, but this synopsis was accurate!
@Cheve Cheve yes and no. No in the sense that it does have some theological distinctions between it and western Christianity in general (Roman Catholic or otherwise), but yes, because they were effectively one and the same church prior to the Great Schism of 1054, and I would at least say they share more in common than they don't (although you probably won't hear many Catholics or an Orthodox openly acknowledge this). The divergance was gradual over some time, in part due to parts of the Roman/Byzantine Empire wanting political power and self-governance, and part due to western and eastern Christianity in the Roman/Byzantine world being shaped by slightly different moral and theological challenges and experiences, but the split was more or less official in 1054, and it's never really been mended for a variety of reasons.
Finally a westerner who understands Orthodoxy
Orthodox is the original Christian faith and Church. The Church is what the Bible is based on.
Blah blah blah our group is the original yep. Whatever.
We wrote it for Christ's sake.
Amanda Sura :
The current use of icons proves that the “Orthodox” broke away from the early church.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Tertullian wrote, “Similtude is interdicted” (that is, ‘images are prohibited.’)
4. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for
"the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error."
6. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9).
7. There are no early church leaders speaking in favor of icons and no physical evidence that icons were used in the early church.
Amin
@@yeoberry Do you have photos of your loved ones? Is it OK to have photos of your loved ones framed and hung on the wall, but when it comes to pictures of Jesus, who is our best friend, and the saints, it is idolatery? Icons are not idols, they are pictures of our loved ones, because we love Jesus and His saints and want to look at them and talk to them. And before you say the saints are dead, here is a verse from the Scripture "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” Mark 12:27
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church. The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 225-300 million.
+Moses Myers Exactly. Although there are more Protestants, they are spread over thousands of different sects.
yes...different sects...with varying beliefs...
Indeed..."twenty" present Pentecostal.... Where's that number from?
At 1:40 he states that " There are many Orthodox Churches, as opposed to, for example, one Roman Catholic Church." The Orthodox Church is not defined by administrative unity, but spiritual, doctrinal, and sacramental unity manifesting itself in intercommunion and concelebration of the Eucharist. It should also be noted that even though the Roman Catholic Church has administrative unity in that all authority flows from the Papacy, the Roman Catholic Church technically speaking is not a Church. It is a Papal communion consisting of 24 Churches :
1 Western Church - Latin,
1 Armenian Church - Armenian,
3 Alexandrian Churches - Coptic, Eritrean, and Ethiopian,
3 West Syrian Churches - Maronite, Syriac, and Syro-Malankara,
2 East Syrian Churches - Chaldean and Syro-Malabar, and
14 Byzantine Churches - The Church of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro,
Albanian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Macedonian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.
There are three Western Rites- Latin, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic.
Aside from that, though, basically.
Of course, not all Christians who follow these non-Western rite liturgies are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. For example, most Egyptian Christians (some 10 million Christians) are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - an Oriental Orthodox Church which historically accepts the Nicene creed but not the Council of Chalcedon. Accordingly, it is not in communion either with Rome or with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Coptic Catholic Church is by comparison relatively small in numbers.
@@gwedielwch They are not Catholic then. He speaks of Byzantine (aka Eastern) rite and not Byzantine orthodox and such
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc I agree. The Oriental Orthodox Churches - over 80 million Christians world wide - include the great majority of the Christians of Egypt (some 10 million), Eritrea (some 3 million) and Ethiopia (over 50 million). In rejecting the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, they took their stand on the Nicene creed and the teachings of St Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. In reality, they now represent the substantial historical continuity of the Christian church in Egypt and Ethiopia. They should not be confused with the Coptic, Eritrean, and Ethiopian 'Catholic' churches which are in communion with Rome, while following the Alexandrian rite - these have relatively few members. The Roman Catholic church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches have made great ecumenical progress over the last 50 years. In 1984, Pope John Paul II and the then Syriac Patriarch agreed a fundamentally important common statement : that the schisms after Chalcedon had arisen only because of differences in terminology and culture and had no real basis.
Coptic and Chaldean are not part of Catholic in anyway, they are Orthodox more so than Catholic. I go to an Middle Eastern Orthodox church in America that Has services for Coptic, Chaldean/Assyrian. Basically most Middle Eastern Church would fall under Orthodoxy, not the Catholic Church. But Coptic and Chaldean has nothing to do with Catholic. There has been alot of dividing of the Orthodoxy, just the devils way of trying to divide. But here in America, we have a Middle Eastern community center and an Orthodox Bishop that has tried to bring us together and even has classes for Americans to learn Aramaic, Syriac for Liturgy.
there are no "Orthodox Churches" there is One Orthodox Church- organised in different patriarchates, but the Church is One!
***** ...you are from Russia just as I am from South Korea...
...just as I thought, when you ask ''russian'' something using Russian words he simply disappears...
***** ну? не сказал ничего про Ротор и Олимпию...
***** ...if you were from Russia you would answer on Russian, and not saying ''soccer'' but футбол...you're exposed...
***** ...well than, Protestant or Evangelical teachings are absurd, it's interprets Testaments literary as an exact and that makes much worse than Roman Catholicism, that's why they are the easiest target for the new wave atheists to bring them to ridicule when faced the exact...
The Patriarchs are not the bosses of the Bishops. The Patriarch ARE Bishops. And with each Bishop we have a complete Church.
The Patriarchs are simply the Bishops in certain cities which have a high place of honor, but it's not a superior-subordinate relationship.
