I live in Oregon in United States, I have huge collection of Slavic Russian Holy writings from before the religious reforms took place. Our ancestors brought them during their escape from Russia during religious prosecution, they've been copy passed down through generations. My ancestors live in China for a long time before migrating too Australian, New Zealand, Brazil Canada and United States. We call ourselves all believers, we don't identify ourselves with the modern Orthodox Church. When religious reforms reach Russia, my ancestors were prosecuted, they were hunted down like dogs torture and burn alive for refusing the reform and destruction of all old religious material and icons. Many old believers flee to wilderness, live there until communism completely chase them out of the country.
Thank you Philip and Justin for doing these episodes, they are a blessing indeed. I myself attend a ROCOR parish and our reader is definitely an Old Ritualist and has a love for the Old Rite. The rites are interesting to me and personally I find their implementation into my own spiritual to have been a very edifying experience. I think the implementation of physical acts like the many prescribed bows, prostrations, folding the arms to avoid fidgeting, the sign of the cross and preparatory prayers are very helpful for me to cast aside the earthly distractions and focus on Christ. Very interesting so far! I’m the lead chanter at our parish and I’m really interested in learning more about the Znamenny Chant tradition of the Old Rite. I’ve notice that the Znamenny chant is primarily chanted in unison (or in octaves with males and females), and in a monophonic way with no ison as one would hear in the current Byzantine tradition today in Greece, Antioch and Romania for example. To my ear I find that the Byzantine chant tradition has a distinct oriental flavor to it. If I were an outside casual listener not familiar with the melodies, it would sound no different than say a Muslim chanter during their prayer rituals. So, when we listen to Znamenny chant today as practiced by Old Believers are we hearing what one would have heard in a Byzantine church in the East prior to being overcome and influenced by the various Orient invaders? Thank you so much and God Bless! ☦️
The Church started in the ORIENT...it alwayssss sounded “oriental”. Mate the Church is a CONTINUATION/FULFILMENT of Judaism! Remember, the Church is Israel. Our Apostles were Jewish (Middle Eastern), our Lord Jesus Christ was Jewish (Middle Eastern) and our worship comes from the TEMPLE OF SOLOMON and the ancient Synagogues. The Muslims got their chanting from US, not us being influenced by them. Islam came from heretical Christians, their Mosques are modelled after our Orthodox Churches, their chant, their prayer rules, etc etc is all stolen from Orthodoxy and heretical Christians. There’s lots of evidence btw that Znamenny Chant DID use ison as well! In fact even now plenty of Znamenny Chant is performed with an ison. The ison is a KEY part of Orthodox worship.
We here in Ottawa are a regular Russian church (ROCA) and the priest and the people tend to make the sign of the cross at the end of things, the end of a tropar, a petition, a doxology, so that it is not necessarily in connection with naming the Trinity (as Justin suggested), but sometimes is. This would mean that the sign of the cross is made numerous times. According to such a system the sign of the cross would have been made 13 times even before the first antiphon (At the initial blessing and at each of the twelve petitions in the Great Litany). I cannot estimate how many times in total, but if we are to include the three signs of the cross (two before and one after) the veneration of each icon even before the service, we already are talking about something close to hundred even before the service is well underway. Of course, there is no obligation to do as such, although at one time there was a certain starosta who would comment on such matters to the negligent, myself included. Stephan in Ottawa
I'm baptized in the Ukrainian Catholic (Uniate, although this is out of style). I'm also drawn to our 'Orthodox' heritage. Done some reading on the Old Believers (hence how I found you), and on the reforms of Nikon. As you are describing this (and as I'm watching), I realized that we make the sign with 3 fingers (index and middle with the thumb) , as opposed to the pointer and middle, the latter also being the same way the Roman Catholics make the sign. From my understanding, and I may be wrong, so please forgive me, we (Uniates) kept all of the traditions (generic term for a complex issue) and faculties. To wit, I was unaware of the Filoque until I went to a Roman Catholic high school. If we kept all of that, and the union predates the reforms that resulted in the schism, who, within Orthodoxy, is, well, orthodox? I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely curious.
