Shalom my name Harry and I’m a Messianic Jew and I’ve been contemplating on joining Oriental Orthodoxy since July of this year. Pray for me brethren that The Blessed Holy Trinity guide me in both Spirit and in Truth.
@@marcokite I have and although I have many friends who are EO, I can’t consciously accept the 4th Council of Chalcedon after much prayer and intense biblical study.
God bless you the Oriental Orthodox Church is truly the bride of Christ. I recommend attending liturgies. The Coptic liturgy of St Gregory is very mystical and touching.
As a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I say you are blessed no matter which you choose. I suggest that you read the book "Surprised by Christ" by Fr. James Bernstein, a Jewish man who became an Orthodox priest,
God bless you too my brother and may He reward you also for your efforts and your labor of which the fruits I adore and admire. Blessed fast of Saint Mary 🙏😊❤
Thank you for this amazing video. I have seen so many videos from the Easter orthodox side, but very little from Oriental orthodox. I really liked your simple explanation.
Was going to a EO church. Been a christian for a little year. But woah studying the councils really made me consider the orientals. Please pray for me everyone♥️🙏
Eastern Orthodox here. I converted when I was 22 and I'm 55 now. You will be at home in both Orthodox families. I used to go to Bible study at the Coptic Church down the street and the Coptics are so nice.
Mate in the fourth anethema it says (paraphrasing) whoever divides the actions between two PERSONS or HYPOSTASES, let them be anathema. It doesn’t say divides the actions between two NATURES. Persons do things, not natures. Natures give the potential to do things, that ls what leo means by actions according to different natures. The human nature gave Christ human potential energies such as dying, being born, pooping. You’re also baselessly asserting that two natures can’t share a hypostasis, because human nature and divine nature are both instatiated by a “person”, surely that person can be the same. Great video by the way
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are clearly Chalcedonian as well as all the Cappadocian Fathers constantly referencing 2 Willis 2 natures 2 operations. Gregory’s 2 letter to cledonius for example. And within his 5 theological Orations.
they want to make it a simple decision because they think their interpretations are the only way to interpret things like Tome of Leo and Cyrils letters etc.
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are no where near the thought of Chalcedonian in two natures formula. He repeatedly uses the word miaphysis in both letters, and even defends attacks specifically directed at miaphysitism. Miaphysitism has always recognized analytical observation of the two natures in thought alone, but Chalcedonianism concretely divides the two natures. There is a big difference.
i actually agree with Miaphysitism more than Diaphysitism bc it makes more sense and im Eastern Orthodox. but i have an issue with Oriental Orthodox because u guys broke away from the fullness of the church. i hold to the 7 ecumenical councils which i believe is the completion to the doctrinal issues being refuted and all we need as authoritative minus the extra councils in the Catholic Church. another thing is Eastern Orthodox feels more universal than Oriental Orthodox. i love Coptic and Ethiopian churches the most in OO but i dnt see u guys as a universal church. I believe both OO and EO are the true church but needs to come in unity. we would be a much stronger church if we were one again. i love both traditions but i prefer EO bc it feels like the fullness of the church so i wont be leaving it even tho i agree with Miaphysitism. but anyways i still see u guys and brethren. and i believe God can still save those who genuinely seek to be obedient to him outside of his church because hes not bound to the church or sacraments. i love Orientals as much as i love EO and Catholics.
Interesting. I see OO more universal especially in Africa. Greek Orthodox (Africa is canonically under Alexandria) seems only for Greeks. They poorly evangelize and their parishes are located in awkward places. Meanwhile the Coptic Orthodox church here is the most well known Orthodox church
@@jdavid121 from what ik is St Cyril taught miaphysitism and the council of Ephesus was a miaphysite council. Pope Leo held to Dyophysitism and he wanted to use that term so that people didn’t confuse miaphysitism for monophysitism. what i dnt understand is that both mia and dyo sounds the same with different language. both St Cyril and Pope Leo are venerated as saints in the EO church so i dnt understand why we cannot unite with OO. i dnt see the OO as heretics bc they hold to St Cyrils view of the natures of Christ which i agree with. but i also agree with Pope Leos view too. i will never condemn the OO plus my gf is Ethiopian and i plan to marry her soon. i love both churches and consider them both Orthodox. but my opinion doesn’t matter. but i pray for us to become one church again someday.