Jeff Turner :
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
Covenant Caswell I recommend reading the article in full, but this excerpt addresses a portion of your comments. Although I would find it odd that you would use Origen to try and argue against Orthodox beliefs, considering Orthodox do not consider him a Church Father, but believe he fell into heresy. Same thing with Eusebius he held christological heresies.
“... Council of Elvira
Another historical evidence cited by Rev. Carpenter against icons is the Council of Elvira which decreed:
Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and veneration.
One thing I noticed was that the English translation given by Rev. Carpenter differed slightly from that given by Steven Bigham:
Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.
It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls. (in Bigham p. 161)
There are problems with Rev. Carpenter’s translation of the Latin text. The literal translation of “parietibus depingatur” is “paint the walls” (passive voice). It is not clear where his rendering “placed in churches” come from. Bigham’s more literal translation allows for a more flexible and even ambiguous reading of Canon 36. Carpenter’s translation seems slanted so as to lock one into an iconoclastic reading. With respect to the Council of Elvira’s Canon 36, Steven Bigham notes that we don’t know of the immediate circumstances and that the canon may have been intended as a temporary restriction (Bigham 2004, p. 161 ff.). This problem is not apparent in Carpenter’s discussion of the text. See Gabe Martini’s discussion about the challenge of translating the Council of Elvira.
Good historiography calls for a careful handling of the evidence. In many instances scholars don’t know the immediate circumstance of a particular text or decision so they make educated guesses. In making guesses it is important that they use a tentative tone rather than a dogmatic tone. Carpenter on the other hand makes bold, unqualified statements. He writes:
The prohibition was against any images in the church buildings to forestall the danger of those images becoming icons. Hence, the 19 bishops at the Synod of Elvira were objecting to the presence of art in a church because of the temptation it presented; for example, they would object to our stained glass, saying that it had the potential to become idolatrous (p. 115).
There is so much we don’t know about the Council of Elvira and so little about what prompted Canon 36 that it is amazing to read Carpenter’s bold, audacious conclusion. This kind of bold language is something of a tradition in many Protestant fundamentalist circles, showing up in sermons or Sunday School lesson, but such dogmatism is completely out of place and inappropriate in a scholarly context, especially not in a refereed journal article!
Rev. Carpenter’s citing the Council of Elvira is something of a Protestant tradition that goes back to the Reformer John Calvin. In my article Calvin Versus the Icon I made the following assessment about Calvin’s handling of patristic literature:
However, in dealing with patristic literature it is not enough throw out names and councils as Calvin did. One must show how these references demonstrate a universal consensus among the church Fathers (i.e., Vincent of Lerins’ famous canon: “What has been believed everywhere, always and by all” Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). In the field of constitutional law the legal scholar’s strongest argument rests upon the findings of the Supreme Court, not the lower courts. Calvin’s references to one minor bishop (Epiphanius) or one local council (Elvira) or the polemical work sponsored by a king (Libri Carolini by Charlemagne) are all minor league stuff in comparison to the universal authority of an Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) and the reputation of highly respected church Fathers (John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite).
Carpenter’s handling of historical evidences and sources from early church fathers and church councils is much like amateur lawyers attempting to practice law before the Supreme Court. The American legal system consists of a network of hierarchies. We cannot pick and choose court decisions to live by; this will result in judicial anarchy! For Orthodoxy the Seven Ecumenical Councils have settled doctrinal controversies thereby restoring unity to the Church. Having ignored or outright rejected the Ecumenical Councils Protestant Christianity has become a confused cacophony of doctrines and creeds...”
I strongly recommend reading article in full:
blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/a-response-to-john-b-carpenters-icons-and-the-eastern-orthodox-claim-to-continuity-with-the-early-church/
@@saenzperspectives :
I strongly recommend reading this article in full: themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons
but here's an excerpt on Elvira:
"That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Given that there is no real question about this canon’s authenticity, it appears to settle the debate. Eastern Orthodox Apologists (EOAs) typically deal with Elvira’s canon 36 by either belittling it or obfuscating it or both.
The Council (or “Synod”) of Elvira is frequently belittled by being labeled an unimportant local assembly, not an ecumenical council, with no authority over the church. Such descriptions are irrelevant historiographically. We cite Elvira not dogmatically, seeking instruction; if we did, we’d also have to follow their resolution for clerical celibacy. We cite it as historical evidence of what the church at the time practiced. Just as Elvira can be legitimately cited as evidence that the practice of clerical celibacy was prevalent (at least in the west) and was gaining support by the early fourth century, so too it is evidence about the church’s attitude toward images. Neither are binding on the contemporary church. We can depart from its canons, either because we believe in Sola Scriptura and don’t accept church councils as finally authoritative or because we recognize that, indeed, Elvira was a local synod and not an ecumenical council. However, the history and practice of the early church is the issue, not dogma. Elvira is historical evidence, regardless of whether one accepts it (or any councils) as authoritative. Elvira, as one of the most important church councils after the close of the New Testament and before Nicea (325) is solid documentation for the practices of the early church at that time. It is an official testament, issued by representatives of the church in Spain, substantiating the church’s practice on images. This is a major obstacle for EOAs. They do not argue, as do many Catholic apologists, that their church evolved over time, but that their practices preserve the pristine liturgy of the early church, with unbroken continuity. Hence, Elvira’s canon 36 is extremely problematic to their cause.