Pope Innocent III wrote “ Now the sign of the cross must be expressed with three fingers, because it is impressed under the invocation of the Trinity, of which the prophet says: Who weighs the mass of the earth with three fingers? (Isa. 40) so that it descends from the higher to the lower, and passes from the right to the left, because Christ descended from heaven to earth and passed from the Jews to the Gentiles. Some, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right; because we must pass from misery to glory, just as Christ also passed from death to life, and from hell to paradise, especially that they may consign themselves and others alike in one and the same way. Now it is certain that when we make the sign of the cross upon others, we consign them from the left to the right. But if you pay close attention, we also make the sign of the cross on others from the right to the left, because we do not sign them as if turning their backs, but as if presenting their faces”
Christianity isn't something you do, it's something that's done to you by the Holy Spirit. Nothing physical brings forth spiritual life. Never mix law with grace or you will have neither. It's not in the doing, it's in the Done. Jesus never founded a state run religion.
Good afternoon, I think that when it comes to gestures, it is much more reliable to trust pictures, not books in studying ancient blessing and the sign of cross. There is numerous evidence of two-finger blessing gesture coming from as early as the time of the apostles. Starting with an icon of the Theotokos which was painted by the apostle Luke himself. He painted the Holy Theotokos with baby Jesus Christ blessing us with two finger blessing, the same way as modern Old Believers do.
If Jesus cared about how many fingers to use, He would have left a picture instead of instructing the disciples to write. If the symbol is useful and meaningful to you, use it.
So delighted to have found your channel. Have been using the OB prayer book for some time, and it's such fun to discover more about them. Love how the sign of the cross has come full circle: One finger for the Triune God, then two for Christ, then three for the Trinity once again. Wonderful work!
Thank you all, dear Brothers, for your show and for this episode in particular. Have you read any of the polemical writings from the “Nikonian” side? I think St Dimitri of Rostov has something on Azbyka. I think it’s quite interesting that the two finger sign of the cross has only a couple textual witnesses that all come from one geographic area. Whereas on the other hand you have huge geographically separated churches- Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria (both Orthodox and Miaphysitic communions), Georgia (when did Georgia change?), Armenia, etc., all make the three-fingers. With such hostile groups being at odds with one another for so long, isn’t it reasonable to posit that the sign of the cross that they hold in common predates their split?
According to Deacon Philip, it appears that many Old Believer communities are without a priest or liturgy or anything due to them feeling that "True Orthodoxy" is dead, but isn't that a little ridiculous? So they leave themselves without any form of salvation, since Our Lord specifically "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." John 6:53. If you ask me, some of the Old Believers are acting exactly like the Scribes and Pharisees, who condemned even Our Lord for healing people on the Sabbath. I doubt very much that Jesus would want people to be separated from Him and from the Christian Community over such petty things as whether to use 2 fingers or 3 fingers. All throughout Our Lord's ministry, he tried to simplify things. He reduced all of the Law Covenant down to Two Commandments and taught that the Sabbath was for Man and that we should do good on the Sabbath, even if it violates outdated Sabbath laws. As to whether 2 fingers or 3 fingers, my feeling is that Jesus told us to Baptise, not only in HIS name, but in the name of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, I would question whether any blessing with only 2 fingers is even valid since all blessings should honor God in His Fullness, in the form of The Holy Trinity, regardless of whether all 3 persons were crucified or not.
We had sign Tau in Egypt for chosen people of God so they wouldn't be destroyed And now we have symbol of Cross so similar to letter T (or Tau) Some people actually say that Jesus cross looked like T and not like ✝️ because there was no need for Roman soldiers to do that small peace of wood above T cross there Symbolism from old/new testament
Thank you so much for this episode. This topic, for some reason, is very important to me. I try to make the sign of the cross the old believer way as I believe it the closest to the original way. Any chance of references which you mention at the beginning of episode ?