Anathema 4 of Ephesus has a very specific wording that could make it compatible with Chalcedon: “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, THOUGHT OF SEPARATELY FROM THE WORD OF GOD (emphasis), and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” Chalcedonians would say that, even though they may ascribe certain of Christ’s actions as flowing more from one of his natures than another, that no action is SEPARATED from his divine nature (or vice versa). It’s because they view Christ’s natures as intimately bound together, yet clearly distinct (in contrast to non-Chalcedonians).
this is from a forum: My question seems to be along the line of why the separative language of the Tome of Leo is deemed heretical, when you can separate the actions - not viewing each nature as separate, individual actors - but as referring to the properties of each nature alone, And doesn't the mere fact that we are referring to two natures already signify that there are, in fact, two natures in Christ? When I read the Tome of Leo, I understand how it can be understood in a heretical way. The most famous (infamous) line from the Tome seems to be the following: "The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man." I can see how this can be problematic: this can be viewed in such a way that each nature is kind of "stuck in" Jesus, separate from one another, with each nature performing separate actions individually, as if the Person was not the one who was performing the actions, but rather the Natures were, which leads to an inevitable conclusion of Nestorianism. If this was the only way the Tome could be interpreted - then yes. Chalcedon should be discarded, it's against what Saint Cyril himself preached. However, I question whether this is the only end all be all interpretation of the Tome, not only in light of how the Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians view the Tome, but even how Pope Leo himself views the Tome. We have several of his sermons, and one of these Sermons - Sermon 54 - Pope Leo actually quotes the Tome. He says: "But because the design of that mystery which was ordained for our restoration before the eternal ages, was not to be carried out without human weakness and without Divine power , both form does that which is proper to it in common with the other, the Word, that is, performing that which is the Word's and the flesh that which is of the flesh. One of them gleams bright with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. The one departs not from equality with the Father's glory, the other leaves not the nature of our race." However, IMMEDIATELY before he even says this, he says the following: "In all things, therefore, dearly-beloved, which pertain to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith maintains and demands that we acknowledge the two Natures to have met in our Redeemer, and while their properties remained, such a union of both Natures to have been effected that, from the time when, as the cause of mankind required, in the blessed Virgin's womb, the Word became flesh, we may not think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as man without that which is God. Each Nature does indeed express its real existence by actions that distinguish it, but neither separates itself from connection with the other. Nothing is wanting there on either side; in the majesty the humility is complete, in the humility the majesty is complete: and the unity does not introduce confusion, nor does the distinctiveness destroy the unity. The one is passible, the other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the glory. He is present at once in weakness and in power; at once capable of death and the vanquisher of it. Therefore, God took on Him whole Manhood, and so blended the two Natures together by means of His mercy and power, that each Nature was present in the other, and neither passed out of its own properties into the other."
I am EO and one if my favorite books is McGuckin's St Cyril and the Christological Controversy. Made me a fan boy of Cyril. What book would you suggest that treats the historical context as well as the content of Chalcedon in a similar fashion from an OO perspective?
Recently I learned that the difference between EO and OO: EO Dyophisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and two wills. OO Miaphisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and one will. Note that EO said His two natures became one in composition but has two wills. How could once He became one, and has two wills? It does not make sense. Whereas, with OO, once His two natures became one in composition, He has one will. That makes sense.
Got to get a better conclusion to the videos and sum it up, every time it ends I think UA-cam fucked up and there is more of the video. I'm EO but the content is great, just need to wrap it up correctly
This issue seems more of a political issue than a deep theological rift between us E.O. and the Orientals. I have had great interactions with Coptics and have been praying for the safety of these people for many years. Good people in my opinion.
