That is pan-heresy of ecumenism. There can't be union with the heretics as Lord's Bride ought to remain "holy and without blemish" (Eph 5,27). You are wishing for defiling of the Lord's Bride which is blasphemy and abomination of the Holy Spirit who leads Lord's Bride and Lord Himself who promised that His Church will be pillar and ground of the truth. Monophysite heretics are for a reason tossed away back at 4th Council and you, and alike ecumenists, are spitting on Holy Fathers who fought these heretics and were martyred by them. SHAME.!
I'm anxious to listen to this later. I'm a Ukrainian Catholic but have a great love and respect for the Coptic Church. As a high school Theology teacher I have a few Coptic icons in my classroom and even a nice sized picture of Pope Shenouda III, not to mention many books. The depth of insight and spirituality of the Coptic Church in my opinion is unapparelled. Thanks for the Coptic Orthodox Answers Channel and keep up the great work.
I am an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for making these videos. Your video on the Jesus prayer has given me a huge boost in my spiritual warfare; I am now able to resist profane thoughts and pray without random thoughts popping into my mind. May God bless you.
Thank you fathers, I am from Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Chrch. Our father pope Cyrill of Alexndria explained the devine and human nature in separable based on the Holly Bible for the distorted faith of Nestorius on 431 at Ephesus. The Chalcedon assembly targeted for revival of heretics of Nestorius. We Oriental orhodox Churchs believes Our Lord Jesus Christ is one nature(devine and human nature united ).
If both natures are united ,then his passion has no meaning as the nature that has divinity cant understand human sufferings. His perfect humanity ie the second nature carries the cross and achieved the salvation. It is what majority believes and true apostolic church believes.
@@shajimathew1816 what is a true apostolic church? Church that accepts the nicene constantinople creed, valid sacraments, saint intercession, valid priestly orders. If a church has apostolic succession nd tradition, they are a true universal church. You are thinking of Monophysitism, which is not what the oriental orthodox churches believe. If you are Catholic, then you should be aware that the christology of our Lord between catholics and orientals is already no longer an issue since there was a document stating the profession of the different Christology between oriental and catholic is not different and that it is only the formula they use to profess their faith. Thus, interface relationship began in the 1960s between these two groups.
I hope you touch on the robber council (2nd council of Ephesus) and why ST Dioscoros absolved Eutychus which in my humble opinion what caused the whole situation of the eastern calling the orientals monophysites and how he got deposed on administrative grounds not as a heretic. Fr Romanidis wrote beautifully about these historical events. May God bless your service and grant his church the unity of heart.
@@MrAbc54321 First of all Ephesus 2 was not a “robber council” this title is an inaccurate slander contingent upon a fabrication that members of the council were not allowed to speak and forced to sign empty papers. This has been proven as ahistorical time and time again. Secondly eutyches confessed an orthodox confession in Ephesus 2 which was why he was absolved. go read this confession online and you will deem it impossible to find anything heretical in that confession. Although Eutyches later returned to his heresy after Ephesus 2. Father Romanides has spread nothing but ahistorical lies and deception throughout his ministry. Not just about historical events, but about his apotheosis and his polytheistic rejection of divine simplicity
@@MrAbc54321 In the future we hope to release other videos investigating in depth the history of conflicts and councils that led up to Chalcedon - among them, the second council of Ephesus - falsely labelled "robber" council by Leo of Rome. It should be an interesting series, so stay tuned.
@Jongdoe1231 Thanks for your insight. These historical events will be addressed in future videos, God willing. Can I suggest that there is no need for antagonism in our responses. Let's assume that everyone means well and is looking for the truth.
I’m glad we are bringing up the dialogues of the Joint Commissions that began in the 1960s. There’s a complete lack of commentary on these dialogues as if to try to bypass them and reestablish the simple polemical views of one another. These dialogues have become a part of our history and needs to be reckoned with.
Would you like us to make a commentary on the errors of these dialogues, and their rejection by the scholars and jurisdictions within the Orthodox (Oriental) Church? Or would you rather us polemicize each other as having historically "simple views?"
@@dioscoros I’m sorry if this offends you, but these dialogues exist, including the papers and minutes. The perceived error is lack of strict fidelity to the terminology, but I don’t lack of fidelity to the faith upheld. Simply put, you and I disagree on this main issue. You believe that by upholding the manner that semantics have been involved, that we lose fidelity to the faith our fathers held, whereas I believe that the fathers upheld the same faith that still is defended even if one is to believe semantics were used. That is the central problem here between my focus and your’s. Therefore, I find no problem in seeing great value in the dialogues, and not all scholars and jurisdictions agree with each other either.
@@minasoliman you don't need to apologize for offending me, I don't matter. You shouldn't, however, offend the Holy Fathers by calling their extremely sophisticated and well-informed refutations of the heretics as "simple polemical views." THAT, my good one, isn't the safest route. You are currently strawmanning what my position is. I do not, and have not ever believed, that terminology is an issue to die on. The concepts are the hill to die on, as we've explained many times. The concept of what a primary substance is, and that Christ is 1 of 2 of these, and that we cannot profess any kind of duality after the union - these are not terminological, they are very grounded concepts. So, surely, you now know regarding my position, that THAT is not a terminological issue. You are the only one here saying that semantics were even an issue in the first place. In my view, it was never about semantics, but always about the concept of what unity is, what division is. I would argue that it is the simple mindedness of religious indifferentism which refuses to prod into what these terms mean in their concept (unity, division, difference, duality). For instance, the definition of "division" is "numerical distinction." By this definition, and by the explicit mention of the Chalcedonians, they adhere to a division according to nature, while professing an external undividedness of conjunction (which they term "hypostasis"). I also do not find issue in finding value in the dialogues, but not to the detriment of elementary facts of history and Christology - the Joint Agreements contradict each other for instance on what Christ is composed out of (hint: one of those answers is by necessity wrong and was actually rejected as heretical by Sts Cyril and Severus).
@@dioscoros You clearly know your history, my friend. God bless you! I don't think @minasoliman is "offending the holy fathers" - he is simply stating the conclusions he has arrived at. It's fine if you disagree - I'm sure an honest investigation of history will shed much light on this matter. I agree that it can be very beneficial to discuss what we can learn from these dialogues and how they can facilitate future dialogues. In the meantime, I encourage all to be charitable in these exchanges. We all desire truth, union, and the will of God for his bride, the Church. Let's keep that in mind, please.
I, as a Catholic, former EO, thank you for expressing your Christology in this way. It sounds to me that we really do believe in the same Christ, and that our disagreement is how best to enunciate that shared belief. I think the problem was that to say that the two nature become one after the union sounds too much like Eutyches heresy, which is why Chalcedon chose to use the word person or prosopon. I pray for unity. May Our Lady of Zeitoun pray for us and protect the Coptic Church.
You heretics can unite as you wish... lies here, lies there... you are brothers in lies.! We, Orthodox, will keep Lord's Bride "holy and without blemish" until Bridegroom comes.!
To me, all the bishops need to meet in council (both Chalcedonian and Non- Chalcedonian) in order to look at these things together and rectify this. It would take a lot of prayer, alot of love, and alot of forgiveness. Unfortunately, because of a long history of pain, and the recent schisms in the Eastern Orrthodox Church, it's not likely in the recent future.
As a Protestant, my prayer is that the Church would be one. That we would share in the Eucharist together and live out the present day reality of new creation and the future marriage supper of the lamb. The division breaks my heart.
@@amirsad4113 while I get your sentiment, and I will assume the best of intentions about your comment, you should clarify, what "church" would that be? The Eastern Orthodox Church? The Oriental Orthodox Church? (not in communion with one another)... Perhaps the local Russian Orthodox Church (as opposed to, the Russian version of orthodoxy in America... i.e. the Orthodox Church in America (the OCA))? Maybe it should be the Roman Catholic church? Oh wait, they're not in communion with any of the Orthodox churches. Maybe it should be the Orthodox Church in the city of Rome? Wait that's kind of confusing... So perhaps you'll help me when you say 'protestants should came [sic] to the church."
Thank you thank you so much for the response you gave to the eastern Orthodox father. I'm also oriental orthodox and the first time I saw that video where the Eastern Orthodox father calling our church quote "that is not a church", I knew that was a direct attack on our church. 🙏🏾🙏🏾
I feel so blessed to have come across this. I subscribed awhile ago but didn't realize I'm not getting all notifications. That totally changed today because this is nothing short of a miracle that you posted this when i needed help to understand it. Orthodoxy is new to me to study and i truly thought all Orthodox churches believed in the same doctrine without any schisms. Recently i came across a pretty rude video of an Eastern Orthodox priest labeling Oriental Orthodox people as heretics. The most heart breaking part wasn't in the video but in the comments section. This priest would reply to comments of Coptics explaining they are not monophysites with really rude and callous replies. One person relayed a real life experience of visiting different Orthodox churches when he was still exploring Orthodoxy. He went to a Greek Orthodox church and they were dancing because of the Greek festival. He went to a Russian Orthodox church and they all were drinking beer due to some cultural festival. He went to a Coptic church and they were all mourning a series of attacks on churches and praying for their enemies. He explained it was clear to him one church was solemnly worshipping while others turned it into a cultural experience. The priest said "it doesn't matter or else you could go to a Buddhist monk and find them serious in prayer too"... Just no empathy for Christian persecution...! Another Coptic said, "please forgive us, Father, we've been martyred for thousands of years so we didn't have theologians to learn Greek and explain ourselves. Maybe you can hear our theologians now?" May the Lord forgive that priest... needless to say i tried my best to understand such a complex term but this video truly simplified the whole issue for me. Well anyway, all i wanted was to find the Church in the Book of Revelations that is heavily persecuted but loved by the Lord Jesus Christ. That was the church He found nothing reprehensible to judge them on. Thank you for making it clear to me❤ There is another church that the door is open and no one can shut it. Perhaps it is Eastern Orthodox. Would be so loving to unite especially when we have brothers and sisters in need of supportive family.
Thank you for the encouraging words towards our Chanel. Rest assured, we are indeed a faithful church to the three holy councils, and while we may be persecuted, even until today, we are not heretics. And to be clear, in response to what someone you mentioned would have said, some of the most sophisticated and learned theologians, came out of the Oriental churches - Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscorus, Severus, Pheloxinos, etc. We thank God for these Holy Fathers who have faithful upheld the faith. And as you mention, we can only pray that the Lord lifts the veil off the eyes of those who would accuse us falsely of heresy so that we can dialogue further towards possible unity.