Tertullian, "De Corona Militis", chapter 3 mentions sign of cross; Life of St. Barbara www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/st_barbara.htm; "The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis" , I found it here 2 years ago: archive.org/stream/ThePanarionOfEpiphaniusOfSalamis_201603/the+panarion+of+epiphanius+of+salamis_djvu.txt
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it... But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world... From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. (Colossians 2:9-15; Galatians 6:14, 17 KJV)"
Of course it is the sign of Christ's Cross with which we bless ourselves and trace. That said, do we rule out the Most Holy Trinity in that blessing? Of course not. Both Old & New Rite Orthodox sumbolically include the Triune God in that very act. Was it not the Early Church Fathers who emphasised our fundamental identity - as Christians - to be Trinitarian? As an interesting aside, there are Roman Catholics who regard the open palmed Latin style Sign of the Cross to signify the Five-Wounds of the Crucified Lord. This issue appears to be another theme in the 1st vs 2nd millennium discourse.
Hi guys, can you please inform me about the verse in Revelations 14, about the sign... is it sign of the cross or something else... forgive me for the ignorance of my question
Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysites. Miaphysitism and Monophysitism is not the same. If it is, then we Chalcedonians are all Nestorian by that same measure.
Well, it wouldn't follow that Chalcedonians are all Nestorian if miaphysitism and monophysitism are the same, although I do believe all Chalcedonians are Nestorian. The deciding factor is whether the belief of miaphysitism entails monophysitism necessarily (and we have to define these terms, which often is not done by those arguing against them), and whether the belief of Chalcedonianism necessarily entails Nestorianism. It's clear that miaphysitism comes primarily from St Athanasius and the Cappadocians (though traces of it can be found in earlier fathers) and was developed by St Cyril of Alexandria. As for dyophysitism, this comes mainly from the Antiochene school of Paul of Samosata, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and finally Leo of Rome - in that order.
If you see the statue of Saint Peter in Rome, it is a two finger sign of the cross. And there is not one ICON which we can find in ancient times with an evidence of a single finger being used.
Statue of St. Peter in Rome is from the 13th century - it is therefore not strange it does not reflect practices from a 1000 years prior. However, written source from the 2-3 century speak of the one finger sign of the cross very clearly. Cf. Tertullian, "De Corona Militis; Life of St. Barbara, 3rd century - www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/st_barbara.htm
@@Priestphillip Question 1: Are both of you Old believers? 2. Where does it say ONE finger - "Barbara made the sign of the cross on the marble with her finger. Miraculously, her finger chiselled the cross deeply into the marble". You are making an assumption. 3. Can you show me one ancient icon where a single finger is used in the symbolic representation of the sign of the cross ?
1. We are both connected to old rite communities and practices. 2. Its clearly stated she did it with a finger (singular) and not fingers (plural). 3. No as to my knowledge there is no, or almost no, original icon preserved from the 2nd century? I encourage you to read Tertullians account of this also, he wrote in the 2nd century.
Did Saint Barbara speak English ? Could have been a translation issue ! The ICON of the Blessed Lord in Saint Catherine's monastery in Egypt shows the two finger sign of the cross. There are much more evidences from the iconography in the caves and monuments that point us to the finger sign of the cross, than the one used by the new believers. Imp: Showing interest in the Old believers doesn't make you one. You can't give an apple to someone, unless you have it.
If you have watched the first episode, we make it clear what we are and what we are not. We are not defending one position, rather presenting the various positions etc. In our episode we make it clear we present a position. If I might humble say, we have eaten the apple, at least a bit. One of us having been in Russia and being part of Old rite parish there, even having been offered to be ordained an Old Believer priest. However, again, if you watched the first episode you would know we do not approach this from a polemical stand point but rather to present the various historical sources. One of us have even been to your home country of India at two Oriental Orthodox seminaries teaching on this issue from a historical perspective, NOT A POLEMICAL one.