Just found out i'm 16% Armenian/possibly Georgian. Had no idea. Thinking about joining an Armenian Apostilic Church. Was already dead-set on Orthodoxy anyways.
It is extremely dangerous to base off a conversion based on an apparition. If such were the rule by which we determine which is true and which is not, why not go Roman Catholic or even some weird protestant sect? Keep a spiritual soberness in discerning such an important matter especially as an EO catechumen. You have a priest and a community, ask them your concerns!
By what means can you justify the apparition is “accepted in the Orthodox Church” and is true? If you believe in it that’s another discussion. But you can not say the apparition of Zeitun is part of the (Eastern) Orthodox phronema, or our spirituality, if it were, it would be in our Synaxarion, it is not.
And neither have our Saints commented on it nor encouraged devotion to an apparition outside the Church. So saying it is “accepted” in our Church is just not true.
@@ericli8413 How stupid and ridiculous are you? The apparition if Zeitoun was not "a private Vision or revelation" BUT AN OFFICIAL APPEARANCE AND WAS WITNESSED BY THOUSENDS OF PEOPLE: ORTHODOX, ORIENTAL, CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS, MUSLIMS, JEWS, ATHEISTS....numerous healings and miracles gave appeared.
This is all due to misunderstanding some philosophical concepts and making word concept fallacies. Those are arguments have been refuted for centuries.
So ur logic in short “ the church has explanations for this but it’s confusing therefore we are right” exactly like a Muslim on the trinity you argue, no wonder you have so many similarities since you signed with the Islamic empire instead of the Byzantine empire traitors, no wonder ur so similar.
Interesting that all the Orientals grew in population because of the Islamic empires did not want the Christian’s in Islamic lands to be united with the Roman Empire so they promoted these schismatics orthodox bishops. Exception is Ethiopia who just joined the Orientals due to proximity.
@@cervantescisneros712 when they were anathematised there were as much if not more Eastern Orthodox in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and so on but because we signed with the Byzantine empire which has fallen we weren’t favourited and they signed with the Islamic empire and it’s a fact it’s not about promotion it’s what happened
it is funny though that the orientals, like the eastern orthodox have ceased functioning in terms of their inability to convoke an ecumenical council. the orientals also failed to submit to the mind of the church on the definition of doctrine and proclamation of dogma by an ecumenical council. the church as the body of christ is living, is growing, and fulfilling its mission. just as the favor or God remained on the rightful ruler of the throne of david even when the kingdom was divided between northern israel and southern israel after the death of solomon, who is prospering? who among the churches is fulfilling prophecy of filling the earth through baptism in the name of the one true God in the blessed trinity?
Isn't it as simple as OO denying the holy spirit at work during each of the councils after chalcedon? EO claims those are ultimately governed by the holy spirit, to not fully accept them is to stray from the ultimate truth. I tend to trust the councils rather than a breakoff group. I do think OO preserve a lot of true tradition though of course.
Let say if Holy spirit worked through both 4th and 5th, why the decree of one contradict the other? le me give u one example:- 4th council Announced Ibas of Edessa and his predecessor (Three chapters) as 'Orthodox' while 5th Council denounced, and make the three chapters as 'hetetic' and condemned them. (God forbid) Does holy spirit change his mind?
4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.
Im a Lutheran il hear u out. but you mis understand what sola scriptura atually means it doesnt mean me and my bible alone, it means lets say the councils are subservant under the word of God, therefore i know Christ has 2 natures because the bible says he became man to die for our sins, i know Jesus is God because we oviously know why John chapter 1 cant be more clear than that and the old testament profoesies about the messiaih being mixed with God dwelling with his people. but anyways thats what sola scriptura is, we love church history we teach and listen to St Augustine, St thomas Aquinais our theology is largely build on him rather than Martin Luther. The lutheran reformation was to reform the western catholic church, but we got kicked out, yet the catholic church accepts all the things we screamed about in the 15th.