@@JC4all_denaAs an Eastern Orthodox and a Celt, I can say that most of this Oriental bashing is a very terminally online thing from cultural chauvinists. I come from a small mission in Appalachia and my priest/spiritual Fr. (whose half-Irish) believes our schism is due to Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European difference. Also as mentioned earlier I'm a mix of Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English; so I have a deep respect for the Copts, as we added in Coptic and Syriac styles after the integration of asceticism into the Church. Which we unfortunately lost starting in 1066- late 12th century, because of a brutal Norman crusade that unfortunately doesn't get mentioned. Anyway brother I pray your walk with our Lord goes well! ☦️🏴🤜🤛 (Unfortunately there isn't an official Coptic flag, so just pretend it's there.)☦️
@@CormacOBrien-pp3jz oh hey I saw some Orthodox Appalachian chants and they were really cool to hear in English! It does seem like perhaps there is a racist undertone to these verdicts? I've been researching this though and I notice Coptics are not allowed to have Holy Communion in the Eastern Orthodox churches and vice versa. So there must be some major difference theologically that I'm not understanding. I must say this is all too confusing to me as a Protestant wishing to cross over to Orthodoxy. Trying to figure out the true church is daunting. I wish it would be easier to understand heresy from just "cultural differences". I feel like I have to be a theologian to figure all this out because I really don't see what the differences are in terms of Christology. Hopefully the full version of this video helps. At least among laypeople, especially for a newbie like myself, I'm glad there aren't nasty things being said about one another and a brotherly love of some sorts. In the end, we all believe in Christ and I doubt people who were born and raised into either church is a theologian either.
Dr. Chaillot made an interesting point, saying Chalcedon brought a "new terminology." However, that seems to be somewhat confusing, given the history right before Chalcedon. The reason being, Chalcedon had the same set of beliefs and terms as held by Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and their followers. It was refuted by St Cyril, St Theodotus, and the entire Third Ecumenical Council as way of introducing duality while inconsistently claiming a unity of person. But, according to the Holy Fathers, unity of person is only able to be genuine when there is a complete abolishment of duality. St Cyril even explains that if Nestorius accepts our unity of hypostasis, but still confesses 2 natures, that he is still in doctrinal error: "So, if the power of the unity proclaimed by him indicates the unity perceived by us, I say that it indicates the unity according to hypostasis. For it would reasonably speak of no division in Christ according to His being Christ; for there is not one and another, neither son and son, other and other, first and second, but unmistakably one before flesh and after flesh. For it will be thus according to worth, as you say, and yet the power is indivisible, but rather the same. Then how do you say that the one and indivisible is twofold and not rather according to worth, but according to nature? "οὐκοῦν τῆς παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ λεγομένης συναφείας ἡ δύναμις εἰ τὴν καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς νοουμένην ενότητα δηλοί, φημὶ δὴ τὴν καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν, ἔφη ἂν εἰκότως μηδεμίαν εἶναι Χριστοῦ τὴν διαίρεσιν κατὰ τὸ εἶναι Χριστόν· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἕτερος καὶ ἕτερος οὔτε μὴν υἱὸς καὶ υἱός, ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, πρῶτος καὶ δεύτερος, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς δηλονότι καὶ πρὸ σαρκὸς καὶ μετὰ σαρκός. ἔσται γὰρ οὕτω κατά γε τὴν ἀξίαν, ὡς σὺ φής, καὶ μέντοι τὴν δυναστείαν ἀδιαίρετος, μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ αὐτός. εἶτα πῶς τὸν ἕνα καὶ ἀδιαίρετον διπλοῦν εἶναι φὴς καὶ οὐχὶ τῆι ἀξίαι μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ τῆι φύσει; - St Cyril, 5 Tomes Against Nestorius, Tome 2.6
@dioscoros Very insightful point you make. Thank you for sharing. I think many do not know what you are referring to when saying "Chalcedon had the same set of beliefs and terms..." And an honest in-depth review of history and in studying the theology of the fathers of Ephesus, one would quickly realize why the Oriental could not allign with Chalcedon. More to come on that.
There’s a line from the Syriac liturgy, sung by the priest in between the diptychs “Lord, shut the mouths of the heretics who preach against us”. The Lord will judge those who lie about us and keep appealing to older lies about us to repeat new lies about us.
Thank yall so much. I am starting into research on this topic and I want to link it to other Christian themes of 2=1 (namely the sacrament of marriage as laid out from Genesis 2:24 on), and this helps a lot.
That is actually a wonderful example to illustrate the meaning of "Mia"physis. Just as mysteriously, the two spouses become one flesh without confusion or alteration, so also the natures in Christ, after the union, are inseparable mysteriously and should not be divided again after their union. God bless your research.
@freeindeed2354 Thank you for that question. The fathers actually speak extensively of this, and I encourage you to read both St Cyril and St Severus on this matter. What they answer can be summarized as follows: natures don't "do" anything, persons do! So divinity does not suffer, and neither does humanity. However, human person's do! And we confess that Christ, the perfect God-Man, suffered in the flesh for our sakes as we confess in the holy creed. Therefore, to separate humanity from the divinity and to speak as if only his human nature suffered is to create an unnatural separation within him that ultimately leads to nestorianism. As St Cyril says perfectly in his 12th Anathema against Nestorios: "Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema." Hope this helps. More to come in this in future videos!
@@freeindeed2354 to my knowledge, both the EO and OO officially hold to the Theopaschite position which the Latin speaking EO Saint Justinian too held - I think the Romans reject it.
I am Catholic, and I apologize for the terrible behavior of some of the Chalcedonians. There are many of us who love and and respect the Oriental Orthodox churches. I have not one shred of hatred towards you.
Dioscorus didn’t bother to do that; rather he locked the church where the robber council was held and had papal legates beaten as well as Flavian of Constantinople-who consequently died of his wounds. It is interesting that a Coptic sources mention nothing of the acts that took place in 449
@@kevinseptian5020 Farrington is a spokes mouth for the Coptic church; I’ve examined his work when I were a paper on Dioscorus. He’s openly anti Chalcedonian and believes the EO are in error. He’s also one of the only non Egyptian Coptic priests in the world.
Dear Fathers, with the greatest respect to all of you and much gratitude for the work you have been doing for so long , please allow me to say that when we are the true Church, we don’t need to ask, even rhetorically, whether we are heretics.
ua-cam.com/video/TfQ1ZlLU43I/v-deo.htmlsi=ZvQRQw8akr7DNFca ^^^ A good reason why - there are people on the other side, priests no less, ready to pounce and assert that we are heretics.
Then you haven't heard enough, since Ephesus 431 anathematizes all Dyophysites. The Holy Fathers read the writings of the Chalcedonians, and still did not believe we have the same faith. Moreover, they refuted those same writings they had read, sometimes line-by-line. It's important to not only use the vague term "one nature," but to understand that the whole reason for it is that we do not accept any duality after the union. Nestorius and the Theodorean school were condemned on the basis of teaching 1 person in 2 natures after the union.
@@dioscoros Theology and history are indeed very integral parts of this discussion. But please, let's not forget the importance for us to surrender our will to the Holy Spirit which has always been the one to guide every step of the One Holy Church. There can be no pride or selfish ambition among those who dialogue, but rather a real spirit of humility and a deep desire for union. I pray the Lord grants us that kind of demeanour.
@@Miaphysite3 Slow down my friend, no need for the antagonism. I agree with you, we should all read the fathers, church history, and all important writings related to the Christological debate. Maybe encourage your brother to read it, but let's not throw stones, please.
We Online community of Oriental Orthodox reviewed this very same live stream that includes the تيتا. In the pink dress. We refuted their claims in the live chat and tried to call their fraudulent phone line but instead They hand picked their callers of ecumenist before the stream began and refused to address our claims. The comments we left on their videos highlight their hypocrisy
@jongdoe1231 I for one appreciate the work of Christine Chaillot and I thank her for her stance towards the Oriental Church which is much more respectable than others. While you may disagree with her stance, please refrain from name-calling.
I am Easter Orthodox and love my Coptic brothers, i knew this from my own readings that this was just a matter of semantics. ❤☦️ are we in communion with the Coptic?
Actually there are fatal theological differencies. Tom of Leo was clearly heretical and against teachings of st Cyrill. Weird thing is that EO call both st Cyril and Leo as saints even though they had totally different christology. And st Cyril did anathemize diophysite teaching in counsil of ephesus.
We are not in communion, but many of our learned hierarchs and theologians have a deep love and appreciation for each other. There are indeed important differences in our Christological expressions. But by God's grace, if we continue to dialogue in humility and love, we can pray that we achieve unity.
@@josephology3290 100% widower and the father of St. James (Jacob) the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem and brother of our Lord. The brothers of the Lord being ‘cousins’ is an invention of Jerome. In a church in Italy, there is an ancient icon of the flight to Egypt with shows the Theotokos on a mule with St Joseph the betrothed and with them, a young boy, which is a depiction of St. James (Jacob).
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 100% virgin father of Jesus only. We had a debate recently and you can see the debate review also at Josephology channel. One of the 3 opponents was representing the Orthodox position. But it’s a later tradition that started with the Protoevangelium and not found in Scripture or Tradition or ancient icons.
@@josephology3290 the virgin tradition and the young man Joseph tradition are both from later on. The former starts with Jerome who came up with it on his own and the latter starts with the counter reformation. Neither Scripture nor anyone else attests to these. The protovangelium has embellishments but the core of it is based on fact - the Marian feasts of the entry to the temple and the birth of the Theotokos are both based on the Protoevangelium which is the earliest testament to those events. The most recent scholarship on the Protoevangelium shows that the central narrative originates in the first century.
Also, up until the renaissance, the western/Roman iconography depicted Joseph as an older man in line with the depictions in the East. From the counter reformation onwards the Roman depictions Benjamin Buttoned him and made him look younger with thick dark beards. However, some things are hard to cover up. Even now, the solo young man Joseph depictions have him holding a staff that shows buds sprouting - a hold over from the earlier beliefs in the narrative of the Protoevangelium.