You cannot really go by that because according to the Shroud of Turin, Our Lord was nailed to the cross through the wrists and that could easily have caused contortions in His Holy fingers. The two finders extended might not have been intentional at all; not do I think that Our Lord was trying to bless people with his hands nailed to the cross. Also, based on the Shroud of Turin, our iconography would not be accurate since all crucifixes portray Our Lord with the nails in the palms of His hands.
@@pavlickrobert Well actually the Alexamenos graffito appears to show Christ crucified through the wrists, at least on the right hand. But the deeper question is, whether the position of fingers is merely theological expression of right faith, or is it also an iconic representation of the Passion handed down by the Apostle St. John, who was an eye witness to the Crucifixion. Arguments that the Sign of the Cross go back to the Apostles have not been refuted. -- As for Our Lord blessing the Faithful present and of all future ages and distant lands, from the Cross, His recitation of the Psalm, which begins, My God, My God why hast Thou forsake Me, argues in favor of this interpretation as can be seen in its final strophs.
"tsar feodore IV: this message based on certain assumptions: "pope" innocent 10 in the ailas of "patriarch" nikon murdered many old believers cause they denied the trinity in the way they crossed themselves. The "jehovah's" witnesses getting persecuted in russia today cause they don't believe in the trinity. A trinity verse got added to I john and they got caught doing it. Do greek manuscripts show other trinity verses got added also? Do the one finger cross show that the original church did not believe in the trinity? Did saint rasputin get murdered cause he did not believe in the trinity and would have restored the original church of ukraine ?
I live in Oregon in United States, I have huge collection of Slavic Russian Holy writings from before the religious reforms took place. Our ancestors brought them during their escape from Russia during religious prosecution, they've been copy passed down through generations. My ancestors live in China for a long time before migrating too Australian, New Zealand, Brazil Canada and United States. We call ourselves all believers, we don't identify ourselves with the modern Orthodox Church. When religious reforms reach Russia, my ancestors were prosecuted, they were hunted down like dogs torture and burn alive for refusing the reform and destruction of all old religious material and icons. Many old believers flee to wilderness, live there until communism completely chase them out of the country.
Great stuff. Thank you.
i look forward to many more episodes
Thank you Philip and Justin for doing these episodes, they are a blessing indeed.
I myself attend a ROCOR parish and our reader is definitely an Old Ritualist and has a love for the Old Rite. The rites are interesting to me and personally I find their implementation into my own spiritual to have been a very edifying experience.
I think the implementation of physical acts like the many prescribed bows, prostrations, folding the arms to avoid fidgeting, the sign of the cross and preparatory prayers are very helpful for me to cast aside the earthly distractions and focus on Christ. Very interesting so far!
I’m the lead chanter at our parish and I’m really interested in learning more about the Znamenny Chant tradition of the Old Rite. I’ve notice that the Znamenny chant is primarily chanted in unison (or in octaves with males and females), and in a monophonic way with no ison as one would hear in the current Byzantine tradition today in Greece, Antioch and Romania for example. To my ear I find that the Byzantine chant tradition has a distinct oriental flavor to it. If I were an outside casual listener not familiar with the melodies, it would sound no different than say a Muslim chanter during their prayer rituals.
So, when we listen to Znamenny chant today as practiced by Old Believers are we hearing what one would have heard in a Byzantine church in the East prior to being overcome and influenced by the various Orient invaders?
Thank you so much and God Bless! ☦️
The Church started in the ORIENT...it alwayssss sounded “oriental”. Mate the Church is a CONTINUATION/FULFILMENT of Judaism! Remember, the Church is Israel. Our Apostles were Jewish (Middle Eastern), our Lord Jesus Christ was Jewish (Middle Eastern) and our worship comes from the TEMPLE OF SOLOMON and the ancient Synagogues. The Muslims got their chanting from US, not us being influenced by them. Islam came from heretical Christians, their Mosques are modelled after our Orthodox Churches, their chant, their prayer rules, etc etc is all stolen from Orthodoxy and heretical Christians.