Answer me this question: Is the majority decision of the Church infallibly guided by God? If the answer is "no," then the entire basis for Christianity goes out the window and we might as well all be totally anarchic theologically. If the answer is yes, then Oriental Orthodoxy was refuted infallibly by an ecumenical council, and is therefore wrong.
Why did you reject the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II and call it a robber council? Actually, your chalcedonian ancestors overturned much of what happened at Ephesus II and then realized they were wrong a hundred years later at your gathering called Constantinople II. Does the church believe in contradiction? You seem to be telling us so.
@MinaDKSBMSB Because the historical circumstances make it apparent that it *was* an illegitimate council. It was never accepted by the laity or even the leadership, which is why they reconvened immediately to overturn it. No such excuse can be claimed by the Orientals at Chalcedon: it was accepted by the vast majority of bishops. Once again, if the majority decision of the church can be wrong, as Coptics claim, then all previous ecumenical councils could be wrong.
@@EpistemicAnthony actually the proof is against what you just stated. Ephesus II was ecumenically accepted, and was put into law by St. Emperor Theodosius. You only find objection in those who opposed the dogma of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I, especially those Nestorians who were rightfully deposed at the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II. What you are actually choosing to do is follow the narrative of the Nestorian Leo of Rome.
Quick correction. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the only thing that is authoritative is Scripture. It means the only infallible authority is Scripture. Magesterial Protestants still have “the church” act as a normative authority, just with the knowledge that it can be fallible.
That doesn’t really make an authority but an interpretive reflection of scripture, and by that the magisterium isn’t concrete, nor can it bind by the Spirit
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you endure the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3). Sounds like 2 Timothy 4:3 within the protestant communion, yes? That the people will break off from the sound doctrine established by Spirit seeking their opinions in others including teachers? Also, doctrine is dogma, the both are synonymous. Whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5).
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you suffer the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3). Also, whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5). They are synonymous words
I'll admit it's hard for me to refute Oriental Orthodox claims...
Why?
Shalom my name Harry and I’m a Messianic Jew and I’ve been contemplating on joining Oriental Orthodoxy since July of this year. Pray for me brethren that The Blessed Holy Trinity guide me in both Spirit and in Truth.
May the Blessed Trinity indeed guide and bless you. Look into Eastern Orthodoxy too - I KNOW it all gets involved though. ☦
@@marcokite I have and although I have many friends who are EO, I can’t consciously accept the 4th Council of Chalcedon after much prayer and intense biblical study.
Yes come to the truth Faith . Read or adudio book the fifty spiritual homilies of st macarius
God bless you the Oriental Orthodox Church is truly the bride of Christ. I recommend attending liturgies. The Coptic liturgy of St Gregory is very mystical and touching.
As a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I say you are blessed no matter which you choose. I suggest that you read the book "Surprised by Christ" by Fr. James Bernstein, a Jewish man who became an Orthodox priest,
Yaaayyy! We have one more OO apologist! God bless you brother! May God reward you for your work in showing people the truth!!! ❤🙏✝
God bless you too my brother and may He reward you also for your efforts and your labor of which the fruits I adore and admire. Blessed fast of Saint Mary 🙏😊❤
@@andrewbehery Why they cant light the holy fire at Jerusalem try and failed .Must take it from the eastern orthodox
Im a convert to the Coptic Church myself. I love this video. Gonna share with all my OO brothers. Keep up the good work
I'm glad you found your way to the true church! Thank you for sharing, I appreciate that. Will do! Many more videos on the way
May the Lord increase this service
Thank you for this amazing video. I have seen so many videos from the Easter orthodox side, but very little from Oriental orthodox. I really liked your simple explanation.