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 thanks but did you go watch the recent “The Great St Joseph Debate”? You can view on either Josephology, East2West Theology, or Standing for Truth. It was Protestant vs Catholic vs Orthodox. Many arguments were given from each side to the proposition “Joseph begot no children.” The debaters and the moderator were very cordial and professional and well-researched. To your above points thank you and permit me to push back with the Catholic position: 1) Scripture does not say Joseph begot children nor that he was 80 when he married Mary; rather, Luke says he was a “man” (aner) not an “old man” (presbytes) as he does for Zachariah in that same passage of Luke 1:18-27. 2) the 3 most ancient icons in the world of St Joseph do not depict him with grey hair but with brown as a normal aged man in his prime. It was not until the 7th century that the first icon of Joseph as an elderly man with grey hair popped up in Egypt. 3) the majority of church fathers, from both east and west, explicitly or implicitly tell us that both Mary and Joseph remained as virgins. Eg, Sts Athanasius, Gregory Nanzianzen, Augustine, Jerome, etc. 4) yes the Proto has some good stuff in it but also some errors such as Joseph being an elderly widower, a midwife, and hymen checking. Those are not Biblical. It was an apologetic to defend Mary’s virginity against heretics (Ebionites and Antimarianites) and was a creative way to try to answer the “brethren of the Lord” - but you don’t need to sacrifice Joseph’s virginity to “protect” Mary’s virginity. Joseph, like Jesus, remained a “eunuch for the sake of the kingdom” and the New Uzzah to protect Mary the New Ark. Yes the Proto was of around 150 AD, but the Gospel of Luke was from before that. 5) logically, God wanted both Joseph and Mary to look as normal and ordinary as possible to protect them from Satan who was awaiting a virgin who would give birth to the Messiah. Their ordinariness was their “cloak” to fly under the radar of those who would do them harm. St Ignatius and St Justin Martyr speak to this. And the townspeople said isn’t this THE son not A son of Joseph the carpenter? And God wanted a man in his prime to protect Jesus and St Mary and be able to walk some 3000 miles to Egypt and back. And to provide a home for them as a carpenter which was hard work for a man fit in his prime. Joseph’s greatest strength was his virtue of purity or charity, not his senility. It would have looked extremely abnormal to the people if Joseph were 80 and St Mary 15 as a married couple. They would have asked questions. 6) there are only like 3 or 4 early church fathers who say Joseph was an elderly widower but they were simply misguided by the Proto on the widower apologetic invention. St Epiphanius for example in his Panerion written against heretics says Joseph was 40 when he married an unnamed 1st wife and had 6 kids and then he was 80 when he married St Mary as his 2nd wife. Epiphanius gives different names and birth orders than does the other apocraphal book The History of the Carpenter which also does not give the name of his alleged 1st wife and also says that Joseph and St Mary had relations and produced Jesus. So that book is heretical (Ebionite). The other later apocryphal books were a rehash of the Proto like the Pseudo Gospel of Matthew with additional embellishments as the Proto had to “go under ground” and get renamed to “hide” it because it was not just rejected but even condemned by the Patriarchs of Rome and some eastern church fathers. Yes the Proto has some valid and true history too in it but they got it from us, we didn’t get it from them. We knew Mary was a virgin as attested in Scripture and her parents names already from Tradition etc. Origin says of the Proto that “some say” Joseph had children by a previous wife but note well that he does not say “we say”. Some will claim St Ephrem the Syrian said Joseph was a non-virgin / widower but I’ve never seen them produce a quote from St Ephrem that says that. Thanks for the opportunity to push back some and show you the other more ancient tradition about Holy Joseph the virgin husband of Mary and virgin father of Jesus.
In 451 A.D Marcian (Marcianus) and Leo the Archbishop tried to teach in concealment the heresy of Nestorius, which created conflict, and divided the Church into two for the first time. ✞Six hundred and thirty six bishops who were present at the council [Chalcedon] fearing torture and death signed on an edict of heresy and they as a result were called “Melkites” (those who serve the Emperor rather than God). And the council was called “A Council of Dogs” and “A Council of Fools”. [As they have signed on and revived a heresy that was anathematized during the time of St. Cyril.].these priests then formed the Catholic church (Eastern +western ). ✞Nevertheless, St. Dioscorus (Dioscoros) not only said, “I will not sign on this heresy” but he also excommunicated the heretics. And because of this, they exiled him with his 7 disciples to the Island of Gangra (Gagra). And he stayed there for 3 years and departed in 454 A.D. ✞St. Dioscorus, before he passed away, in the Island of Gangra where he was exiled endured many trials from the heretics for 3 years. However, through his patience and teachings he brought back many to faith. ✞The Church calls him “Father of Miaphysis (Tewahedo)” (Father of the Tewahedo Faith and its combatant). His beard that was pulled out, his teeth that were knocked out and his blood that was shed are to this day witnesses and fruits of faith. As it is says, “To encouraged his disciples that were extant His beard that was pulled out and his teeth that fell out As fruits of his faith, to a far place, he sent”
We get into trouble when we move beyond revelation and try to wrap our minds around God. This is a dispute about philosophical language and not about our faith. Jesus, one person from the moment of conception, fully human and fully divine, in a manner that is beyond us as mere men from understanding. Glorify Him!
The one who proved the incarnation of our Lord Jesus as the word of God has come in flesh The one of utmost zenith Famous patriarch Mor Kyrilos of Alexandria Syrian orthodox church remember in 5th dyptich
I think we should look at the bigger picture and think about how the Church works in solving such disagreements, that is not just "submit to my one true opinion", because lets face it all 3 big old churches (Rome, EO, Alexandria) have good arguments for their positions and we are stuck and they all think that their view is the correct views (there are many more disagreements than just this one issue, they are just mostly under the radar). What is the point of ecumenical councils when the debunked churches just go their own way and whats the point of having the "Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth", when we just split every time a new heresy spawns?
You bring up interesting points for discussion. But what you then say is the solution? I personally think a real and honest deep dive into the history and the theology can help. Good and honest people around "the table" will also help. But what else do you think? (Genuinely curious here)
@@franthonymourad5870 The end game surely would be an ecumenical council where all Patriarchs fully commit to and just let the Holy Spirit do his work. But to get there I think the Bishops needs to contemplate the power of ecumenical councils. I follow the news about all 3 churches and it looks to me the bishops everywhere have spiritual problems, like how they can't get together in the EO right now, not only about Ukraine, but they just can't manage to make councils together anymore. In Rome (my Church) bishops totally derailed with that Vatican 2 craziness. OO struggle with Islam makes Jesus look weak compered to Muhammad and the conflict in the Ethiopian Church is not nice either. Idk what is going on in the Churches right now its crazy.
Dear Fathers, thank you very much for this talk! I'm a Serbian Orthodox, I visited Egypt recently, and I was completely amazed with the life of your Church, and with your theology. I read your theological explanations (F. Theodore Malaty and others) and I realized: you are not heretics at all! This is also obvoius from the fact that you haven't fallen in any additional (later, new) heresy, unlike Roman Catholics who keep falling deeper and deeper. I felt our spiritual unity very much. I'm in favor of leaving ridiculous (and heretical) ecumenical dialogue with completely confused western Christians who have less and less traces of original genuine Christianity: we should achieve unity among the Eastern Orthodox Churches and abandon futile talks and heretical prayers with the people that now don't know which sex they are, let alone any true theological issue. However, there are some current very serious problems: Patriarchate of Constantinople is directed by USA (and some other western states) to destroy the unity of the Orthodox, while procuring a complete unity of Greek Churches with the heresy of Roman Catholicism. The other grave issue is the ecclesiological and theological position of the Armenian Church: recently they entered a full eucharistic union with the Catholics, and several modern Armenian theologians openly advocate the heresy of aphtharodocetism (Julian of Halicarnassus & co.). However, I hope these obstacles are not insurmountable, if there is genuine will! All the best to all of you!
You are falling to the snake Adam spoke to. Today we had a very dynamic debate with these heretics on our Eastern Orthodox channel and I brotherly advise you to go there and make sure you understand the video Fr. Mikhail prepared. Channel is called Living Orthodox and video title is Are the Oriental “orthodox” Heretics? Once more - care of the puddle you are drinking from.
@@AN-ym5sd that’s not true. The Armenian church is not in communion with Rome. You may be talking about the Armenian Catholics a Uniate body that is under Rome’s umbrella group of ‘Eastern Catholics’. The Armenians rejected Julian a long time ago and are in one mind and spirit with the rest of our Church.
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 Hello, "Jacob Baraddeus", thank you for your answer! My remark about the full communion of the Armenian (non-Uniate) Church and Roman Catholics stems from my personal contact with the NON-Uniate Armenians that I met (and later kept correspondence with) in Venice in the Uniate (!) monastery, in 2008. We talked a lot about church issues, and I was surprised to hear from them that they not only attended Roman Catholic colleges and universities (which is something that Eastern Orthodox ecumenists tend to do), but also fully participate in all their rituals. They told me that everybody understood the (then) recent agreements between Armenian Church and the Latins (1996/2001) to mean full communion. After your reply, I checked the agreements and official positions of the two communities (which I hadn't done ever before), and it turns out that their official position is NOT of full (inter)communion. Obviously, the local interpretations (I don't know how widespread) differ from the official stance. However, I cannot blame anyone, as today we Eastern Christians have a traitor in our midst, who wreaks havoc in our Orthodoxy, while praying and maintaining best relations with the Latins (the NATO-Bartholomew). However, the problem with aphthartodocetism seems to be much more serious. The Armenian Church anathematized Severus of Antioch at its Second Dvin Council (554) because of his teaching of the corruptibility of Christ's body, while their Manzikert Council (726) condemned explicitly his teaching although not himself (in the 6th anathema). This is clearly stated by Fr. Oleg Davydenkov (PhD, professor at St. Tikhon Orthodox University, an expert on Armenian Church, "Aphthartodocetism: Christology and Anthropology" [Афтартодокетизм: Христология и антропология], 1999 yearly conference of STOU), and confirms the findings of prof. Ye. I. Troitsky (PhD, Exposition of Faith of the Armenian Church [Изложение веры Церкви Армянской], St. Petersburg, 1875). A recent Armenian theologian Hieromonk Ghevond Hovhannisyan (Gevond Oganesyan) has a slightly different interpretation, while still firmly refuting Severus' teaching (monography Reflections on the theme of Chalcedon [Размышления на тему Халкидона] Jerusalem: Noah, 2009; also available online in Russian). I can see there is some confusion regarding the term "corruptibility" (having two senses: 1. ability to suffer; 2. liability to decay). In any case, it's evident that you, guys (Oriental Orthodox), will first have to clear up things among yourselves - is Severus' teaching right, and is he a saint. There is also a distinct question of Severus’ "fierce iconoclasm". As we ourselves (Eastern Orthodox) first will have to eradicate the (neo)papism of Constantinople, to be able to talk to your community. I'm just a Serbian Orthodox layman, but I'd like to ask you, if you are a Coptic/Armenian priest or theologian? All the best! Alen
If Christ two natures are united in undividable as you say, forgive any mis characterization, how do you look at his divinity, harrowing Hades, while his body, his humanity was in the tomb?
Death is not defined by divinity leaving the body. It is defined by the soul leaving the body. Christ's human soul left His human body at death. The divinity remained with both the body (it did not decay) and the divinity remained with the soul (having authority to harrow Hades).
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 In Acts 2:31 St. Peter states "nor did His flesh see corruption". The Greek word for corruption is diaphthora which means decay, destruction, or corruption. I believe there is certainly a heretical understanding in Julianism but also an Orthodox understanding in St. Cyril and St. Severus in maintaining the consubstantial nature of the humanity of Christ.
Anyways, for me it looks like it was all political and a show of dominancy one church over the other church back then in the 5th century for the excommunication between Chalcedonian and none Chalcedonians. Unfortunately, instead of resolving the issue and becoming one, still right now, that kind of mentality is going on among these ancient old churches. Lord have mercy!!
Indeed there were political and power struggles at play, but there were also some very serious theological considerations that the Holy Fathers felt the need to defend. Clearly, selfish ambition and human pride were the culprits, they always are in the end. But let's pray for a union where everyone involved desires only the pursuit of truth and the heart of God.
How much of the wrong attitude of the Chalcedoninan is simply an imperial complex left over from the days where whatever they dictated goes without dialogue because to disagree with the "church" was to be a traitor to the state?