There’s lots of evidence btw that Znamenny Chant DID use ison as well! In fact even now plenty of Znamenny Chant is performed with an ison. The ison is a KEY part of Orthodox worship.
Muslims took their chant from us. Not the other way around. We are much older
It seems to me that despite the importance of the doctrines you discussed, it's not an issue over which division, even schism, should result.
We here in Ottawa are a regular Russian church (ROCA) and the priest and the people tend to make the sign of the cross at the end of things, the end of a tropar, a petition, a doxology, so that it is not necessarily in connection with naming the Trinity (as Justin suggested), but sometimes is. This would mean that the sign of the cross is made numerous times. According to such a system the sign of the cross would have been made 13 times even before the first antiphon (At the initial blessing and at each of the twelve petitions in the Great Litany). I cannot estimate how many times in total, but if we are to include the three signs of the cross (two before and one after) the veneration of each icon even before the service, we already are talking about something close to hundred even before the service is well underway. Of course, there is no obligation to do as such, although at one time there was a certain starosta who would comment on such matters to the negligent, myself included. Stephan in Ottawa
I'm baptized in the Ukrainian Catholic (Uniate, although this is out of style). I'm also drawn to our 'Orthodox' heritage. Done some reading on the Old Believers (hence how I found you), and on the reforms of Nikon.
As you are describing this (and as I'm watching), I realized that we make the sign with 3 fingers (index and middle with the thumb) , as opposed to the pointer and middle, the latter also being the same way the Roman Catholics make the sign.
From my understanding, and I may be wrong, so please forgive me, we (Uniates) kept all of the traditions (generic term for a complex issue) and faculties. To wit, I was unaware of the Filoque until I went to a Roman Catholic high school.
If we kept all of that, and the union predates the reforms that resulted in the schism, who, within Orthodoxy, is, well, orthodox?
I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely curious.
Pope Innocent III wrote “ Now the sign of the cross must be expressed with three fingers, because it is impressed under the invocation of the Trinity, of which the prophet says: Who weighs the mass of the earth with three fingers? (Isa. 40) so that it descends from the higher to the lower, and passes from the right to the left, because Christ descended from heaven to earth and passed from the Jews to the Gentiles. Some, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right; because we must pass from misery to glory, just as Christ also passed from death to life, and from hell to paradise, especially that they may consign themselves and others alike in one and the same way. Now it is certain that when we make the sign of the cross upon others, we consign them from the left to the right. But if you pay close attention, we also make the sign of the cross on others from the right to the left, because we do not sign them as if turning their backs, but as if presenting their faces”
Christianity isn't something you do, it's something that's done to you by the Holy Spirit. Nothing physical brings forth spiritual life. Never mix law with grace or you will have neither. It's not in the doing, it's in the Done. Jesus never founded a state run religion.
Good afternoon, I think that when it comes to gestures, it is much more reliable to trust pictures, not books in studying ancient blessing and the sign of cross.
There is numerous evidence of two-finger blessing gesture coming from as early as the time of the apostles. Starting with an icon of the Theotokos which was painted by the apostle Luke himself. He painted the Holy Theotokos with baby Jesus Christ blessing us with two finger blessing, the same way as modern Old Believers do.
If Jesus cared about how many fingers to use, He would have left a picture instead of instructing the disciples to write. If the symbol is useful and meaningful to you, use it.
So delighted to have found your channel. Have been using the OB prayer book for some time, and it's such fun to discover more about them. Love how the sign of the cross has come full circle: One finger for the Triune God, then two for Christ, then three for the Trinity once again. Wonderful work!
Glory to God!!
Audio is very great. Great video. Very informative.
Thank you all, dear Brothers, for your show and for this episode in particular. Have you read any of the polemical writings from the “Nikonian” side? I think St Dimitri of Rostov has something on Azbyka.