Was going to a EO church. Been a christian for a little year. But woah studying the councils really made me consider the orientals. Please pray for me everyone♥️🙏
Read oe audio book. Know god knows ur heart and put all ur hope in him . the fifty spiritual homilies of st macarius
Currently deciding between EO and OO, I go to an EO church but I’m looking into myaphysitism
Eastern Orthodox here. I converted when I was 22 and I'm 55 now. You will be at home in both Orthodox families. I used to go to Bible study at the Coptic Church down the street and the Coptics are so nice.
Mate in the fourth anethema it says (paraphrasing) whoever divides the actions between two PERSONS or HYPOSTASES, let them be anathema. It doesn’t say divides the actions between two NATURES. Persons do things, not natures. Natures give the potential to do things, that ls what leo means by actions according to different natures. The human nature gave Christ human potential energies such as dying, being born, pooping.
You’re also baselessly asserting that two natures can’t share a hypostasis, because human nature and divine nature are both instatiated by a “person”, surely that person can be the same.
Great video by the way
The term two natures in one hypostasis originates from the Nestorian Theodoret who EO call blessed. St Cyril identifies the natures as hypostases
Just found out about your channel. Love seeing your content brother. We will promote you on The Lion's Den.
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are clearly Chalcedonian as well as all the Cappadocian Fathers constantly referencing 2 Willis 2 natures 2 operations. Gregory’s 2 letter to cledonius for example. And within his 5 theological Orations.
they want to make it a simple decision because they think their interpretations are the only way to interpret things like Tome of Leo and Cyrils letters etc.
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are no where near the thought of Chalcedonian in two natures formula. He repeatedly uses the word miaphysis in both letters, and even defends attacks specifically directed at miaphysitism. Miaphysitism has always recognized analytical observation of the two natures in thought alone, but Chalcedonianism concretely divides the two natures. There is a big difference.
i actually agree with Miaphysitism more than Diaphysitism bc it makes more sense and im Eastern Orthodox. but i have an issue with Oriental Orthodox because u guys broke away from the fullness of the church. i hold to the 7 ecumenical councils which i believe is the completion to the doctrinal issues being refuted and all we need as authoritative minus the extra councils in the Catholic Church.
another thing is Eastern Orthodox feels more universal than Oriental Orthodox.
i love Coptic and Ethiopian churches the most in OO but i dnt see u guys as a universal church.
I believe both OO and EO are the true church but needs to come in unity. we would be a much stronger church if we were one again.
i love both traditions but i prefer EO bc it feels like the fullness of the church so i wont be leaving it even tho i agree with Miaphysitism.
but anyways i still see u guys and brethren. and i believe God can still save those who genuinely seek to be obedient to him outside of his church because hes not bound to the church or sacraments.
i love Orientals as much as i love EO and Catholics.
Agreed! It's only EO for me - I love the OO brothers and sisters too though. ☦
Interesting. I see OO more universal especially in Africa.
Greek Orthodox (Africa is canonically under Alexandria) seems only for Greeks. They poorly evangelize and their parishes are located in awkward places. Meanwhile the Coptic Orthodox church here is the most well known Orthodox church
EO believe in miaphysitism too, just not the miaphysitism as OO.
Watch the series on Lions Den called Defending Oriental Orthodoxy and watch at least the first 2-3 parts
@@jdavid121 from what ik is St Cyril taught miaphysitism and the council of Ephesus was a miaphysite council. Pope Leo held to Dyophysitism and he wanted to use that term so that people didn’t confuse miaphysitism for monophysitism.
what i dnt understand is that both mia and dyo sounds the same with different language. both St Cyril and Pope Leo are venerated as saints in the EO church so i dnt understand why we cannot unite with OO. i dnt see the OO as heretics bc they hold to St Cyrils view of the natures of Christ which i agree with. but i also agree with Pope Leos view too. i will never condemn the OO plus my gf is Ethiopian and i plan to marry her soon.
i love both churches and consider them both Orthodox.
but my opinion doesn’t matter. but i pray for us to become one church again someday.
Anathema 4 of Ephesus has a very specific wording that could make it compatible with Chalcedon:
“If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, THOUGHT OF SEPARATELY FROM THE WORD OF GOD (emphasis), and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.”