The nineteen bishops from the Iberian Peninsula did not necessarily discourage Christians from art, even of biblical or Christian subjects. They were not rigorously aniconic, like Tertullian. However, they drew a red line with the church. They were not as lax as aniconism allows. Art was not allowed in churches where it had even the potential to be used in worship. These bishops make the distinction between mere decorations (“pictures”), on the one hand, and “objects of worship and adoration,” on the other. Pictures are not banned outright. Hence, the counsel was not rigorously aniconic. But the council was against any images in churches in order to prevent those images from becoming icons. That it warns against decorations so that they do not potentially become “objects of worship” (i.e. icons) suggests that there were no such icons in the church by the early fourth century.
Being a debate-ending piece of historical evidence, Elvira’s canon 36 is subject to much attempted obfuscation. Some claim the standard translation-“Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration”-is inaccurate. Bigham, among others, suggests the following translation: “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.” While this debate on the precise translation may create a sense of uncertainty about what canon 36 actually says, none of the proposed translations changes the two relevant statements: that pictures were not allowed in churches (a moderate aniconism) and that the Synod of Elvira did not want what is “worshipped and adored” depicted in images. Karl Josef von Hefele (1809-1893), a German Roman Catholic church historian and bishop, quotes the original Latin (placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur) and comments that “these canons are easy to understand” and that “the ancient church did not tolerate images” and that “the prohibition conceived is in very general terms.”
Another way to obfuscate this apparently straightforward statement is by reinterpreting it and narrowing its intent. According to von Hefele, Anton Joseph Binterim (1779-1855), a prominent leader of Catholics in Prussia, believed that canon 36 forbade only that anyone might hang images in the church according to his preference, to prevent inadmissible images. Why not, then, require the permission of the bishop or presbyter for an image? Some claim that canon 36 forbids only images representing God (because it says adoratur), and not other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also says colitur (“is honored”). Even if it were a temporary canon (due to the Diocletian persecution), and nothing in the text suggests it was, it still demonstrates that if images could be excluded entirely, they played no indispensable part in Christian worship by that time. Decorations are dispensable. Icons (if used) are not.
Bigham concludes that since both iconoclasts and iconodules have cited this canon in favor of their own positions in the history of the Church, “it is not a stretch to say that no one knows the exact context or meaning of this canon, rendering it moot as a piece of ‘evidence’ for any one position.” This is a logical non-sequitur. Some people’s refusal to accept lucid statements does not mean that the statements aren’t lucid. Finally, Bigham belittles Elvira’s canon 36 as “a frail, little donkey.” The reality, however is that Elvira’s canon 36, as the resolution of nineteen bishops, is weighty historical evidence of the use (or lack thereof) of imagery in the early church."
another mistake: the patriarch is not above the bishops!
Indeed. The Patriarchs are simply Bishops in certain cities which have a high place of honor.
First among equals, no right of veto, the patriarch just speaks first and concludes a meeting.
prmatei vulcanescu :
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
Don't forget the Oriental Orthodox Churches!!
(I am an Eastern Orthodox myself)
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
@Никита Дячина Of course it is. The Coptic Orthodox church for example. There are not just Russian and Greek churches.
@Cheve Cheve No, it doesn`t. They are no in communion with each other.
I'd wish to mention that Orthodoxy has its beginnings at Pentecost and the early church of the book of Acts
It is sad that Pentecostalism focuses on just one chapter of the Bible ( i.e. Acts 2) and refuses to realize that importance of the Bible as a WHOLE.
Happy to have finally found the true apostolic church
The apostolic church strictly prohibited icons:
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Tertullian wrote, “Similtude is interdicted” (that is, ‘images are prohibited.’)
4. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for
"the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error."
6. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9).
7. There are no early church leaders speaking in favor of icons and no physical evidence that icons were used in the early church.
@@yeoberry The demon-lord yahweh is not the Father or Jesus. The law of Moses is a curse that Jesus saved us FROM. Galatians 3:10-14
@@user-xd4rs6vr4n :
Yahweh is God. Several times the NT calls the Lord Jesus "Yahweh."
Your blasphemy that He's "the demon-lord" shows that you're an enemy of Christ, an unbeliever in the Word of God, who will be damned to an eternity of torment if you don't repent, confess your sin, and confess that Jesus is Yahweh.
@@yeoberry "Yahweh" is a title of God. The Father is the image of the son, meaning His personality resembles that of Jesus - loving, merciful and kind - not violent, petty, wrathful and jealous like the demon described in the books of Moses.
When Jesus said that he was "Yahweh", He was reclaiming the title from the impostor in the burning bush-Hell portal.
@@user-xd4rs6vr4n :
You’re a blasphemer, unbeliever, and enemy of the Lord Jesus who is Yahweh. If you think you’re a believer, you’re deceived and will be told “away from Me, I never knew you, you worker of lawlessness” (Mt 7:23.)
If you don’t repent of your blasphemy and confess that Jesus is Yahweh, you’re going to hell.
The true church ❤️☦️
We certainly do not worship the paint or the wood but we pay our respects to the Saints depicted and bow and kiss them just like we do when we visit our family and friends-and this is not obligatory-don't do it if you don't feel like it.The Catholics allow statues in churches but I don't think they worship them either-they're just ornamental or offerings
Its not idolatr you bigot.
*****
and Christ prayed on mountain sinai.why there and not in a toilet if nothing has a meaning ?
*****
God is in everything.God created the materials from wich the icons are made.
Christians dont worship the icon but what it represents.
And early christians used icons.
And what are you doing ? You forgot the old practices and adopted othes new, Orthodoxy is unchanged, from 33 AD till now.
*****
Because he dont wants to put his spirit in a computer maybe
12345soccerguy While you are an enlightened being that has it all figured out. Sure
Thank you so much Church I am so blessed through this may the Lord bless you and use you more and more...