I think it’s quite interesting that the two finger sign of the cross has only a couple textual witnesses that all come from one geographic area. Whereas on the other hand you have huge geographically separated churches- Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria (both Orthodox and Miaphysitic communions), Georgia (when did Georgia change?), Armenia, etc., all make the three-fingers. With such hostile groups being at odds with one another for so long, isn’t it reasonable to posit that the sign of the cross that they hold in common predates their split?
According to Deacon Philip, it appears that many Old Believer communities are without a priest or liturgy or anything due to them feeling that "True Orthodoxy" is dead, but isn't that a little ridiculous? So they leave themselves without any form of salvation, since Our Lord specifically "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." John 6:53. If you ask me, some of the Old Believers are acting exactly like the Scribes and Pharisees, who condemned even Our Lord for healing people on the Sabbath. I doubt very much that Jesus would want people to be separated from Him and from the Christian Community over such petty things as whether to use 2 fingers or 3 fingers. All throughout Our Lord's ministry, he tried to simplify things. He reduced all of the Law Covenant down to Two Commandments and taught that the Sabbath was for Man and that we should do good on the Sabbath, even if it violates outdated Sabbath laws. As to whether 2 fingers or 3 fingers, my feeling is that Jesus told us to Baptise, not only in HIS name, but in the name of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, I would question whether any blessing with only 2 fingers is even valid since all blessings should honor God in His Fullness, in the form of The Holy Trinity, regardless of whether all 3 persons were crucified or not.
We had sign Tau in Egypt for chosen people of God so they wouldn't be destroyed
And now we have symbol of Cross so similar to letter T (or Tau)
Some people actually say that Jesus cross looked like T and not like ✝️ because there was no need for Roman soldiers to do that small peace of wood above T cross there
Symbolism from old/new testament
9th century proves their faith was in something else. More in a magic formula than in Christ.
Thank you so much for this episode. This topic, for some reason, is very important to me. I try to make the sign of the cross the old believer way as I believe it the closest to the original way. Any chance of references which you mention at the beginning of episode ?
Tertullian, "De Corona Militis", chapter 3 mentions sign of cross; Life of St. Barbara www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/st_barbara.htm; "The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis" , I found it here 2 years ago: archive.org/stream/ThePanarionOfEpiphaniusOfSalamis_201603/the+panarion+of+epiphanius+of+salamis_djvu.txt
Is there anywhere to see how the 1 finger sign of cross is used? we were commaned to not change things right?
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it... But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world... From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. (Colossians 2:9-15; Galatians 6:14, 17 KJV)"
Of course it is the sign of Christ's Cross with which we bless ourselves and trace. That said, do we rule out the Most Holy Trinity in that blessing? Of course not. Both Old & New Rite Orthodox sumbolically include the Triune God in that very act. Was it not the Early Church Fathers who emphasised our fundamental identity - as Christians - to be Trinitarian? As an interesting aside, there are Roman Catholics who regard the open palmed Latin style Sign of the Cross to signify the Five-Wounds of the Crucified Lord. This issue appears to be another theme in the 1st vs 2nd millennium discourse.
Hi guys, can you please inform me about the verse in Revelations 14, about the sign... is it sign of the cross or something else... forgive me for the ignorance of my question
I mean the Smolensk icon of the Theotokos (Odigitria).
Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysites. Miaphysitism and Monophysitism is not the same. If it is, then we Chalcedonians are all Nestorian by that same measure.
Well, it wouldn't follow that Chalcedonians are all Nestorian if miaphysitism and monophysitism are the same, although I do believe all Chalcedonians are Nestorian. The deciding factor is whether the belief of miaphysitism entails monophysitism necessarily (and we have to define these terms, which often is not done by those arguing against them), and whether the belief of Chalcedonianism necessarily entails Nestorianism.
It's clear that miaphysitism comes primarily from St Athanasius and the Cappadocians (though traces of it can be found in earlier fathers) and was developed by St Cyril of Alexandria.
As for dyophysitism, this comes mainly from the Antiochene school of Paul of Samosata, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and finally Leo of Rome - in that order.