Chalcedonians would say that, even though they may ascribe certain of Christ’s actions as flowing more from one of his natures than another, that no action is SEPARATED from his divine nature (or vice versa). It’s because they view Christ’s natures as intimately bound together, yet clearly distinct (in contrast to non-Chalcedonians).
this is from a forum:
My question seems to be along the line of why the separative language of the Tome of Leo is deemed heretical, when you can separate the actions - not viewing each nature as separate, individual actors - but as referring to the properties of each nature alone,
And doesn't the mere fact that we are referring to two natures already signify that there are, in fact, two natures in Christ?
When I read the Tome of Leo, I understand how it can be understood in a heretical way.
The most famous (infamous) line from the Tome seems to be the following:
"The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man."
I can see how this can be problematic: this can be viewed in such a way that each nature is kind of "stuck in" Jesus, separate from one another, with each nature performing separate actions individually, as if the Person was not the one who was performing the actions, but rather the Natures were, which leads to an inevitable conclusion of Nestorianism.
If this was the only way the Tome could be interpreted - then yes. Chalcedon should be discarded, it's against what Saint Cyril himself preached.
However, I question whether this is the only end all be all interpretation of the Tome, not only in light of how the Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians view the Tome, but even how Pope Leo himself views the Tome.
We have several of his sermons, and one of these Sermons - Sermon 54 - Pope Leo actually quotes the Tome. He says:
"But because the design of that mystery which was ordained for our restoration before the eternal ages, was not to be carried out without human weakness and without Divine power , both form does that which is proper to it in common with the other, the Word, that is, performing that which is the Word's and the flesh that which is of the flesh. One of them gleams bright with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. The one departs not from equality with the Father's glory, the other leaves not the nature of our race."
However, IMMEDIATELY before he even says this, he says the following:
"In all things, therefore, dearly-beloved, which pertain to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith maintains and demands that we acknowledge the two Natures to have met in our Redeemer, and while their properties remained, such a union of both Natures to have been effected that, from the time when, as the cause of mankind required, in the blessed Virgin's womb, the Word became flesh, we may not think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as man without that which is God. Each Nature does indeed express its real existence by actions that distinguish it, but neither separates itself from connection with the other. Nothing is wanting there on either side; in the majesty the humility is complete, in the humility the majesty is complete: and the unity does not introduce confusion, nor does the distinctiveness destroy the unity. The one is passible, the other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the glory. He is present at once in weakness and in power; at once capable of death and the vanquisher of it. Therefore, God took on Him whole Manhood, and so blended the two Natures together by means of His mercy and power, that each Nature was present in the other, and neither passed out of its own properties into the other."
Based channel. Prayers from a fellow OO brother.
Council of Chalcedon denied. Holy Spirit denied. That simple
That is truuu
Wrestling between EO and OO please pray for me!
Ill pray that you come to Eastern Orthodoxy❤
@TheItalianMan88 please pray I find the truth, no matter if that is OO or EO, we must worship in spirit and truth, thank you my friend!
@@remymargaux1233 your welcome friend!
@@remymargaux1233this is the correct disposition. God bless you.
@@remymargaux1233There are no Icons, the 7th Ecumenical Synods etc....
I am EO and one if my favorite books is McGuckin's St Cyril and the Christological Controversy. Made me a fan boy of Cyril. What book would you suggest that treats the historical context as well as the content of Chalcedon in a similar fashion from an OO perspective?
''The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined''
Book by V. C. Samuel
Online Available
Recently I learned that the difference between EO and OO:
EO Dyophisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and two wills.
OO Miaphisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and one will.
Note that EO said His two natures became one in composition but has two wills. How could once He became one, and has two wills? It does not make sense. Whereas, with OO, once His two natures became one in composition, He has one will. That makes sense.