@@tonyb408 This. This. This. Both the cradle and convert chalcedonians are hung up on their loss of empire and are sore about it. We didn’t bring their empire down, their empire’s rulers did things evil in God’s sight and they brought themselves down.
When the Arabs invaded Egypt, did the Copts view the Muslims as saviors because of this difference? because I once saw a muslim say this@@jacobbaradaeus6250
I might be mistaken but Miaphysis literally translates as one composite nature? Then as ST Cyril said of the incarnate logos to make sure that is a full union without mingling, separation. If that is the case Copts should start using the correct translation to make it clear.
I was told that believing that when our Lord cried to the Father, asking of why He was forsaken on the cross…asides from the psalms - it was a cry from Jesus to be reunited with His Father after his mission was complete. Someone said this belief is heretical. Why???? I learned this and believe it as taught by Sam Shamoun. The person trying to correct my belief says it is of notorious.
In the Orthodox (commonly referred to as Oriental Orthodox) belief, our Lord states this phrase for many reasons. One is to bring to mind psalm 22 which starts with "My God My God...."I'm that psalm we see many things being fulfilled by the crucifixion. Not only that but there is a turning point in the psalm that states "You have answered Me" and "I will declare Your Name to the bretheren". These are prophecies of the resurrection (God the Father raised Him from the dead, and the Lord proclaimed the good news to the brethren). So what is being reunited? It is our humanity that cries out in Christ. He is the Mediator and our mouth piece. As both God and man in one He represents us, does everything for us, says everything for us, teaches us how to exist in Him, rehabilitated our nature, etc. The Logos Incarnate says My God My God for us. He sanctifies us in Himself and reunites us with God because He is Emmanuel our God, the Son of God who calls us His brethren.
@@MinaDKSBMSB thanks. But didn’t Jesus also want to reunited with His Father. In His humanity, coming into the world - was there not a shift in, at least His physical location/resting. I believe He was telling Nicodemus that He comes from heaven rather than is (at that point) in heaven. The distinct second person of the Godhead, manifested as human, and so because of this wasn’t there some divide that caused His soul to cry out for the two persons to be reunited?
@@MinaDKSBMSB the fall out between the ancient churches is “of” and “in”. For me, the Eastern church makes more sense in that two natures in one person. Unique and equal persons. 100% both though different - divine doesn’t feel human pain - human still prays to the Father and cries out to Him in distress.
@@SandraJMEven if the Eastern church makes more sense to you, it still contradicts St Cyril and Ephesus. Them, saying 2 or any nature of “duality” is condemned and therefore by definition, Chalcedon falls under that condemnation. > **But since your excellency is inquiring whether it is proper to speak of two natures in Christ or not**, I thought I ought to speak on this matter… > Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of his Incarnation we see that his two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for his flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though he made the flesh his own according to the dispensation. Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm thejoining into a unity by saying that **he was of two natures, but after the union we do not separate the natures from one another**, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, **and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word made flesh**. `St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Succensus` > “We confess that he is the Son of God and God in the Spirit, and man in the flesh. **We do not confess that this single Son is two natures, one to be worshiped and one not to be worshiped. **__He is rather one incarnate nature of the Word__**** ***St. Athanasius of Alexandria, quoted by St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens, Eighth Anathema , page 162***
@@Miaphysite3 I don’t know about St Cyril. Why does it matter? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church follow him. I found him especially judgemental to the point of taking on Gods role.
St Dioscorus the Great would be very sad by you guys. Judge them by their fruits. Our popes being too friendly with protestants Catholics or even Eastern Orthodox it's very saddening.
I have a question How come some oriental orthodox churches are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and some actually participate in the roman Catholic mass to resive the Eucharist and ive seen that those same Oriental Orthodox churches that are in communion with the Catholic Church also share roman Catholic devotions like the immaculate heart of Mary or the assumption of mary into heaven which is a roman Catholic doctrine and why do the Oriental Orthodox also have a pope
Thank you for your comment. I believe that's what the Oriental have done with Ephesus. In remaining faithful to the first three councils, and more specifically to Ephesus and the 12 anathemas of Cyril, we felt a real discomfort and could not reconcile what was happening in Chalcedon to what we recieved from the Holy Fathers. Can I recommend that you compare the acts of Ephesus to those of Chalcedon and see for yourself? I think you'd immediately see our perspective.
@@dimitrisiliadis4939 Then the ecumenical councils were a fool's errand. An exercise in futility. Please read the 3 ecumenical councils. If you don't have heresy, you don't have Orthodoxy.
If Christ have only one will, how He can want to eat, and sleep? Does God want to eat? Or how Christ could pray to Father if He has only the will of God? Can any Oriental answer this?
@@miuitest5272 Can you tell me how your stomach gets depressed or your soul can eat? If you can’t, then why do you call our human will “one” when clearly there are different faculties of will in this one human being? We call the will of Christ, one out of two, one theandric will, as Dionysius the Areopagite says, and human willing is a good analogy to help understand we do not deny the integrity of all the properties of humanity and divinity. I take issue with your use of two wills and connecting that to praying to the Father. No! Praying to the Father does not prove a human will, it proves a communion and communication between Father and Son that extends to all humanity because of then incarnation. Your use of prayer is dangerous and leads to Nestorianism. Furthermore, we say God ate, slept, was born of the Virgin, and died and rose from the dead. To deny God ate is once again Nestorian thinking. If you deny God ate, you logically deny Mary being the birth-giver of God
here's St. Gregory the Theologian: "For His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing it is altogether taken into God; but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Your Will prevail. For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, or that He would oppose will to will. But since, as this is the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down), and not of the Nature which He assumed, we must meet the objection in this way, that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own, besides that of the Father, but that He has not; so that the meaning would be, "not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and You; for as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will." - St. Gregory the Theologian (Oration 30)
@@minasoliman there several problems with one will, which are solved with halkidon. First is that God is immutable. So how will of God capable to obtain some new properties, such as will of food? If you want, our will also have dual source, spirit and body. But will is the property of nature, we have only one nature - human nature, despite we are image of Gods, but only by grace, not by nature. So we have only one will from dual source, but Christ as God have will of Trinity and as human Second issue is that Christ because of human nature didn't want to die. So how He prayed about other outcome despite Gods will was to die on the Cross? How is it possible that God's will confront itself?
@@MinaDKSBMSB Son as God share one will with Father and with Holy Spirit. But how Chist didnt want to die then? He did not opposed Father will, but also wants another outcome if possible. If there is only one will, we have a contradiction.
@@miuitest5272 so St. Gregory, St Basil, St. Dionysus the Areopagite are accepting a contradiction? The Lord opposing will to will has sin? Read St. Gregory’s words carefully. Also, we need to understand that Christ didn’t need to incarnate, to grow in wisdom and stature, to die on the cross, to rise from the dead, to ascend into heaven. We needed it done. Christ does everything for us, on our behalf, to rehabilitate our nature, to represent us, to teach us. When He says “let this cup pass” He indeed feels all the humanity that comes with it, but He does it to teach our nature what to do. When He says “Not My will but Yours” He is showing our nature what to do in this time of great tribulation. And there is a difference between defining will as desire vs defining will as the realized action of the person. For example, if you are running a marathon, you have the will to finish the race. While you are running, your body wants a different will to be actuated which is the will to stop and rest your muscles. However, you only have one actuated will which is the will to finish the race. Christ teaches our nature how to finish the race.
open a dictionary of the Greek language and provide linguistic evidence if you are not lying. There you will find the words monotheism or monarchy, but there are no words miarchy or miatheism. I'm waiting for an answer
@@ivanipatov6559 A modern coinage from Byzantine Greek μία (mía, “one”) + φύσις (phúsis, “nature, substance”) + -ite; see Miaphysitism for more. (theology) Of or pertaining to Miaphysitism; maintaining that Christ has a single, though composite, nature. From Byzantine Greek μονοφυσιτισμός (monophusitismós), from μόνος (mónos, “only one”) + φύσις (phúsis, “nature”) + -ισμός (-ismós, “-ism”), hence “belief in a single nature”. --μία (mía, “one”) --μόνος (mónos, “only one”) Also, since religions (if monotheistic) or kings assert “only one” “singularity” and not “compositeness” why would they say “mia” at all?
EO here. All love to Coptic and Oriental brothers and sisters. I pray for union, thank you for your work.
That is pan-heresy of ecumenism. There can't be union with the heretics as Lord's Bride ought to remain "holy and without blemish" (Eph 5,27). You are wishing for defiling of the Lord's Bride which is blasphemy and abomination of the Holy Spirit who leads Lord's Bride and Lord Himself who promised that His Church will be pillar and ground of the truth. Monophysite heretics are for a reason tossed away back at 4th Council and you, and alike ecumenists, are spitting on Holy Fathers who fought these heretics and were martyred by them. SHAME.!
We have so much to learn from each other. We are better together 🙏✝️📈
@@mwhabs The only thing we can learn from Monophysite heretics are lies. That is the only thing you are capable of.
let us pray for the unity, I am coptic orthodox and i love my byzantine orthodox brothers
I'm anxious to listen to this later. I'm a Ukrainian Catholic but have a great love and respect for the Coptic Church. As a high school Theology teacher I have a few Coptic icons in my classroom and even a nice sized picture of Pope Shenouda III, not to mention many books. The depth of insight and spirituality of the Coptic Church in my opinion is unapparelled. Thanks for the Coptic Orthodox Answers Channel and keep up the great work.
Why tipp toeing around the fullness of the Truth? Just go straight to The orthodox church and not one heresy to another.
Thank you for sharing! This needs to be widely shared across oriental orthodox
I'm from India my father health not good please pray 🙏🙏
I am an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for making these videos. Your video on the Jesus prayer has given me a huge boost in my spiritual warfare; I am now able to resist profane thoughts and pray without random thoughts popping into my mind. May God bless you.
Thank you fathers, I am from Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Chrch. Our father pope Cyrill of Alexndria explained the devine and human nature in separable based on the Holly Bible for the distorted faith of Nestorius on 431 at Ephesus. The Chalcedon assembly targeted for revival of heretics of Nestorius. We Oriental orhodox Churchs believes Our Lord Jesus Christ is one nature(devine and human nature united ).
If both natures are united ,then his passion has no meaning as the nature that has divinity cant understand human sufferings. His perfect humanity ie the second nature carries the cross and achieved the salvation. It is what majority believes and true apostolic church believes.
@@shajimathew1816 what is a true apostolic church? Church that accepts the nicene constantinople creed, valid sacraments, saint intercession, valid priestly orders. If a church has apostolic succession nd tradition, they are a true universal church. You are thinking of Monophysitism, which is not what the oriental orthodox churches believe. If you are Catholic, then you should be aware that the christology of our Lord between catholics and orientals is already no longer an issue since there was a document stating the profession of the different Christology between oriental and catholic is not different and that it is only the formula they use to profess their faith. Thus, interface relationship began in the 1960s between these two groups.