If you see the statue of Saint Peter in Rome, it is a two finger sign of the cross. And there is not one ICON which we can find in ancient times with an evidence of a single finger being used.
Statue of St. Peter in Rome is from the 13th century - it is therefore not strange it does not reflect practices from a 1000 years prior. However, written source from the 2-3 century speak of the one finger sign of the cross very clearly. Cf. Tertullian, "De Corona Militis; Life of St. Barbara, 3rd century - www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/st_barbara.htm
@@Priestphillip Question 1: Are both of you Old believers?
2. Where does it say ONE finger - "Barbara made the sign of the cross on the marble with her finger. Miraculously, her finger chiselled the cross deeply into the marble". You are making an assumption.
3. Can you show me one ancient icon where a single finger is used in the symbolic representation of the sign of the cross ?
1. We are both connected to old rite communities and practices.
2. Its clearly stated she did it with a finger (singular) and not fingers (plural).
3. No as to my knowledge there is no, or almost no, original icon preserved from the 2nd century? I encourage you to read Tertullians account of this also, he wrote in the 2nd century.
Did Saint Barbara speak English ? Could have been a translation issue ! The ICON of the Blessed Lord in Saint Catherine's monastery in Egypt shows the two finger sign of the cross. There are much more evidences from the iconography in the caves and monuments that point us to the finger sign of the cross, than the one used by the new believers.
Imp: Showing interest in the Old believers doesn't make you one. You can't give an apple to someone, unless you have it.
If you have watched the first episode, we make it clear what we are and what we are not. We are not defending one position, rather presenting the various positions etc. In our episode we make it clear we present a position.
If I might humble say, we have eaten the apple, at least a bit. One of us having been in Russia and being part of Old rite parish there, even having been offered to be ordained an Old Believer priest. However, again, if you watched the first episode you would know we do not approach this from a polemical stand point but rather to present the various historical sources. One of us have even been to your home country of India at two Oriental Orthodox seminaries teaching on this issue from a historical perspective, NOT A POLEMICAL one.
Latin Catholics make the sign of the cross with their thumb and index finger and then cross themselves.
According to the Shroud of Turin, the Crucified one died, with His right Hand extending the first two fingers, with the others curled together...
You cannot really go by that because according to the Shroud of Turin, Our Lord was nailed to the cross through the wrists and that could easily have caused contortions in His Holy fingers. The two finders extended might not have been intentional at all; not do I think that Our Lord was trying to bless people with his hands nailed to the cross. Also, based on the Shroud of Turin, our iconography would not be accurate since all crucifixes portray Our Lord with the nails in the palms of His hands.
@@pavlickrobert Well actually the Alexamenos graffito appears to show Christ crucified through the wrists, at least on the right hand. But the deeper question is, whether the position of fingers is merely theological expression of right faith, or is it also an iconic representation of the Passion handed down by the Apostle St. John, who was an eye witness to the Crucifixion. Arguments that the Sign of the Cross go back to the Apostles have not been refuted. -- As for Our Lord blessing the Faithful present and of all future ages and distant lands, from the Cross, His recitation of the Psalm, which begins, My God, My God why hast Thou forsake Me, argues in favor of this interpretation as can be seen in its final strophs.
Miaphysitism
"tsar feodore IV: this message based on certain assumptions:
"pope" innocent 10 in the ailas of "patriarch" nikon murdered many old believers cause they denied the trinity in the way they crossed themselves. The "jehovah's" witnesses getting persecuted in russia today cause they don't believe in the trinity. A trinity verse got added to I john and they got caught doing it. Do greek manuscripts show other trinity verses got added also? Do the one finger cross show that the original church did not believe in the trinity? Did saint rasputin get murdered cause he did not believe in the trinity and would have restored the original church of ukraine ?
Wat r u talking about
@@JP-dm8mf about corruption in the "orthodox" churches
@@theodoremacewko7757 trinity is biblical
Orthodox west? Lol