Got to get a better conclusion to the videos and sum it up, every time it ends I think UA-cam fucked up and there is more of the video. I'm EO but the content is great, just need to wrap it up correctly
God bless. From Ethiopia❤☦️
This issue seems more of a political issue than a deep theological rift between us E.O. and the Orientals. I have had great interactions with Coptics and have been praying for the safety of these people for many years. Good people in my opinion.
Just found out i'm 16% Armenian/possibly Georgian. Had no idea. Thinking about joining an Armenian Apostilic Church. Was already dead-set on Orthodoxy anyways.
Our lady of zeitoun has me very interested in OO I am an EO catechumen but please pray for me
It is extremely dangerous to base off a conversion based on an apparition. If such were the rule by which we determine which is true and which is not, why not go Roman Catholic or even some weird protestant sect? Keep a spiritual soberness in discerning such an important matter especially as an EO catechumen. You have a priest and a community, ask them your concerns!
@@ericli8413The apparition is true and also accepted in the Orthodox Church.
That does not mean that the Coptic Church is true.
By what means can you justify the apparition is “accepted in the Orthodox Church” and is true? If you believe in it that’s another discussion. But you can not say the apparition of Zeitun is part of the (Eastern) Orthodox phronema, or our spirituality, if it were, it would be in our Synaxarion, it is not.
And neither have our Saints commented on it nor encouraged devotion to an apparition outside the Church. So saying it is “accepted” in our Church is just not true.
@@ericli8413 How stupid and ridiculous are you? The apparition if Zeitoun was not "a private Vision or revelation" BUT AN OFFICIAL APPEARANCE AND WAS WITNESSED BY THOUSENDS OF PEOPLE: ORTHODOX, ORIENTAL, CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS, MUSLIMS, JEWS, ATHEISTS....numerous healings and miracles gave appeared.
This is all due to misunderstanding some philosophical concepts and making word concept fallacies. Those are arguments have been refuted for centuries.
I myself became coptic yet i tell you the only way is through christ, yet everyone has different ways and journeys to christ
So ur logic in short “ the church has explanations for this but it’s confusing therefore we are right” exactly like a Muslim on the trinity you argue, no wonder you have so many similarities since you signed with the Islamic empire instead of the Byzantine empire traitors, no wonder ur so similar.
Interesting that all the Orientals grew in population because of the Islamic empires did not want the Christian’s in Islamic lands to be united with the Roman Empire so they promoted these schismatics orthodox bishops. Exception is Ethiopia who just joined the Orientals due to proximity.
@@cervantescisneros712 when they were anathematised there were as much if not more Eastern Orthodox in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and so on but because we signed with the Byzantine empire which has fallen we weren’t favourited and they signed with the Islamic empire and it’s a fact it’s not about promotion it’s what happened
I'm Coptic Orthodox from Mexico, God bless you brother.
Continue with these videos about our Faith Oriental Orthodox☦️
You are not orthodox
@@alexpanagiotis4706 .si lo soy
@@alexpanagiotis4706 .who are you ?
Brother you contracted the cofefe virus xD
it is funny though that the orientals, like the eastern orthodox have ceased functioning in terms of their inability to convoke an ecumenical council. the orientals also failed to submit to the mind of the church on the definition of doctrine and proclamation of dogma by an ecumenical council.
the church as the body of christ is living, is growing, and fulfilling its mission. just as the favor or God remained on the rightful ruler of the throne of david even when the kingdom was divided between northern israel and southern israel after the death of solomon, who is prospering? who among the churches is fulfilling prophecy of filling the earth through baptism in the name of the one true God in the blessed trinity?
God bless
Isn't it as simple as OO denying the holy spirit at work during each of the councils after chalcedon?
EO claims those are ultimately governed by the holy spirit, to not fully accept them is to stray from the ultimate truth.
I tend to trust the councils rather than a breakoff group.
I do think OO preserve a lot of true tradition though of course.
