Why Do We Say "Anathema"?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2024
- Bishop Irenei of London & Western Europe (ROCOR)
Purchase NEW BOOK "Enduring Love: Laying Christian Foundations for Marriage" at your preferred bookseller:
Amazon: www.amazon.com/Enduring-Love-Christian-Foundations-Marriage/dp/1735011657
Barnes & Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/enduring-love-josiah-trenham/1144547044?ean=9781735011653#
Support Our Ministry
To make a tax-deductible donation, text “PNP” to 53-555.
Explore merchandise at patristic-nectar.mybigcommerce.com.
Visit / @patristicnectarkids for Patristic Nectar Kids content.
Newest Lecture Series: "The Holy Trinity" by Fr. Thomas Hopko
Explore the lecture series for free here. The series covers various topics related to the Holy Trinity.
Lecture Titles:
Jesus and the One God
How Does Jesus Relate to God?
Who Do People Say That I Am? (Part 1)
Who Do People Say That I Am? (Part 2)
Understanding Our Being in Regards to the Holy Trinity.
The Trinity and the Filioque.
Human Life in Imitation of God.
Recapitulation.
Living the Divine Life in This World.
If You Want to Be Saved.
Iconography Regarding the Trinity.
Connect with Patristic Nectar
Website: www.PatristicNectar.org
Instagram: bit.ly/3kmupqE
Facebook: bit.ly/33Bzmpx
Twitter: bit.ly/3igrH4f
Support Patristic Nectar
Spread the Word: Share content with family and friends.
Make a Donation: patristicnectar.org/donations.
Pray For Us: Include Patristic Nectar in your prayers for strength, help, and divine guidance.
Hashtags:
#orthodoxchristianity #jesus #christianity #patristicnectarpublications #patristicnectar #frjosiahtrenham #josiahtrenham #orthodoxchristianity #orthodoxchristian #christianity #church #jesus #jesuschrist #god #shorts #salvation #youtubeshorts #ytshorts #priest #ministry #pastor #identity #internet #christianity #churchfathers #saints #conscience 
Развлечения
This reflection on anathemas not being curses reminds me of the following inspired words of St. Paisios, “Some people misunderstand David the Prophet and claim that he is cursing in some Psalms. However, when David says, “Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more,” he does not mean that sinners should be annihilated, but that they should repent and that there should be no sinners on earth.”
Christ is Risen! 🙏
Truly He Is Risen!
Anathema to the false ecuminesim !
Lord have mercy! Please pray for me , dear Father!
I will always defend the Truth. Every single day of my life.
🙏🏾☦️
Anathema to "deaconesses."
“Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministrations towards women. “ book 3 Apostolic constitution
“Deaconess phoebe” Romans 16:1
Christos Anesti!
Athilos anesti
Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη!
Indeed he has!
Is that the historical understanding of what "anathema"?
This sounds very nice. But I have a problem. The practice of reciting the list of Anathemas stems primarily from the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The Council itself defines "anathema" by saying "By anathema we mean nothing less than complete separation from God."
Why is this a problem? This is the whole purpose of such a confirmation. There is a limit, which is a separation from God. I don’t believe not affirming this will help reduce the margin of error.
It can only be applied to you in that manner if you were ever attached to the church physically such as the iconoclasts were during the 7th council. They actually had to be “separated from God” by means of being cut off from the Church. But if you’re not in the Church then how can an anathema affect you? It has nothing to do with you if you’re not in the church but rather symbolizes what someone should not believe in order to enter the church
And . . .?
Alex, that means that one who believes such a wrong belief is separated from God. The word "anathema" only accents that such a belief is separation from God.
9:07 bizarre aberrations? It may not have been normative then but it surely needs to become more normative today😅😅😅 there's a lot going on out here
What about St Philarets anathema…..
Hello Patristic,
I am a new convert awaiting catechumen classes. I have blasmphous thoughts, but they are way worse than others. I say things that would sell my soul / give my soul to Satan. sometimes I get Christ's name and Satan's name mixed up, (crazy I know.) I am afraid I have sold my soul, I don't know if I mean it or not, if it is me, or demons. its random. I don't know if it is my imagination or not. I am starting to give up. I feel like crap and depressed.
-- Hendrick Smith
You should share this with your priest.
@@thekatarnalchemist I cannot I do not have a phone right now cant go to liturgy for a while either.
@@user-tt1nu9gc3q Send an email at the very least.
@@user-tt1nu9gc3qI don't know how to help you other than to say I'm a Catechumen too and have been attacked with many evil thoughts. My priest has only told me to do one thing - recite the Jesus Prayer. Don't give up friend, heaven awaits those who preserve and Christ knows and will help you.
9:22 "in more modern centuries, anathemas are all against theological errors, they don't name person"
With all due respect, vladyko, this is not true. In 1997 defrocked former Metropolitan Mikhail Denisenko and former priest Gleb Yakunin were anathematized personally, and not for theological errors.
Well it is the correct anathemas that are NOT against people .. Just like not doing anathemas at all by some orthodox churches ... Doing it against certain people is also inncorrect
You are correcting a holy man and a scholar.
Someone may have been “anathematized”, but this was more likely (or should have been) a defrocking.
@@facetofacejd Guess what, holy men (which remains to be seen about His Grace, he is with us still) and outstanding scholars still make trivial mistakes every now and then.
No, those two were defrocked prior to 1997 but continued to pretend to remain Orthodox clergy (and do still). Denisenko in particular bears much of responsibility for current woeful situation in Ukraine; he really worked hard to deserve that anathema.