Iconography is an important theological truth. A theological principal the concept of the incarnation. The truth that the invisible God, took on flesh and became visible in his creation. That changes the way we deal with the physical. Our gift of site has been given to us to honor and glorify God. Iconography is a supreme gift designed to stir up a love and devotion for who is depicted in the iconography. It is a physical, beautiful reminder of love devotion and affection; a remembrance. Orthodox iconography calls us to proper honor and veneration. We, ourselves, are living icons of God as we are made in God’s image.
John Leontakianakos :
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
how about if we depict the patriarch's and the bishops' position at The CENTER among the people, rather than above the people. I believe thats the basic difference between the eastern tradition and the west.
Good point; in the first years, the Divine Liturgy would start when the bishop entered the doors into the Narthex. He would then be robed in the midst of the worshippers and would be seated in the middle of the church.
I do agree that the Orthodox teach that the image of God still exists in humanity, yet I note its only protestants in the reformed tradition who deny it. Most evangelicals and Pentecostals I know believe the image of God still to be present. Also, while most Orthodox (though not all, especially in earlier centuries) deny the western idea of Original sin, namely, that we are each individually guilty of the first sin, they still believe that this sin (which they call ancestral sin) affects us. They believe it makes us, who should be in communion with God, hostile to God, and that it gives us the knowledge of good and evil. We are separated, though in Orthodoxy each man's guilt is his own. At least, this is how I understand it. More learned people may correct me.
Thank you so much for teaching very briefly and profoundly to help to learn more about Eastern Orthodoxy.
"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." (Matthew 5:14)
Thank you for your explanation, it was very helpful
many say they hate repetition, but repeating this, makes the devil run away from you. Its like touching a hot iron, that is the way the devil sees it so he stays away from you. I love watching this and I subscribed. Thanks for a Great video!!!!! :D I as I get depressed for missing someone ,this is helping me and I feel so proud and happier just watching this :D I feel the warmth from God watching it!!!
As one who is considering Orthodoxy, this is a very helpful lecture. ✔️
Thank you.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry Thank you for this historical background. It’s extremely helpful. ✔️
The Orthodox community of Christians also include places like India.
that is true...in fact...Orthodox Christianity can be found almost everywhere in the world...
@@thejamaicanorthodoxmission is it though? The overwhelming majority exists in eastern Europe and Russia, with smaller smatterings of it elsewhere like India, the Middle East, Western Europe and to some extent North America.
Most "Orthodox" Christians in India are Non-Chalcedonians. Why should we include them, we’re not in communion.
@@Tyler_WAlso in Africa, Australia, South America, the Carribbean and Oceania. Just about everywhere!
What's this about 40 Orthodox Churches? The number of Canonical Autocephalous (self- governing) Churches is 14, with around 4 -5 autonomous (partially self-governing) Churches. I think he is including the Triconciliarist, or Oriental, Churches as well; Which should not be done because of the insurmountable differences between the Orthodox and the Triconciliarists. There's also the fact that the Orthodox and Triconciliarist Churches are not in communion with each other and have not been for around 1500.
This has to be one of the better introductions to Orthodoxy on UA-cam by a non-Orthodox Christian. I once heard a Roman Catholic Layman who thought that the Orthodox invented the Patriarchates after the Great Schism to take the place of the Pope, unaware that the Patriarchates are at least as old the first Council of Nicaea; There's also the fact the the Roman Catholic Church itself has multiple Patriarchs.
+Seth Osborne Not sure I agree on the "insurmountable" issues. While they may (emphasis on may) have been true monophysits in the past (not all evidence even supports this), the self proclaimed "miaphysitism" of the Coptic and other Oriental Churches (as opposed to the Nestorian Church) is extremely close to orthodoxy. They believe, for instance, that Christ' humanity was perfect, and that His divinity was perfect. Theydo not believe, however, that the divine nature swallowed up the human nature of Christ, like that one heretic Euteches believed. Indeed, I understand why those who converse with them regularly, and live among them, like the Antiochian Patriarch and the Alexandrian Patriarch, deem them perfectly orthodox and level, what is on a practical scale, unofficial communion. While they probably should not do this, it is understandable, because, on a practical level, Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Churches do have such an extremely similar theology as to make the schism seem ridiculous, especially to the simple, non greek speaking people of the modern world. They certainly aren't so far as say, Nestorians, or, goodness knows, Roman Catholics. Overall, my personal belief is that the two will be reconciled, and quite easily, now that better communications are available. I fear the wars in their territory might, just like in the past, cause harm to the dialogue, as, I often wonder, would they have accepted in light of the fifth council Cyrillian interpretation had they the time, rather than been subject to the Muslin hordes. Nevertheless, I think we should be cautiously optimistic.P.S. Even adding OO churches is not enough to reach 40. He's probably including old calenderist and other schismatic jurisdictions as well. Maybe even, Nestorians?
@@davidstar5008 To reconcile, the Non-Chalcedonians would have to accept the anathematisation of Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch. I don’t see that happening.
Overall an excellent and accurate summary. I would recommend you include the importance of Tradition (as opposed to the Protestant "sola scripture" view)
Thank you so much Professor for brief introduction to Orthodoxy. But according to Orthodox traditions Holy Icons are not painting and they’re not painted but written.
Thank you for your informative lectures.
Many may criticize this presentation, but given that Orthodoxy is briefly described by someone from the West, for me this is quite satisfactory. I am only worried about the comments, people immediately go to convince themselves, although I understand, the European East and the United States are so culturally different that in itself this lecture is a miracle.