This is just a short segment of the full 2hour podcast. Stay tuned for the full podcast later this week!
#WeAreMiaphysite
I hope you touch on the robber council (2nd council of Ephesus) and why ST Dioscoros absolved Eutychus which in my humble opinion what caused the whole situation of the eastern calling the orientals monophysites and how he got deposed on administrative grounds not as a heretic. Fr Romanidis wrote beautifully about these historical events. May God bless your service and grant his church the unity of heart.
@@MrAbc54321 I recommend Volker Menze recent work on Dioscorus to help understand the background into why St. Dioscorus did what he did. God bless
@@MrAbc54321 First of all Ephesus 2 was not a “robber council” this title is an inaccurate slander contingent upon a fabrication that members of the council were not allowed to speak and forced to sign empty papers. This has been proven as ahistorical time and time again. Secondly eutyches confessed an orthodox confession in Ephesus 2 which was why he was absolved. go read this confession online and you will deem it impossible to find anything heretical in that confession. Although Eutyches later returned to his heresy after Ephesus 2. Father Romanides has spread nothing but ahistorical lies and deception throughout his ministry. Not just about historical events, but about his apotheosis and his polytheistic rejection of divine simplicity
@@MrAbc54321 In the future we hope to release other videos investigating in depth the history of conflicts and councils that led up to Chalcedon - among them, the second council of Ephesus - falsely labelled "robber" council by Leo of Rome. It should be an interesting series, so stay tuned.
@Jongdoe1231 Thanks for your insight. These historical events will be addressed in future videos, God willing. Can I suggest that there is no need for antagonism in our responses. Let's assume that everyone means well and is looking for the truth.
እየሱስ ክርስቶስ የእግዚአብሔር ልጅ እግዚአብሔር ነው።
እግዚአብሔር ይመስገን ✝️🙏❤️🛐
አሜን 🙏
Selam from Ethiopia (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church) my beloveds 🙏
♥️ please do longer format content may God bless you all and grant you paradise fathers 🙏🏽
I’m glad we are bringing up the dialogues of the Joint Commissions that began in the 1960s. There’s a complete lack of commentary on these dialogues as if to try to bypass them and reestablish the simple polemical views of one another. These dialogues have become a part of our history and needs to be reckoned with.
Would you like us to make a commentary on the errors of these dialogues, and their rejection by the scholars and jurisdictions within the Orthodox (Oriental) Church? Or would you rather us polemicize each other as having historically "simple views?"
@@dioscoros I’m sorry if this offends you, but these dialogues exist, including the papers and minutes. The perceived error is lack of strict fidelity to the terminology, but I don’t lack of fidelity to the faith upheld. Simply put, you and I disagree on this main issue. You believe that by upholding the manner that semantics have been involved, that we lose fidelity to the faith our fathers held, whereas I believe that the fathers upheld the same faith that still is defended even if one is to believe semantics were used. That is the central problem here between my focus and your’s. Therefore, I find no problem in seeing great value in the dialogues, and not all scholars and jurisdictions agree with each other either.
@@minasoliman you don't need to apologize for offending me, I don't matter. You shouldn't, however, offend the Holy Fathers by calling their extremely sophisticated and well-informed refutations of the heretics as "simple polemical views." THAT, my good one, isn't the safest route.
You are currently strawmanning what my position is. I do not, and have not ever believed, that terminology is an issue to die on. The concepts are the hill to die on, as we've explained many times. The concept of what a primary substance is, and that Christ is 1 of 2 of these, and that we cannot profess any kind of duality after the union - these are not terminological, they are very grounded concepts. So, surely, you now know regarding my position, that THAT is not a terminological issue.
You are the only one here saying that semantics were even an issue in the first place. In my view, it was never about semantics, but always about the concept of what unity is, what division is. I would argue that it is the simple mindedness of religious indifferentism which refuses to prod into what these terms mean in their concept (unity, division, difference, duality). For instance, the definition of "division" is "numerical distinction." By this definition, and by the explicit mention of the Chalcedonians, they adhere to a division according to nature, while professing an external undividedness of conjunction (which they term "hypostasis").
I also do not find issue in finding value in the dialogues, but not to the detriment of elementary facts of history and Christology - the Joint Agreements contradict each other for instance on what Christ is composed out of (hint: one of those answers is by necessity wrong and was actually rejected as heretical by Sts Cyril and Severus).
@minasoliman The full podcast does indeed go into more detail. Stay tuned!
@@dioscoros You clearly know your history, my friend. God bless you! I don't think @minasoliman is "offending the holy fathers" - he is simply stating the conclusions he has arrived at. It's fine if you disagree - I'm sure an honest investigation of history will shed much light on this matter. I agree that it can be very beneficial to discuss what we can learn from these dialogues and how they can facilitate future dialogues. In the meantime, I encourage all to be charitable in these exchanges. We all desire truth, union, and the will of God for his bride, the Church. Let's keep that in mind, please.
I, as a Catholic, former EO, thank you for expressing your Christology in this way. It sounds to me that we really do believe in the same Christ, and that our disagreement is how best to enunciate that shared belief. I think the problem was that to say that the two nature become one after the union sounds too much like Eutyches heresy, which is why Chalcedon chose to use the word person or prosopon.
I pray for unity. May Our Lady of Zeitoun pray for us and protect the Coptic Church.
You heretics can unite as you wish... lies here, lies there... you are brothers in lies.! We, Orthodox, will keep Lord's Bride "holy and without blemish" until Bridegroom comes.!
@@johnnyd2383which Orthodoxy
@@johnnyd2383 ua-cam.com/video/WLw4mwIpVvI/v-deo.htmlsi=_9QUfdNC2SIs-LlW
From Eritrean orthodox following you. May God bless you 🙏❤
Can’t wait for a full episode
To me, all the bishops need to meet in council (both Chalcedonian and Non- Chalcedonian) in order to look at these things together and rectify this. It would take a lot of prayer, alot of love, and alot of forgiveness. Unfortunately, because of a long history of pain, and the recent schisms in the Eastern Orrthodox Church, it's not likely in the recent future.
Where we as humans fail, the Lord can still work. Our God is much greater than our sin. This is why we pray. God bless you.
As a Protestant, my prayer is that the Church would be one. That we would share in the Eucharist together and live out the present day reality of new creation and the future marriage supper of the lamb. The division breaks my heart.
@StephenRLucasI would say most “denominations” other than Protestants has produced bad fruit at one point
Thanks for your prayer but protestants should came to the church 😊
@@amirsad4113 while I get your sentiment, and I will assume the best of intentions about your comment, you should clarify, what "church" would that be? The Eastern Orthodox Church? The Oriental Orthodox Church? (not in communion with one another)... Perhaps the local Russian Orthodox Church (as opposed to, the Russian version of orthodoxy in America... i.e. the Orthodox Church in America (the OCA))? Maybe it should be the Roman Catholic church? Oh wait, they're not in communion with any of the Orthodox churches. Maybe it should be the Orthodox Church in the city of Rome? Wait that's kind of confusing... So perhaps you'll help me when you say 'protestants should came [sic] to the church."
Thank you thank you so much for the response you gave to the eastern Orthodox father. I'm also oriental orthodox and the first time I saw that video where the Eastern Orthodox father calling our church quote "that is not a church", I knew that was a direct attack on our church. 🙏🏾🙏🏾
I feel so blessed to have come across this. I subscribed awhile ago but didn't realize I'm not getting all notifications. That totally changed today because this is nothing short of a miracle that you posted this when i needed help to understand it. Orthodoxy is new to me to study and i truly thought all Orthodox churches believed in the same doctrine without any schisms. Recently i came across a pretty rude video of an Eastern Orthodox priest labeling Oriental Orthodox people as heretics. The most heart breaking part wasn't in the video but in the comments section. This priest would reply to comments of Coptics explaining they are not monophysites with really rude and callous replies. One person relayed a real life experience of visiting different Orthodox churches when he was still exploring Orthodoxy. He went to a Greek Orthodox church and they were dancing because of the Greek festival. He went to a Russian Orthodox church and they all were drinking beer due to some cultural festival. He went to a Coptic church and they were all mourning a series of attacks on churches and praying for their enemies. He explained it was clear to him one church was solemnly worshipping while others turned it into a cultural experience. The priest said "it doesn't matter or else you could go to a Buddhist monk and find them serious in prayer too"... Just no empathy for Christian persecution...! Another Coptic said, "please forgive us, Father, we've been martyred for thousands of years so we didn't have theologians to learn Greek and explain ourselves. Maybe you can hear our theologians now?"
May the Lord forgive that priest... needless to say i tried my best to understand such a complex term but this video truly simplified the whole issue for me.
Well anyway, all i wanted was to find the Church in the Book of Revelations that is heavily persecuted but loved by the Lord Jesus Christ. That was the church He found nothing reprehensible to judge them on.
Thank you for making it clear to me❤
There is another church that the door is open and no one can shut it. Perhaps it is Eastern Orthodox. Would be so loving to unite especially when we have brothers and sisters in need of supportive family.
Thank you for the encouraging words towards our Chanel. Rest assured, we are indeed a faithful church to the three holy councils, and while we may be persecuted, even until today, we are not heretics. And to be clear, in response to what someone you mentioned would have said, some of the most sophisticated and learned theologians, came out of the Oriental churches - Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscorus, Severus, Pheloxinos, etc. We thank God for these Holy Fathers who have faithful upheld the faith.
And as you mention, we can only pray that the Lord lifts the veil off the eyes of those who would accuse us falsely of heresy so that we can dialogue further towards possible unity.
@@franthonymourad5870amen. So thankful for your service, Father!
@@JC4all_denaAs an Eastern Orthodox and a Celt, I can say that most of this Oriental bashing is a very terminally online thing from cultural chauvinists. I come from a small mission in Appalachia and my priest/spiritual Fr. (whose half-Irish) believes our schism is due to Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European difference.
Also as mentioned earlier I'm a mix of Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English; so I have a deep respect for the Copts, as we added in Coptic and Syriac styles after the integration of asceticism into the Church. Which we unfortunately lost starting in 1066- late 12th century, because of a brutal Norman crusade that unfortunately doesn't get mentioned.
Anyway brother I pray your walk with our Lord goes well! ☦️🏴🤜🤛
(Unfortunately there isn't an official Coptic flag, so just pretend it's there.)☦️
@@CormacOBrien-pp3jz oh hey I saw some Orthodox Appalachian chants and they were really cool to hear in English!
It does seem like perhaps there is a racist undertone to these verdicts? I've been researching this though and I notice Coptics are not allowed to have Holy Communion in the Eastern Orthodox churches and vice versa. So there must be some major difference theologically that I'm not understanding.
I must say this is all too confusing to me as a Protestant wishing to cross over to Orthodoxy. Trying to figure out the true church is daunting. I wish it would be easier to understand heresy from just "cultural differences".
I feel like I have to be a theologian to figure all this out because I really don't see what the differences are in terms of Christology.