Let say if Holy spirit worked through both 4th and 5th, why the decree of one contradict the other?
le me give u one example:-
4th council Announced Ibas of Edessa and his predecessor (Three chapters) as 'Orthodox' while 5th Council denounced, and make the three chapters as 'hetetic' and condemned them.
(God forbid) Does holy spirit change his mind?
What gave Chalcedon the rite to call the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II a “robber” council?
4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.
Is this a correct translation of Cyril's writings or is it not?
can someone explain the formula of reunion to me please?
Im a Lutheran il hear u out. but you mis understand what sola scriptura atually means it doesnt mean me and my bible alone, it means lets say the councils are subservant under the word of God, therefore i know Christ has 2 natures because the bible says he became man to die for our sins, i know Jesus is God because we oviously know why John chapter 1 cant be more clear than that and the old testament profoesies about the messiaih being mixed with God dwelling with his people. but anyways thats what sola scriptura is, we love church history we teach and listen to St Augustine, St thomas Aquinais our theology is largely build on him rather than Martin Luther. The lutheran reformation was to reform the western catholic church, but we got kicked out, yet the catholic church accepts all the things we screamed about in the 15th.
Why does your religion have gay and lesbian priests?
Answer me this question: Is the majority decision of the Church infallibly guided by God?
If the answer is "no," then the entire basis for Christianity goes out the window and we might as well all be totally anarchic theologically.
If the answer is yes, then Oriental Orthodoxy was refuted infallibly by an ecumenical council, and is therefore wrong.
Why did you reject the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II and call it a robber council? Actually, your chalcedonian ancestors overturned much of what happened at Ephesus II and then realized they were wrong a hundred years later at your gathering called Constantinople II. Does the church believe in contradiction? You seem to be telling us so.
@MinaDKSBMSB Because the historical circumstances make it apparent that it *was* an illegitimate council. It was never accepted by the laity or even the leadership, which is why they reconvened immediately to overturn it. No such excuse can be claimed by the Orientals at Chalcedon: it was accepted by the vast majority of bishops.
Once again, if the majority decision of the church can be wrong, as Coptics claim, then all previous ecumenical councils could be wrong.
@@EpistemicAnthony actually the proof is against what you just stated. Ephesus II was ecumenically accepted, and was put into law by St. Emperor Theodosius. You only find objection in those who opposed the dogma of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I, especially those Nestorians who were rightfully deposed at the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II. What you are actually choosing to do is follow the narrative of the Nestorian Leo of Rome.
You should have waited until you were fully recovered from the cold before speaking out about this. 🙄
Quick correction. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the only thing that is authoritative is Scripture. It means the only infallible authority is Scripture. Magesterial Protestants still have “the church” act as a normative authority, just with the knowledge that it can be fallible.
That doesn’t really make an authority but an interpretive reflection of scripture, and by that the magisterium isn’t concrete, nor can it bind by the Spirit
@@jdavid121 it is an authority, it also can be binding, just not infallibly. Just like how not all doctrine is infallible dogma.
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you endure the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3).
Sounds like 2 Timothy 4:3 within the protestant communion, yes? That the people will break off from the sound doctrine established by Spirit seeking their opinions in others including teachers?
Also, doctrine is dogma, the both are synonymous. Whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5).
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you suffer the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3).
Also, whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5). They are synonymous words
@@WaterMelon-Cat my comments are being deleted, do you have something I can speak to you on ?
Chlamydia? Get well soon
Love from Ethiopia
Thank you brother
easter ortodox are the true ortodox sooo...apostolic
you are making us look bad, please stop
Of course we are!
@@aurashene8422 Our church also has apostolic succession, our Pope is the legitimate successor of Saint Mark.
@@RicardoRazootbf churches can lose apostolic secession. Rome has.
@@MrTerkoizzz . Really no , The Pope Francis is the Successor of Pater
Delusional
You don't have the holy fire on pascha.
Faith is not proved by miracles
@@andrewternet8370 oh yes it is. So how's the sexual abuse scandal going on in the Coptic church?
@@chaseyung1037 idk man, never heard of it