God bless this man, everything about orthodoxy he talked about was all correct!
The Eastern Orthodox Church is one Church...with many jurisdictions: Russian...Greek...etc...whereas there are many Catholic Churches (24): one Western and 23 Eastern...
Moses Myers
The Orthodox Church is a communion of independent "autocephalous" Churches. In the Catholic Church, there are no independent autocephalous churches. The Eastern Catholic "Churches" have been reduced into "ritual subsets" of the Roman Church and are under a Cardinal who heads the Congregation of Eastern Churches in the Roman Curia (the Papal bureaucracy) and are NOT, in any sense, autocephalous.
While I will grant you that you are correct in theory and principle, it definitely doesn't appear to be that way in practice, what with jurisdictions squabblung akd fiscontinuing fellowship with one another (Greek and Antiochian, Ukrainian and Russian namely come to mind as groups who seem to at least flirt with discontinuing fellowship).
Thank you for this. Good information.
thank you for your sharing of this helpfull for more people!
Interesting presentation. It was very fair and generally well done. However, I'm not sure of your split of Christianity into 4 groups including Pentecostals as a separate category. I would have had these four categories: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Pentecostals are unique, but they are really another Protestant denomination. They would hold to the same Protestant convictions about justification by faith and salvation by grace. They also, unambiguously, come directly out of the broad Protestant tradition. The Eastern Church is formally split between Eastern and Oriental. This happened at Chalcedon in the 5th century and occurred due to the Orientals (Copts, Syrians etc) rejecting the two natures of Christ.
@Robert Sparkman I agree that Pentecostals ultimately stem from the Protestant reformation and probably shouldn't be distinguished from the rest of Protestantism, but I think you could make a case for a *different* fourth group--that of Restorationist movements like Mormon denominations. They are often lumped into Protestantism, but they do not have origins in Protestantism and largely reject Protestant beliefs. Theologically they tend to be closer to Orthodox teachings than to Protestant teachings, although unique enough that they can't be grouped with the older traditions, either.
Fr. Andrew Stephen Dammik in his series "Orthodoxy and heterodoxy " states that he believes that Pentecostals are almost unique enough to seperate them from Protestants.
This is a good, though simplistic, explanation of what Eastern Christianity is all about. Historically, it is important to emphasize that Christ establish HIS CHURCH, which was neither Greek in the East nor Latin in the West, from which Protestant traditions were derived with their varying doctrinal interpretations and practices that differed from what existed in the Church prior to its division in 1054 AD, And with no Reformation having occurred in the East, the Orthodox claim to Original Christianity is based upon the fact that its theology remains unchanged from what was conceived and promulgated at the original Seven Ecumenical Councils that took place when the Church was undivided and One.
I agree with orthdox on most part.
Except their view of salvation, and the view on church
There are small communities of Greek Orthodox Churches here in South-Africa. :-)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
I wish there was a way to e-mail a Greek Orthodox church. I have several questions on wanting to see the New Testament translated correctly.
That's a pretty good introduction.
I teach theology and this was informative and interesting. Thank you.
A lot of it is off.
@@brotherbrovet1881 The whole thing is off
there is only One Orthodox Church!!!not "a lot" or "many" ....stop the confusion!
Maybe there wouldn't be less confusion if the Orthodox reached out more and explained themselves better... Don't forget that most people outside of the Islamic Middle East and the former communist bloc have little to no idea who you are and what you actually believe and do. Part of this is due to Soviet communism closing its territories off from the rest of the world for 80 years, and the rest is due to the large failure of the Orthodox Church to reach out to those who aren't already within her walls or ethno-centric communities.
@@Tyler_W There is so much material on the internet nowadays, you can easily google it.
As to the Orthodox being a failure to outreach, that’s a common misconception.
You yourself list reasons why that was, but somehow you downplay them. Until the 19th c. the only free Orthodox country was Russia. Russia sent many missions to Christianise the vast plains of Siberia and later Alaska. In the 19 c. There were missions to China and Japan. In the 20th c. there were missions from individual priest and monks from Greece in Africa, South Korea, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Pacific, Central America.
We were late to the game due to historical circumstances (Ottoman Empire) and lack of resources, but the Orthodox Church is doing missions around the globe today.
Since the Eastern Orthodox Church IS the Body of Christ (Christ is 100% human and 100% divine); it is NOT a "network of Churches". The Church is simply organized that way to preserve the integrity of the different cultures and languages of its people in all the different parts of the world. Nevertheless, it is One Church, One faith, One baptism, ONE God, as stated in our creed. The Holy (Eastern) Orthodox Church does not need a Pope as head, because the head of our Church is Jesus Christ Himself! The Church, (Christ's body), is both human and divine. It's members are composed of flesh and blood and those who have passed on, our brothers and sisters the Saints, are spirit; hence the pictures and icons of our family in the Church! If anyone would like to learn about true Christian Orthodoxy, read and learn from the Fathers of the Church, not from secular sources or unconverted men, or university scholars because all they have is a piece of paper with a stamp on it. They are devoid of true understanding when it comes to spiritual matters. Be careful! There are a lot of 'wolves in sheep's clothing' out there these days! Sadly even within our Church!
Just as a note. The monks that become bishops are first monastic priests (called hieromonks). These are the unmarried share of priests. Only these hieromonks are eligible for the episcopal rank.
ah great explanation of the evolution of the Christian faith
Iconography is not art. Iconography is a language. It speaks to us. Jesus the Christ is the WORD of God. the Bible is a book describing the word of God. It is written text. Just like Iconography is written text.