Hopefully the full version of this video helps.
At least among laypeople, especially for a newbie like myself, I'm glad there aren't nasty things being said about one another and a brotherly love of some sorts. In the end, we all believe in Christ and I doubt people who were born and raised into either church is a theologian either.
Dr. Chaillot made an interesting point, saying Chalcedon brought a "new terminology." However, that seems to be somewhat confusing, given the history right before Chalcedon.
The reason being, Chalcedon had the same set of beliefs and terms as held by Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and their followers. It was refuted by St Cyril, St Theodotus, and the entire Third Ecumenical Council as way of introducing duality while inconsistently claiming a unity of person. But, according to the Holy Fathers, unity of person is only able to be genuine when there is a complete abolishment of duality. St Cyril even explains that if Nestorius accepts our unity of hypostasis, but still confesses 2 natures, that he is still in doctrinal error:
"So, if the power of the unity proclaimed by him indicates the unity perceived by us, I say that it indicates the unity according to hypostasis. For it would reasonably speak of no division in Christ according to His being Christ; for there is not one and another, neither son and son, other and other, first and second, but unmistakably one before flesh and after flesh. For it will be thus according to worth, as you say, and yet the power is indivisible, but rather the same. Then how do you say that the one and indivisible is twofold and not rather according to worth, but according to nature?
"οὐκοῦν τῆς παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ λεγομένης συναφείας ἡ δύναμις εἰ τὴν καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς νοουμένην ενότητα δηλοί, φημὶ δὴ τὴν καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν, ἔφη ἂν εἰκότως μηδεμίαν εἶναι Χριστοῦ τὴν διαίρεσιν κατὰ τὸ εἶναι Χριστόν· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἕτερος καὶ ἕτερος οὔτε μὴν υἱὸς καὶ υἱός, ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, πρῶτος καὶ δεύτερος, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς δηλονότι καὶ πρὸ σαρκὸς καὶ μετὰ σαρκός. ἔσται γὰρ οὕτω κατά γε τὴν ἀξίαν, ὡς σὺ φής, καὶ μέντοι τὴν δυναστείαν ἀδιαίρετος, μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ αὐτός. εἶτα πῶς τὸν ἕνα καὶ ἀδιαίρετον διπλοῦν εἶναι φὴς καὶ οὐχὶ τῆι ἀξίαι μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ τῆι φύσει;
- St Cyril, 5 Tomes Against Nestorius, Tome 2.6
@dioscoros Very insightful point you make. Thank you for sharing. I think many do not know what you are referring to when saying "Chalcedon had the same set of beliefs and terms..." And an honest in-depth review of history and in studying the theology of the fathers of Ephesus, one would quickly realize why the Oriental could not allign with Chalcedon. More to come on that.
Are you oriental or Eastern orthodox i live in Africa but im interested in orthodoxy i get the more confuse each and every day..
@@SmilingCamperVan-fn4emwe are Oriental Orthodox from the Coptic Tradition
There’s a line from the Syriac liturgy, sung by the priest in between the diptychs “Lord, shut the mouths of the heretics who preach against us”. The Lord will judge those who lie about us and keep appealing to older lies about us to repeat new lies about us.
From what I recall, this is from the Anaphora of Mor Xystus that you are quoting?
@@grvity33 I think so. My spiritual father often offers the Holy Qurbono with Pope St Sixtus’ Anaphora.
Thank yall so much. I am starting into research on this topic and I want to link it to other Christian themes of 2=1 (namely the sacrament of marriage as laid out from Genesis 2:24 on), and this helps a lot.
That is actually a wonderful example to illustrate the meaning of "Mia"physis. Just as mysteriously, the two spouses become one flesh without confusion or alteration, so also the natures in Christ, after the union, are inseparable mysteriously and should not be divided again after their union. God bless your research.
@@franthonymourad5870 How can the Divinity "suffer" death on the cross?
@freeindeed2354 Thank you for that question. The fathers actually speak extensively of this, and I encourage you to read both St Cyril and St Severus on this matter. What they answer can be summarized as follows: natures don't "do" anything, persons do! So divinity does not suffer, and neither does humanity. However, human person's do! And we confess that Christ, the perfect God-Man, suffered in the flesh for our sakes as we confess in the holy creed. Therefore, to separate humanity from the divinity and to speak as if only his human nature suffered is to create an unnatural separation within him that ultimately leads to nestorianism. As St Cyril says perfectly in his 12th Anathema against Nestorios:
"Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema."
Hope this helps. More to come in this in future videos!
@@freeindeed2354 to my knowledge, both the EO and OO officially hold to the Theopaschite position which the Latin speaking EO Saint Justinian too held - I think the Romans reject it.
I am Catholic, and I apologize for the terrible behavior of some of the Chalcedonians. There are many of us who love and and respect the Oriental Orthodox churches. I have not one shred of hatred towards you.
Imagine this podcast between Dioscorus and Leo of Rome and others in Council of Chalcedon
Dioscorus didn’t bother to do that; rather he locked the church where the robber council was held and had papal legates beaten as well as Flavian of Constantinople-who consequently died of his wounds.
It is interesting that a Coptic sources mention nothing of the acts that took place in 449
@@JulianLife81 449? Have you read the V. C Samuel's dissertation The Council of Chalcedon: Re-examined?
@@kevinseptian5020 no
@@kevinseptian5020 Farrington is a spokes mouth for the Coptic church; I’ve examined his work when I were a paper on Dioscorus. He’s openly anti Chalcedonian and believes the EO are in error.
He’s also one of the only non Egyptian Coptic priests in the world.
Dear Fathers, with the greatest respect to all of you and much gratitude for the work you have been doing for so long , please allow me to say that when we are the true Church, we don’t need to ask, even rhetorically, whether we are heretics.
ua-cam.com/video/TfQ1ZlLU43I/v-deo.htmlsi=ZvQRQw8akr7DNFca
^^^
A good reason why - there are people on the other side, priests no less, ready to pounce and assert that we are heretics.
EO's stance is OO Christology doesn't allow for energy essence distinction
In the light of this and what I am hearing , I can see no reason for us to remain separate.
Then you haven't heard enough, since Ephesus 431 anathematizes all Dyophysites. The Holy Fathers read the writings of the Chalcedonians, and still did not believe we have the same faith. Moreover, they refuted those same writings they had read, sometimes line-by-line. It's important to not only use the vague term "one nature," but to understand that the whole reason for it is that we do not accept any duality after the union. Nestorius and the Theodorean school were condemned on the basis of teaching 1 person in 2 natures after the union.
Did you read Ephesus? Cyril? Chalcedon? Leo? Or are you saying this without knowing what you are saying? Or just ecumenism?
@darthstemcell we all indeed desire union - never at the expense of Truth - but we must pray for it!
@@dioscoros Theology and history are indeed very integral parts of this discussion. But please, let's not forget the importance for us to surrender our will to the Holy Spirit which has always been the one to guide every step of the One Holy Church. There can be no pride or selfish ambition among those who dialogue, but rather a real spirit of humility and a deep desire for union. I pray the Lord grants us that kind of demeanour.
@@Miaphysite3 Slow down my friend, no need for the antagonism. I agree with you, we should all read the fathers, church history, and all important writings related to the Christological debate. Maybe encourage your brother to read it, but let's not throw stones, please.
We Online community of Oriental Orthodox reviewed this very same live stream that includes the تيتا. In the pink dress. We refuted their claims in the live chat and tried to call their fraudulent phone line but instead They hand picked their callers of ecumenist before the stream began and refused to address our claims. The comments we left on their videos highlight their hypocrisy
@jongdoe1231 I for one appreciate the work of Christine Chaillot and I thank her for her stance towards the Oriental Church which is much more respectable than others. While you may disagree with her stance, please refrain from name-calling.
thank you all fathers
Thanks for COA. It is amazing knowledge to have. Do you post the podcasts on Spotify, by any chance? Or where do you cast them?
We will indeed post the full podcast on Spotify. Stay tuned!
I am Easter Orthodox and love my Coptic brothers, i knew this from my own readings that this was just a matter of semantics. ❤☦️ are we in communion with the Coptic?
Actually there are fatal theological differencies. Tom of Leo was clearly heretical and against teachings of st Cyrill. Weird thing is that EO call both st Cyril and Leo as saints even though they had totally different christology. And st Cyril did anathemize diophysite teaching in counsil of ephesus.
We are not in communion, but many of our learned hierarchs and theologians have a deep love and appreciation for each other. There are indeed important differences in our Christological expressions. But by God's grace, if we continue to dialogue in humility and love, we can pray that we achieve unity.
I wonder if you guys would be willing to have dialogue with LCMS and other conservative (Biblical) Lutheran churches?
RC here. What you guys think about St Joseph? Virgin or Widower?
@@josephology3290 100% widower and the father of St. James (Jacob) the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem and brother of our Lord. The brothers of the Lord being ‘cousins’ is an invention of Jerome. In a church in Italy, there is an ancient icon of the flight to Egypt with shows the Theotokos on a mule with St Joseph the betrothed and with them, a young boy, which is a depiction of St. James (Jacob).
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 100% virgin father of Jesus only. We had a debate recently and you can see the debate review also at Josephology channel. One of the 3 opponents was representing the Orthodox position. But it’s a later tradition that started with the Protoevangelium and not found in Scripture or Tradition or ancient icons.
@@josephology3290 the virgin tradition and the young man Joseph tradition are both from later on. The former starts with Jerome who came up with it on his own and the latter starts with the counter reformation. Neither Scripture nor anyone else attests to these. The protovangelium has embellishments but the core of it is based on fact - the Marian feasts of the entry to the temple and the birth of the Theotokos are both based on the Protoevangelium which is the earliest testament to those events. The most recent scholarship on the Protoevangelium shows that the central narrative originates in the first century.
Also, up until the renaissance, the western/Roman iconography depicted Joseph as an older man in line with the depictions in the East. From the counter reformation onwards the Roman depictions Benjamin Buttoned him and made him look younger with thick dark beards. However, some things are hard to cover up. Even now, the solo young man Joseph depictions have him holding a staff that shows buds sprouting - a hold over from the earlier beliefs in the narrative of the Protoevangelium.
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 thanks but did you go watch the recent “The Great St Joseph Debate”? You can view on either Josephology, East2West Theology, or Standing for Truth. It was Protestant vs Catholic vs Orthodox. Many arguments were given from each side to the proposition “Joseph begot no children.” The debaters and the moderator were very cordial and professional and well-researched.