@@georgebashour4333 incorrect according to which standard? They were anathematized by a council of bishops, which has some authority in the Orthodox Church.
Also, historical example of Leо Tolstoy comes to mind. In that case, Holy Synod issued a statement recognizing the that famous writer was no longer a member of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - the word "anathema" was not even in there, IIRC, and there was a statement about "praying the Lord about giving him repentance"; yet, if I understand the point of His Grace Bp. Irenei, this is what anathema is: statement that those following such-and-such deception are no longer members of the Church.
In case with Tolstoy, his spiritual situation indeed turned from bad to worse: he tried to repent and confess his sin but was not able to.
With real respect, if the goal of the rite is “turning the erring one, in repentance, back to the truth” (7:37) which I believe, I just wish as a Protestant that Orthodoxy had more compelling evidence and reasons for me to think its position was true. But the historical, and biblical, and theological evidence all seem to favor the iconoclast position rather than the iconodule position.
Can any Orthodox tell me: is there a reason to say iconodule vs. iconophile, or a reason to prefer one term over the other? I’ve heard both used, but don’t know why, or if it matters.
I'm not sure that the historical or Biblical accounts would support Iconoclasm. Biblically/theologically, we did not have the image of God in the flesh, thus could not create an image of Him. Once Christ came in the flesh, we did, and this is reflected in iconography found in the oldest known Churches in the world, from around the 400s and on.
The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 addresses the issue of iconoclasm, which if one were to believe that the Holy Spirit were eternally with the Church, would have provided them the correct answer. I would urge you to read into this council if you want a historical debate on the matter from among the greatest in the history of Christianity.
Thus, all of Christendom had agreed on the issue until the Protestant Reformation nearly a millennium later. Iconography is seen even in each of the churches that continued through history until the Protestants: the Catholics (esp. Byzantine rite), Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.
It is worth stressing the importance of these councils and of traditions, supported by Scripture, of which again the Catholics and Orthodox hold firm to. Protestantism and it's teachings really are a radical and new philosophy. I wonder, then, if all of Christendom really had every issue under the Sun wrong until Martin Luther, if God would allow that.
But I am no expert, just somebody who likes to think. There also isn't room in a RUclips comment to make every position against iconoclasm or vis versa. Before everybody begins slashing at my throat
I'd also add that there are 2,000 years of Saint's writings on the issue, which whether one believes in Sainthood or not, their wisdom is quite apparent in their writings. Always worth looking into. Monks and elders as well.
Which reinforces my previous statement: that Protestantism rejects all the founders of the Church, the Eucharist, apostolic clergy, the wisdom of the Saints and ancestors, the importance of which has been reiterated throughout history by great and holy men and all of which is Scriptural (though Orthodox/Catholics are not sola-Scriptura).
I think the use of icons (for veneration) in the early Church has been well attested to. Here is an interesting discussion on the matter. Second, you weigh the argument on a "Sola Scriptura" basis. Which is not Orthodox to begin with. I submit to you that that is not how Christians approached things historically. They were called to adhere to. They were taught to hold the traditions, whether by word or epistle. ( 2Thess 2:15) ruclips.net/user/liveiIIS6mkk9_o?si=0hmZ-jNIN2hHxWdh
Quite the opposite - Neither historical, nor biblical or theological evidence favors the iconoclast position. The only way that would be true if you limit all those 3 parameters to the 1500s onwards and even then it's not favored, just "popular".
@@peterodonnell6386 I appreciate your thoughts and points. But with real respect, the history is not that uniform or unanimous. Historically, I am familiar with some of what was happening and have studied the issue some (Richard Price, Acts of the Second Council of Nicea (787)). The Council of Hieria had issues before it, but I don’t think everything Empress Irene and the churches did was right. The history is violent. And after Nicea II you have the council of Constantinople in 815, and the iconoclasm continued for hundreds of years in some churches. So Nicea II did not settle the matter with neat agreement.
Biblically, I don’t see evidence that after Christ’s incarnation, icon veneration is now allowed (much less mandatory). Theologically, someone helpfully pointed out that “what is offered to the image passes on to the reality” is really a belief about the doctrine of creation and how matter works. I can see your reasoning in what you said above theologically, but can you help me understand the evidence or argument for it more?
I’m an evangelical who appreciates tradition, and the claim of sola Scriptura is simply that Scripture is our only infallible voice from God and rule of faith for the church. The Protestant Reformation was just a renewal and retrieval movement to get back to what Christ and the apostles taught. So I would agree it was radical, but in the sense of going back to the roots of the faith and stripping away what had gotten built on, and not a radically new invention. I would dispute that “Protestantism rejects all the founders of the church;” because the point of apostolic succession is to teach what the apostles actually taught, not taking away or adding to it.
Grace to you friend, I hope your day goes well today.
Do you believe that everyone has fallen into “error” except the Eastern Orthodox?? Including all the other orthodox branches??? Are they condemned by not being Eastern Orthodox???
Yes everybody has fallen into error except Orthodoxy by definition
@@joshf2218 there are multiple orthodox churches that are not in communion with each other
@@Yaz662 Yup, but not over doctrine
Condemned is a strong word, we don't know for sure if they are hellbound but by being in error they are at increased risk. The worse the heresy the greater the risk
It's not about modernism. It's about the schisms happening in the Church and the fact that Orthodox Christian can be really hateful towards others because of these anathemas. So, the bishops try to discourage this spirit.
I think that, as much as we don't like, we need to accept that a lot of us can be really hateful on the Internet in the name of the faith.
I agree with removing this part of the service.