The word “iconography” is derived from the Greek words “eikon” meaning “image” and “graphos” meaning “to write.” The icon image is a visual symbol of the invisible. Icons express in images the spiritual realities that are inexpressible in words and inaccessible to our rational mind.
John Leontakianakos :
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
In a society that was predominantly illiterate iconography served a great service as the entire gospel was "written" out in images. A necessary theological truth.
This talk is alright, but barely touched the surface--understandable given time constraints. He didn't touch on the importance of sacraments, the Eucharist, and asceticism, as well as the fact that there are more than ten canonized American Orthodox saints.
And yes, Oriental Orthodoxy should be included in that list of Christian traditions. Coptic Orthodox Church is suffering persecution and martyrdom to this day.
Good explanation of Orthodoxy
What is Orthodox Christianity's view on this world? Is it viewed as something good and something to be appreciated and enjoyed?
Not good not necessarily bad its just the passions or rotten desires that are bad and that make the world a sucky place. Greed for instance, and hate and selfish ambition. Other than that it was created good the creation is good. And also Orthodoxy says matter can be sanctified by the grace of God and his uncreated energies. Most importantly the human body which is interconnected to the soul, no division is made between soul and body. Just like Jesus was God and Human, union of the divine and human natures.
Ronald Duck in Orthodoxy, matter matters....the physical world is our connection to God because we are sentient...of course we believe that the world is corrupted, but through God all things will be restored.
I most point out that he stated the orthodox churches are intertwined, but in addition the autocephalous churches are in communion with one another and convene at synods, councils, and synaxis.
They are also very silent during the masses and don't make "Shows"...
Thank you for your "brief overview of Orthodoxy" as a convert from protestant Christiany I find your teaching fair. However it still lacks authenticity in that the claims of Apostlic succession since Pentecost A.D.33. This is not just a matter of pedigree, but rather of spiritual charisma/authority. The surity of truth & practice against theological heresy, St. Paul speaks of this in 1 Timothy 3:15-16. As well as many other passages in his epistles. The blessed Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a teacher to lead & preserve the true faith. There is a great deal of spiritual joy & Peace that can be experienced in childlike faith, love & obedience to the blessed Holy Trinity. I don't have to have it all figured out to receive saving grace. In fact my mentally challenged daughter lead our family to God. Thanks once again for your concise overview. ✝
ORTHODOXY is more appealing to me, as in Salvation IS life long process!
Of carrying your cross and worship.
Not a one time thingy.
(Which makes a lot of sense!)
I get it now, the use of images/icons in church, very well integrated into all the saints worshiping together upwards to the dome, as Window into heaven of Jesus Christ with angels and apostles.
No one is saved alone!
People help each other towards salvation.
I can see how Orthodoxy retained its traditions, practice and Church.
Is there a "Catechism of the Orthodox Church" that is recognised by all the Orthodox Churches (Chalcedonian)?
Catechism is based on the Creed and the Creed is the ancient document that declares what it means to be a Christian... what we believe.
www.oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith (Catechism is going to be pretty much the same because our Liturgy is the same, feasts and fasts... beliefs the same.
Besides the Creed, Sacraments are explained (the Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Marriage etc.)
The rest is learned the rest of your life. Orthodoxy is lived, and it’s how we learn.
St. Philaret of Moscow, for instance.
False. Orthodox are the 2nd largest in the world.
You're kind of arguing semantics here. Mainline Protestants, regardless of denomination, essentially agree on core ideas, and there aren't hundreds of thousands of different sects, and what random relatively and comparatively small sects do exist, like Mormons, Jehovah's Witness and the like, most Protestants and the like don't even consider them Christians, let alone have fellowship with them as such.
Orthdox don't even make up 500 million adherents when compared to Pentecostal(which is part of protestant)
Eastern Catholics have icons too!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
Eastern Catholics follow Orthodox traditions. Veneration of Icons is Orthodox, although not contrary to RC practice, whereas veneration of statues is specifically RC tradition and not compatible with Orthodox practice. I’m curious….hypothetically, is it acceptable for Eastern Catholics to venerate statues?
I teach Ancient Antiochene theology and I enjoyed this.
Antiochian Orthodox?
Michael Lacy lol
the one holy apostolic church, the orthodox church. so funny when he said there is only 1 catholic church. there is roman and byzantine catholic and syrian catholic and ukrainian catholic...
Православље Maxboy50 :
They are holy or apostolic if they bow to icons. That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
Major Wolf United in heresy.
Remember that Charlemagne appropriated the "Holy Roman Empire" The HRE was already in existence in the East. This covenant between Charlemagne and the Patriarch of Rome Gave the Pope infallibility and changed the Nicene Creed forever in the West. This is where the Roman Catholic Church strayed and left communion with the rest of Christianity. This error still exists today. Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory, transubstantiation are all inventions that are outside of the Ecumenical Councils.
@@yeoberryNo, there are icons in existence written by Luke the Evangelist (written, not painted is the correct way of saying it).
@@adrianwhyatt1425 :
The fable that Luke made an icon was made up in the 7th century or later. The early church strictly prohibited icons.
come to think of it I have heard of haunted paintings that people buy on ebay,,, . Im not suggesting that orthodox paintings are haunted but Im just saying if evil can in some way attach itself to a painting and cause destruction in a home then it makes sense that holiness can also be attached to painting and bring peace and love to a home
sounds like idolatry. holiness doesnt come from paintings, but from GOD through faith in JESUS!