To your above points thank you and permit me to push back with the Catholic position: 1) Scripture does not say Joseph begot children nor that he was 80 when he married Mary; rather, Luke says he was a “man” (aner) not an “old man” (presbytes) as he does for Zachariah in that same passage of Luke 1:18-27. 2) the 3 most ancient icons in the world of St Joseph do not depict him with grey hair but with brown as a normal aged man in his prime. It was not until the 7th century that the first icon of Joseph as an elderly man with grey hair popped up in Egypt. 3) the majority of church fathers, from both east and west, explicitly or implicitly tell us that both Mary and Joseph remained as virgins. Eg, Sts Athanasius, Gregory Nanzianzen, Augustine, Jerome, etc. 4) yes the Proto has some good stuff in it but also some errors such as Joseph being an elderly widower, a midwife, and hymen checking. Those are not Biblical. It was an apologetic to defend Mary’s virginity against heretics (Ebionites and Antimarianites) and was a creative way to try to answer the “brethren of the Lord” - but you don’t need to sacrifice Joseph’s virginity to “protect” Mary’s virginity. Joseph, like Jesus, remained a “eunuch for the sake of the kingdom” and the New Uzzah to protect Mary the New Ark. Yes the Proto was of around 150 AD, but the Gospel of Luke was from before that. 5) logically, God wanted both Joseph and Mary to look as normal and ordinary as possible to protect them from Satan who was awaiting a virgin who would give birth to the Messiah. Their ordinariness was their “cloak” to fly under the radar of those who would do them harm. St Ignatius and St Justin Martyr speak to this. And the townspeople said isn’t this THE son not A son of Joseph the carpenter? And God wanted a man in his prime to protect Jesus and St Mary and be able to walk some 3000 miles to Egypt and back. And to provide a home for them as a carpenter which was hard work for a man fit in his prime. Joseph’s greatest strength was his virtue of purity or charity, not his senility. It would have looked extremely abnormal to the people if Joseph were 80 and St Mary 15 as a married couple. They would have asked questions. 6) there are only like 3 or 4 early church fathers who say Joseph was an elderly widower but they were simply misguided by the Proto on the widower apologetic invention. St Epiphanius for example in his Panerion written against heretics says Joseph was 40 when he married an unnamed 1st wife and had 6 kids and then he was 80 when he married St Mary as his 2nd wife. Epiphanius gives different names and birth orders than does the other apocraphal book The History of the Carpenter which also does not give the name of his alleged 1st wife and also says that Joseph and St Mary had relations and produced Jesus. So that book is heretical (Ebionite). The other later apocryphal books were a rehash of the Proto like the Pseudo Gospel of Matthew with additional embellishments as the Proto had to “go under ground” and get renamed to “hide” it because it was not just rejected but even condemned by the Patriarchs of Rome and some eastern church fathers. Yes the Proto has some valid and true history too in it but they got it from us, we didn’t get it from them. We knew Mary was a virgin as attested in Scripture and her parents names already from Tradition etc. Origin says of the Proto that “some say” Joseph had children by a previous wife but note well that he does not say “we say”. Some will claim St Ephrem the Syrian said Joseph was a non-virgin / widower but I’ve never seen them produce a quote from St Ephrem that says that.
Thanks for the opportunity to push back some and show you the other more ancient tradition about Holy Joseph the virgin husband of Mary and virgin father of Jesus.
God bless you to all Amen ⛪🕯️🙏
In 451 A.D Marcian (Marcianus) and Leo the Archbishop tried to teach in concealment the heresy of Nestorius, which created conflict, and divided the Church into two for the first time.
✞Six hundred and thirty six bishops who were present at the council [Chalcedon] fearing torture and death signed on an edict of heresy and they as a result were called “Melkites” (those who serve the Emperor rather than God). And the council was called “A Council of Dogs” and “A Council of Fools”. [As they have signed on and revived a heresy that was anathematized during the time of St. Cyril.].these priests then formed the Catholic church (Eastern +western ).
✞Nevertheless, St. Dioscorus (Dioscoros) not only said, “I will not sign on this heresy” but he also excommunicated the heretics. And because of this, they exiled him with his 7 disciples to the Island of Gangra (Gagra). And he stayed there for 3 years and departed in 454 A.D.
✞St. Dioscorus, before he passed away, in the Island of Gangra where he was exiled endured many trials from the heretics for 3 years. However, through his patience and teachings he brought back many to faith.
✞The Church calls him “Father of Miaphysis (Tewahedo)” (Father of the Tewahedo Faith and its combatant). His beard that was pulled out, his teeth that were knocked out and his blood that was shed are to this day witnesses and fruits of faith. As it is says,
“To encouraged his disciples that were extant
His beard that was pulled out and his teeth that fell out
As fruits of his faith, to a far place, he sent”
The issue is Chalcedon straight up teaches heresy. The Neo-Chalcedonians are in sin for confessing it even though they disagree with its theology.
Ämen 🙏
Yes; the Ecumenical Councils don't lie
We get into trouble when we move beyond revelation and try to wrap our minds around God. This is a dispute about philosophical language and not about our faith. Jesus, one person from the moment of conception, fully human and fully divine, in a manner that is beyond us as mere men from understanding. Glorify Him!
You assume philosophy is separated from revelation.
The one who proved the incarnation of our Lord Jesus as the word of God has come in flesh
The one of utmost zenith
Famous patriarch Mor Kyrilos of Alexandria
Syrian orthodox church remember in 5th dyptich
@@noblemottythomas7664 Pillar of the faith, seal of the fathers, St, Kyrillos pray for us 🙏
I think we should look at the bigger picture and think about how the Church works in solving such disagreements, that is not just "submit to my one true opinion", because lets face it all 3 big old churches (Rome, EO, Alexandria) have good arguments for their positions and we are stuck and they all think that their view is the correct views (there are many more disagreements than just this one issue, they are just mostly under the radar). What is the point of ecumenical councils when the debunked churches just go their own way and whats the point of having the "Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth", when we just split every time a new heresy spawns?
You bring up interesting points for discussion. But what you then say is the solution? I personally think a real and honest deep dive into the history and the theology can help. Good and honest people around "the table" will also help. But what else do you think? (Genuinely curious here)
@@franthonymourad5870 The end game surely would be an ecumenical council where all Patriarchs fully commit to and just let the Holy Spirit do his work. But to get there I think the Bishops needs to contemplate the power of ecumenical councils. I follow the news about all 3 churches and it looks to me the bishops everywhere have spiritual problems, like how they can't get together in the EO right now, not only about Ukraine, but they just can't manage to make councils together anymore. In Rome (my Church) bishops totally derailed with that Vatican 2 craziness. OO struggle with Islam makes Jesus look weak compered to Muhammad and the conflict in the Ethiopian Church is not nice either. Idk what is going on in the Churches right now its crazy.
Dear Fathers, thank you very much for this talk! I'm a Serbian Orthodox, I visited Egypt recently, and I was completely amazed with the life of your Church, and with your theology. I read your theological explanations (F. Theodore Malaty and others) and I realized: you are not heretics at all! This is also obvoius from the fact that you haven't fallen in any additional (later, new) heresy, unlike Roman Catholics who keep falling deeper and deeper.
I felt our spiritual unity very much. I'm in favor of leaving ridiculous (and heretical) ecumenical dialogue with completely confused western Christians who have less and less traces of original genuine Christianity: we should achieve unity among the Eastern Orthodox Churches and abandon futile talks and heretical prayers with the people that now don't know which sex they are, let alone any true theological issue.
However, there are some current very serious problems: Patriarchate of Constantinople is directed by USA (and some other western states) to destroy the unity of the Orthodox, while procuring a complete unity of Greek Churches with the heresy of Roman Catholicism. The other grave issue is the ecclesiological and theological position of the Armenian Church: recently they entered a full eucharistic union with the Catholics, and several modern Armenian theologians openly advocate the heresy of aphtharodocetism (Julian of Halicarnassus & co.). However, I hope these obstacles are not insurmountable, if there is genuine will!
All the best to all of you!
You are falling to the snake Adam spoke to. Today we had a very dynamic debate with these heretics on our Eastern Orthodox channel and I brotherly advise you to go there and make sure you understand the video Fr. Mikhail prepared. Channel is called Living Orthodox and video title is Are the Oriental “orthodox” Heretics? Once more - care of the puddle you are drinking from.
@@johnnyd2383 you follow Mikhail? You must be one of those ecumenist, sergianist, heretical ROCOR-MP world Orthodox
@@AN-ym5sd that’s not true. The Armenian church is not in communion with Rome. You may be talking about the Armenian Catholics a Uniate body that is under Rome’s umbrella group of ‘Eastern Catholics’. The Armenians rejected Julian a long time ago and are in one mind and spirit with the rest of our Church.
Please stop with this nonsense about the Ecumenical Patriarchate wanting to create a papacy in the Church, it’s ridiculous.
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 Hello, "Jacob Baraddeus", thank you for your answer!
My remark about the full communion of the Armenian (non-Uniate) Church and Roman Catholics stems from my personal contact with the NON-Uniate Armenians that I met (and later kept correspondence with) in Venice in the Uniate (!) monastery, in 2008. We talked a lot about church issues, and I was surprised to hear from them that they not only attended Roman Catholic colleges and universities (which is something that Eastern Orthodox ecumenists tend to do), but also fully participate in all their rituals. They told me that everybody understood the (then) recent agreements between Armenian Church and the Latins (1996/2001) to mean full communion.
After your reply, I checked the agreements and official positions of the two communities (which I hadn't done ever before), and it turns out that their official position is NOT of full (inter)communion. Obviously, the local interpretations (I don't know how widespread) differ from the official stance. However, I cannot blame anyone, as today we Eastern Christians have a traitor in our midst, who wreaks havoc in our Orthodoxy, while praying and maintaining best relations with the Latins (the NATO-Bartholomew).
However, the problem with aphthartodocetism seems to be much more serious. The Armenian Church anathematized Severus of Antioch at its Second Dvin Council (554) because of his teaching of the corruptibility of Christ's body, while their Manzikert Council (726) condemned explicitly his teaching although not himself (in the 6th anathema). This is clearly stated by Fr. Oleg Davydenkov (PhD, professor at St. Tikhon Orthodox University, an expert on Armenian Church, "Aphthartodocetism: Christology and Anthropology" [Афтартодокетизм: Христология и антропология], 1999 yearly conference of STOU), and confirms the findings of prof. Ye. I. Troitsky (PhD, Exposition of Faith of the Armenian Church [Изложение веры Церкви Армянской], St. Petersburg, 1875). A recent Armenian theologian Hieromonk Ghevond Hovhannisyan (Gevond Oganesyan) has a slightly different interpretation, while still firmly refuting Severus' teaching (monography Reflections on the theme of Chalcedon [Размышления на тему Халкидона] Jerusalem: Noah, 2009; also available online in Russian).
I can see there is some confusion regarding the term "corruptibility" (having two senses: 1. ability to suffer; 2. liability to decay).
In any case, it's evident that you, guys (Oriental Orthodox), will first have to clear up things among yourselves - is Severus' teaching right, and is he a saint. There is also a distinct question of Severus’ "fierce iconoclasm".
As we ourselves (Eastern Orthodox) first will have to eradicate the (neo)papism of Constantinople, to be able to talk to your community.
I'm just a Serbian Orthodox layman, but I'd like to ask you, if you are a Coptic/Armenian priest or theologian?