Romka Tomka the orthodox venerate the icons they don't worship them. They are an earthly reminder, a representation/interpretation in a visual form we (humans) can relate to.
Romka Tomka it's impossible for one to commit idolatry when he/she prays before an icon....because we only pray to God and he is not an idol...the icons are a glimpse of heaven. Icons focus the mind, body and spirit in prayer.
Yes, as we Orthodox say, "The icons are a window into heaven."
8ElionAdvancing8 :
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
The patriarch is not the head, Christ is the head. This course is missinforming, i hope it is just out of some sort of benign ignorance and not something else.
Most likely ignorance since most people outside of dominantly Orthodox ethnic cimmunities have little to no idea what the Orthodox Church is, let alone how it's discernably different from Roman Catholicism.
another correction:orthodoxy is second in numbers after chatolics,because everything you call protestant church or else are thousands of religions not one!!!and this is facts and numbers!in rest a good video!
This claim about Protestantism isn't really true. Mainline protestants essentially agree on most core ideas, and not only are there actually not tens or hundreds of thousands of individual religions within the Protestant movement, a lot of the relatively and comparatively small ones, most of which display simple cultic behavior, like jehovah's witness and mormonism for example, are not considered Christian and mainline Protestants wouldn't have fellowship with them as such.
Icons were a way of spreading the written word as most were illiterate
First time hear that in our (Orthodox) tradition children are considered not to be having the sign of original sin. Yes, they bear the image of God but human nature is still damaged from birth and it is exactly what you're saying - Salvation is the journey toward God and against sin, for Christ Himself is the Way, Truth and Life
Антон Кореневский As an orthodox theologian, I must intervene. The conception of 'damaged nature' is augustinian, and has no parallel in the eastern theologian of the Fathers. Christ became human, accepting our nature and unifying it with God. There is no damaged nature, but there is a sin, a wrong possibility that after the original sin becomes reality.
Orthodox Christians believe in Ancestral sin not original sin. Adam is responsible for his sin, but what happened as a result was death. Death has been overcome by the death and Resurrection of Christ.
The problem with original sin is that the creator life (God) can’t create sin (a baby). Also, even John the Baptist recognized Jesus and kept in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary arrived to visit after the annunciation.
Christ being human and divine poses a problem if there is original sin (a problem Catholics try to solve with the Immaculate Conception of Mary) but Orthodox have no problem.
There is one intercessor for believers, Christ alone. Not Mary, not Peter, not Paul. You pray to images thinking that someone will intercede to Christ on your behalf... idolatry, heresy, another Gospel.
As a Ukrainian Eastern Christian, you really need to do better research. How can anyone take you or this presentation seriously?? If you are going to teach about us---get it right!!
he thinks that the orthodox christian is just 10%
How about the Orthodox explain it better instead of largely isolating yourselves within your ethno-centric enclaves. Don't forget that at least half of the world have no idea what the Eastern Orthodox Church is or that it's any different from Roman Catholocism practically speaking. This is partially due to Muslim and communist conquest anf dimination that have closed Orthodox influence off into its own local communities, but it's also because Orthodox largely seem to only cater and reach out to those within their own churches and ethno-centric communities.
children are innocent
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence
What possessed you to say Global... google biblical cosmology, look up at the domes of the churches and the iconography of the church's and try to find the heliocentric model.
We don't live on God's Globe - our plain of existence which is held up by four pillars, has four corners is his Footstool; non of which is a ball.
It is sad that so many churches in America are more like STARBUCKS than showing the HOLY reality of God.
Why are Orthodox bishops unmarried when Paul said that a bishop can have a wife? ( 1 Tim. 3:2)
Protestantism promotes laziness. So many take the creed of "Faith Alone" to a point of doing nothing. James 2 says we are NOT saved by Faith ALONE.
Orthodox bishops being unmarried is an administrative practice that has evolved, not a dogma. As such, it could be modified at a future Ecumenical Synod, for example.
to be bishop must be a monk, then a deacon, priest and after that you can be bishop or patriarch, and what lies you say there are few
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk
On the dome, as in the rest of the church there is an ORDER of where to paint everything. After the Pantokrator(Jesus) we paint the circle of angels, then the Mother of God, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Jacob the brother of Christ and maybe some of the Archangels in small circles, then beneath them are the PROPHETS of Old Testament, not the Apostles. Where the dome sites on the 4 colons, we paint the 4 Evangelists. Beneath that we go on various options, but still in an order although in many places, the painter, the priest of the church or the bishop of that area may not give so much attention on that order, so this is why from time to time you see a bit different order.
Caveman Protogonos saint Jacob the brother of Christ ??
why are Coptics not mentioned
Matthew Anderson oriental orthodoxy is not as famous and still, it’s not really understood in the West. Orthodoxy apples for both tho
Because this is a video about Eastern Orthodoxy, although he makes the mistake of including them in the map.
Icons are considered very significant in orthodoxy for many reasons. First of all, through them illiterate people were able to gain insight into the deper truths of religion. For example, by watching "the birth of Jesus" icon, where Joseph is far from the baby, they could understand that he was not the baby's father. Also, icons help praying. It's like watching your father on skype!! Apparently, you don't send kisses to your cell phone, but the person you communicate with. Finally, some icons ,due to various reasons, seem to be able to make this connection with God instant. I am not able to explain it well, but in Greece where I come from, but also other orthodox countries, there is a plethora of such icons, to which people pray and many miracles happen. I actually don't like the word miracle, because it implies that something extraordinary has happened. For us it is something "normal" in the sense that God, Theotokos, and the saints are not vague figures of the past. We feel them right next to us, helping us in every moment of our lives.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Tertullian wrote, “Similtude is interdicted” (that is, ‘images are prohibited.’)
4. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for
"the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error."
6. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9).
7. There are no early church leaders speaking in favor of icons and no physical evidence that icons were used in the early church.
@@yeoberry I believe that the answers to your arguments can be found in the following essay orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/06/defense-of-holy-icons-part-i.html?m=1 . But if I may, I would recommend that you visit a number of churches where famous icons can be found. There you can listen to stories that people have experienced themselves and see things that are not always found in just books.
Are you people who are Eastern orthodox kidding if you can’t tell he just proved it’s a false religion and has alternate sources of authority and worships images and is not biblical Christianity just like Roman Catholicism is not with it three different sources of authority, two of which rank the Bible. Do you realize in three places in scripture, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Revelation and anathema is placed on anyone who adds to or takes from scripture. Are you comfortable with that?
A Protestant is accusing Orthodox of adding or taking from scripture when omitting 10 books of the original canon, the irony!
I Grew up in Greek Orthodoxy. I can tell you that there was a specific time when God saved me. It wasn’t going to church and taking sacraments. So I eventually left Orthodoxy because no one really read the Bible and could answer my difficult questions. I’m sorry to say - I was not a child of God until He saved me. I didn’t do it on my own. I lived like a devil and didn’t think God was angry at my sin. Most Orthodox believers don’t think like this. It’s as if God hasn’t opened their eyes to their sin. Something seems wrong. I don’t mean to bash Orthodoxy but it seems spiritually dead.
Rome didn't left at barbarians...Due to Caligula's corruption etc Constantin the Great took the capital to New Rome... Constantinople!
This guy is wrong about Orthodox.
12:15
eeks, another 'expert'
Idolatry is Idolatry It is written thou shalt not bow down to (including kissing an icon,picture any image in Heaven on Earth or beneath the Earth or in the Sea.
God says I am a Jealous God Worship only Me.
amen!
Elly
the unholy Vatican removed "thou shalt not worship Idol's"
and cleverly hid the fact by splitting the 9th commandment into two.
And where does it mention in the Holy scripture's to honour saints ???
you have been tricked and will suffer because of it.
I urge you to
look into it with a discerning and opened mind.
Elly
I'm can honestly say 100% I am not Catholic.it's pretty obvious by my.comment's.
The unholy Vatican is the HQ of the Catholic Church,The Pope (ceasar) it's leader whom with there great wealth rule and run the world (all roads lead to Rome..) you may have heard the expression.
all you have to do is research it for yourself.
a good starting point would be a UA-cam video by Alberto Rivera an ex-Jesuit priest and his testimonies.
or Google it .
be prepared to be shocked.
Elly
cool,no problem.
everything can be confusing it's typical of the system we have been conditioned to except and believe.
God has given me the ears to hear and the eyes to see,along with his many faithful followers.
God bless.
@@antoma6844 ...they didn't remove the commandment-- there's an alternate decalogue that switches, merges, and splits commandments in a different way than the "standard".
@@EllyLugosi : That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
That large portions of the early church, at least, were aniconic and determined to stay that way is demonstrated with canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira (ca. 300-314): “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” Origen (184-254) wrote, “I[Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." He rebuked Constantia for asking for a picture of Christ. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403) tore asunder a curtain with an image in a church and wrote to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). So we see that iconography was not accepted in the early church.
The synod of Elvira was a local synod and not a ecumenical council, it doesn’t have the same authority. And that synod didn’t say icons were intrinsically idols, but that it can lead to idolatry. Maybe that jurisdiction was more prone to idolatry than others, so the bishops in wisdom commanded to take away the icons because they were not Mature enough in their faith at that time, and needed to grow. None of what you said concludes that the early church as a whole rejected icons as a whole. The Orthodox Church is the original churcb
@@diegobarragan4904 I think you missed the point of that comment. he is pointing out that icons arent even remotely an apostolic tradition. You may want to also note that the 7th council shouldnt be considered ecumenical since they bullied or imprisoned the opposition. Also please note the strong iconoclasm that persisted for centuries afterwards. Might I recommend Dr. Ortlands video on icons for some historical reference.
@@ArcticBlits the icons have Jewish roots and are definitely apostolic. Why would I listen to an evangelical Christian for church history? When he is not even apart of the church, he is teaching from the outside looking in.
@@diegobarragan4904 Not to be rude, but saying that anyone not orthodox isn't part of the church doesn't make sense. we have the same history last time I checked. The Jewish roots to icons generally spoken of, ie the seraphim in the temple are poor examples seeing as they had very different functions. The second temple Jews, which all of the apostles happened to be actually fought with Rome over having any images made. seeing that was the culture and set of the time I don't see how one could argue that.
@@ArcticBlits evangelical Christians are not part of the Body of Christ. That’s the harsh reality. 2nd temple Judaism synagogues we’re full of iconography have you ever studied the subject? They look very very similar to modern orthodox churches. The apostle Luke himself created the first icon of the Virgin Mary holding Christ
Three minutes in, and he is factually wrong on everything he said!!!
Half baked fantacies
Major error: Oriental Orthodox are NOT Eastern Orthodox. Other than that ... excellent job.
No, left out True Orthodoxy
This is wrong on certain fundamental points. That said .... it’s correct and clear in so many ways that so many non-Orthodox get wrong. Overall, speaking as a fairly committed and educated Orthodox, I’d say (to me, anyway) its pretty impressively presented.