All the best!
Alen
If Christ two natures are united in undividable as you say, forgive any mis characterization, how do you look at his divinity, harrowing Hades, while his body, his humanity was in the tomb?
Death is not defined by divinity leaving the body. It is defined by the soul leaving the body. Christ's human soul left His human body at death. The divinity remained with both the body (it did not decay) and the divinity remained with the soul (having authority to harrow Hades).
@@MinaDKSBMSB I don’t think we believe that His body couldn’t decay - that’s what Julian of Halicarnassus and for a time, the Armenians, believed.
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 In Acts 2:31 St. Peter states "nor did His flesh see corruption". The Greek word for corruption is diaphthora which means decay, destruction, or corruption. I believe there is certainly a heretical understanding in Julianism but also an Orthodox understanding in St. Cyril and St. Severus in maintaining the consubstantial nature of the humanity of Christ.
It is not just semantics. The Christology is different.
Yes. Non chalcedonians follow the fathers while chalcedonians follow Leo and Nestor.
Anyways, for me it looks like it was all political and a show of dominancy one church over the other church back then in the 5th century for the excommunication between Chalcedonian and none Chalcedonians. Unfortunately, instead of resolving the issue and becoming one, still right now, that kind of mentality is going on among these ancient old churches. Lord have mercy!!
Indeed there were political and power struggles at play, but there were also some very serious theological considerations that the Holy Fathers felt the need to defend. Clearly, selfish ambition and human pride were the culprits, they always are in the end. But let's pray for a union where everyone involved desires only the pursuit of truth and the heart of God.
How much of the wrong attitude of the Chalcedoninan is simply an imperial complex left over from the days where whatever they dictated goes without dialogue because to disagree with the "church" was to be a traitor to the state?
If you read the letters of Leo I, you will find the one who gave birth to this wickedness.
@@MinaDKSBMSB I agree. I'm just wondering about the attitudes today.
@@tonyb408 This. This. This. Both the cradle and convert chalcedonians are hung up on their loss of empire and are sore about it. We didn’t bring their empire down, their empire’s rulers did things evil in God’s sight and they brought themselves down.
When the Arabs invaded Egypt, did the Copts view the Muslims as saviors because of this difference? because I once saw a muslim say this@@jacobbaradaeus6250
I might be mistaken but Miaphysis literally translates as one composite nature? Then as ST Cyril said of the incarnate logos to make sure that is a full union without mingling, separation. If that is the case Copts should start using the correct translation to make it clear.
I was told that believing that when our Lord cried to the Father, asking of why He was forsaken on the cross…asides from the psalms - it was a cry from Jesus to be reunited with His Father after his mission was complete. Someone said this belief is heretical. Why????
I learned this and believe it as taught by Sam Shamoun. The person trying to correct my belief says it is of notorious.
In the Orthodox (commonly referred to as Oriental Orthodox) belief, our Lord states this phrase for many reasons. One is to bring to mind psalm 22 which starts with "My God My God...."I'm that psalm we see many things being fulfilled by the crucifixion. Not only that but there is a turning point in the psalm that states "You have answered Me" and "I will declare Your Name to the bretheren". These are prophecies of the resurrection (God the Father raised Him from the dead, and the Lord proclaimed the good news to the brethren). So what is being reunited? It is our humanity that cries out in Christ. He is the Mediator and our mouth piece. As both God and man in one He represents us, does everything for us, says everything for us, teaches us how to exist in Him, rehabilitated our nature, etc. The Logos Incarnate says My God My God for us. He sanctifies us in Himself and reunites us with God because He is Emmanuel our God, the Son of God who calls us His brethren.
@@MinaDKSBMSB thanks. But didn’t Jesus also want to reunited with His Father. In His humanity, coming into the world - was there not a shift in, at least His physical location/resting. I believe He was telling Nicodemus that He comes from heaven rather than is (at that point) in heaven. The distinct second person of the Godhead, manifested as human, and so because of this wasn’t there some divide that caused His soul to cry out for the two persons to be reunited?
@@MinaDKSBMSB the fall out between the ancient churches is “of” and “in”. For me, the Eastern church makes more sense in that two natures in one person. Unique and equal persons. 100% both though different - divine doesn’t feel human pain - human still prays to the Father and cries out to Him in distress.
@@SandraJMEven if the Eastern church makes more sense to you, it still contradicts St Cyril and Ephesus. Them, saying 2 or any nature of “duality” is condemned and therefore by definition, Chalcedon falls under that condemnation.
> **But since your excellency is inquiring whether it is proper to speak of two natures in Christ or not**, I thought I ought to speak on this matter…
> Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of his Incarnation we see that his two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for his flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though he made the flesh his own according to the dispensation. Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm thejoining into a unity by saying that **he was of two natures, but after the union we do not separate the natures from one another**, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, **and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word made flesh**.
`St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Succensus`
> “We confess that he is the Son of God and God in the Spirit, and man in the flesh. **We do not confess that this single Son is two natures, one to be worshiped and one not to be worshiped. **__He is rather one incarnate nature of the Word__****
***St. Athanasius of Alexandria, quoted by St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens, Eighth Anathema , page 162***
@@Miaphysite3 I don’t know about St Cyril. Why does it matter? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church follow him. I found him especially judgemental to the point of taking on Gods role.
St Dioscorus the Great would be very sad by you guys. Judge them by their fruits. Our popes being too friendly with protestants Catholics or even Eastern Orthodox it's very saddening.
I have a question How come some oriental orthodox churches are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and some actually participate in the roman Catholic mass to resive the Eucharist and ive seen that those same Oriental Orthodox churches that are in communion with the Catholic Church also share roman Catholic devotions like the immaculate heart of Mary or the assumption of mary into heaven which is a roman Catholic doctrine and why do the Oriental Orthodox also have a pope
Return to the one Holy catholic Apostolic Church of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical council's decision
Thank you for your comment. I believe that's what the Oriental have done with Ephesus. In remaining faithful to the first three councils, and more specifically to Ephesus and the 12 anathemas of Cyril, we felt a real discomfort and could not reconcile what was happening in Chalcedon to what we recieved from the Holy Fathers. Can I recommend that you compare the acts of Ephesus to those of Chalcedon and see for yourself? I think you'd immediately see our perspective.
@@vasiliossmith2616 do you know how pompous you lot sound with declarative statements like this?
What religion are you??
Coptic Orthodox Christians
Funny how screwed up we are as Orthodox ... considering others as "heretics".
The very word "Orthodox" implies there is heresy.
@@BarRafiSimonOnly Jesus knows who is heretic
@@dimitrisiliadis4939 Then the ecumenical councils were a fool's errand. An exercise in futility. Please read the 3 ecumenical councils. If you don't have heresy, you don't have Orthodoxy.
@@BarRafiSimon look at the heresy in your heart. Don't become an Orthodox Pharisees
If Christ have only one will, how He can want to eat, and sleep? Does God want to eat?
Or how Christ could pray to Father if He has only the will of God?
Can any Oriental answer this?
@@miuitest5272 Can you tell me how your stomach gets depressed or your soul can eat? If you can’t, then why do you call our human will “one” when clearly there are different faculties of will in this one human being?
We call the will of Christ, one out of two, one theandric will, as Dionysius the Areopagite says, and human willing is a good analogy to help understand we do not deny the integrity of all the properties of humanity and divinity.
I take issue with your use of two wills and connecting that to praying to the Father. No! Praying to the Father does not prove a human will, it proves a communion and communication between Father and Son that extends to all humanity because of then incarnation. Your use of prayer is dangerous and leads to Nestorianism. Furthermore, we say God ate, slept, was born of the Virgin, and died and rose from the dead. To deny God ate is once again Nestorian thinking. If you deny God ate, you logically deny Mary being the birth-giver of God
here's St. Gregory the Theologian:
"For His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing it is altogether taken into God; but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Your Will prevail. For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, or that He would oppose will to will. But since, as this is the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down), and not of the Nature which He assumed, we must meet the objection in this way, that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own, besides that of the Father, but that He has not; so that the meaning would be, "not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and You; for as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will." - St. Gregory the Theologian (Oration 30)
@@minasoliman there several problems with one will, which are solved with halkidon. First is that God is immutable. So how will of God capable to obtain some new properties, such as will of food? If you want, our will also have dual source, spirit and body. But will is the property of nature, we have only one nature - human nature, despite we are image of Gods, but only by grace, not by nature. So we have only one will from dual source, but Christ as God have will of Trinity and as human
Second issue is that Christ because of human nature didn't want to die. So how He prayed about other outcome despite Gods will was to die on the Cross? How is it possible that God's will confront itself?
@@MinaDKSBMSB Son as God share one will with Father and with Holy Spirit. But how Chist didnt want to die then? He did not opposed Father will, but also wants another outcome if possible. If there is only one will, we have a contradiction.
@@miuitest5272 so St. Gregory, St Basil, St. Dionysus the Areopagite are accepting a contradiction? The Lord opposing will to will has sin? Read St. Gregory’s words carefully. Also, we need to understand that Christ didn’t need to incarnate, to grow in wisdom and stature, to die on the cross, to rise from the dead, to ascend into heaven. We needed it done. Christ does everything for us, on our behalf, to rehabilitate our nature, to represent us, to teach us. When He says “let this cup pass” He indeed feels all the humanity that comes with it, but He does it to teach our nature what to do. When He says “Not My will but Yours” He is showing our nature what to do in this time of great tribulation. And there is a difference between defining will as desire vs defining will as the realized action of the person. For example, if you are running a marathon, you have the will to finish the race. While you are running, your body wants a different will to be actuated which is the will to stop and rest your muscles. However, you only have one actuated will which is the will to finish the race. Christ teaches our nature how to finish the race.
Miaphysitism is a mispronunciation of the word monophysitism, that is, belief in one nature after union. And yes, this is heresy.
Lol, genius. 😂
open a dictionary of the Greek language and provide linguistic evidence if you are not lying.
There you will find the words monotheism or monarchy, but there are no words miarchy or miatheism. I'm waiting for an answer
@@ivanipatov6559 A modern coinage from Byzantine Greek μία (mía, “one”) + φύσις (phúsis, “nature, substance”) + -ite; see Miaphysitism for more. (theology) Of or pertaining to Miaphysitism; maintaining that Christ has a single, though composite, nature.
From Byzantine Greek μονοφυσιτισμός (monophusitismós), from μόνος (mónos, “only one”) + φύσις (phúsis, “nature”) + -ισμός (-ismós, “-ism”), hence “belief in a single nature”.
--μία (mía, “one”)
--μόνος (mónos, “only one”)
Also, since religions (if monotheistic) or kings assert “only one” “singularity” and not “compositeness” why would they say “mia” at all?
“Mia physis ton theon logon”
(One nature of God the Word) after the UNION
-St Cyril of Alexandria.
And yes, people who reject this are in heresy
@@epchoisnainan1110 st Cyrill confess Logos in flesh mia physis sesarkoneni. Not just mia phisis (one nature)