0:00 Beginning 0:19 Prologue by Abbot George Kapsanis 2:00 Introduction Part I: Ecclesiological Presuppositions 5:30 The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church 6:01 The Church is Conscious of Her Identity Over Time 6:47 Using “Polemical” Language Part II: The Historical Witness 8:34 Union Attempts in the Past 13:24 The Agreements of 433 Expose the Non-Chalcedonians 22:03 The Witness from the Synaxaria (Lives of Saints) Part III: Dogmatic Differences 28:42 Is Severos Orthodox? 32:32 1) The Theology of Serveros is Aristotelian 37:09 2) Severos Accepts that the Human Nature of Christ Subsists as a Hypostasis 43:54 3) The Hypostatic Union According to Severos 50:59 4) Severos teaches Monoenergism 56:56 5) Severos Accepts the Heretical Teaching of Individual Essences 59:03 6) How Does Severos Conceive the Deification of Man? 1:02:22 The Theopaschite Addition to the Trisagion 1:06:10 St. Maximus the Confessor on the Phrase “In Thought Alone” 1:09:26 Iconoclasm and its Monophysite Presuppositions 1:14:00 Thoughts on the Joint Declarations of 1989 and 1990 1:17:22 Conclusions 📖 This is a reading of _The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics_ by the Monastery of Gregoriou (Mount Athos) (originally published as _The Non-Chalcedonian Heresy_ in Orthodox Life (Jordanville)). Buy here: www.ctosonline.org/ecumenism/N.html
Yes, I learnt this a long time ago and already converted from the EOTC. I used to be an Ethiopian “Orthodox” who converted to the true Orthdox faith. My first turning point was the multitude of modern saints in the Greek, Russian, Antiochan and Ukraine orthdox churches. I was like “why is there not the same kind of grace or saints in our church” and I did some digging. Here you go, monophysitm is a heresy. I was out. Glory to God that he has shown me the way ☦️ Two natures in one Person.
Orthodox brothers and sisters, pray for Metropolitan Longhin who is currently harshly persecuted and dragged through the courts in Ukraine. Watch this video : Результат сегодняшнего судебного заседания над Митрополитом Лонгиным 30.10.2024 In this health state the zelensky regime wants to throw the Metropolitan in prison for at least 12 years. Just like the people in Gaza, nobody is helping the persecuted Orthodox christians in Ukraine. Today Ukraine, tomorrow the world !
This is the monastery of the same holy abbot Geronda George Kapsanis who brought Father John Romanides of blessed memory to change his mind regarding the Monophysites. Those friends who knew Father John in the latter years of his life can testify to how blunt he became against the Monophysites.
They didn't accept Chalcedon, therefore they're not Orthodox. When we accept explanations of Church dogma but neglect to have clarified our own Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology, we give explanations that are partial at best, essentially Protestant, and convincing to no one at all.
The only union Christian’s will have will be the blood union, there is too much mistrust and name calling between Eastern Orthodox and orientals, catholic and Protestants. Lord have mercy and help to attain the salvation of our souls
We in the Oriental Orthodox are not heretics. “The Confession Priest Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath that this is the life-giving Flesh that Your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos, Saint Mary. He made It one with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. He confessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave It up for us upon the holy wood of the Cross, of His own will, for us all. Truly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment, nor a twinkling of an eye; given for us for salvation, remission of sins, and eternal life to those who partake of Him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is true. Amen.” Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St. Basil
What about the will and energy? Is Dioscorus a saint? Is Severus a saint? Do you accept ALL Ecumenical Councils? From the prayerful theology of the Orthodox Church services: ...The Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychians and Dioscorans, the Appollinarians, Sabellians and Severians, savage wolves who came clad in sheep skins, did ye, as true pastors, drive far away from the flock of the Savior, stripping the thrice-wretched ones in particular of their sheep’s clothing. Wherefore, we call you blessed. .. ...The pious council of the fathers, which once assembled against Eutyches, truly preached the Savior in two inseparable natures, manifestly walking and abiding according to the doctrine of the godly father Cyril. The six hundred and thirty pious men, having cast down the deception of Eutyches and the heresy of Severus, attained unto this hymn: We preach Christ in two natures, walking according to the pronouncement of the blessed Cyril. Let him that doth not confess Christ, the Word of the Father, to be in two natures and activities, fall under our anathema! For the Fourth Council of the holy fathers unanimously preached thus. Let us all, therefore, call them blessed.... Those who have foolishly inclined towards the words of Severus, which are full of dreadful poison, are ever put to shame, cut off from the Church like predatory wolves and dogs. O ye faithful who join chorus together, we honor the Savior and Creator of all in two indivisible natures, two wills and activities. Wherefore, we utterly reject the deception of Severus. Come ye, and let us openly spurn the deception of the pernicious Severus and Jacob, and with them Theodosius and Dioscorus; but let us praise the Fourth Council of the pious fathers with divine hymns. Odes at the Matins Canon for the Feast day of the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council There is more...
See, I read the whole "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" bit, and it just reads to me as though Christ's Divinity and humanity are inseperable, yet retain their unique characteristics. Christ is not a demigod, a unique third nature, but rather fully Man and fully God, two natures in one person (hypostasis) - or as the Copts would put it, fully Man and fully God in one nature (physis). Both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian confessions say that, at least in English, so I genuinely don't see where the heresy lies. There's clearly something I'm missing. The fathers of the day were well learned, had plenty of interpreters and I'm sure some even spoke/read/wrote all the necessary languages themselves. There surely must be more to this than "saying the same thing with different words" for a schism to last ~1700 years.
It seems as though the “in thought alone” controversy is truly the lynchpin of this whole thing. The Cappadocians oft repeat the phrase made known to the mind although they also seems to retain an ontological distinction as well. The phrase continues in some of Cyril’s letters and the Chalcedonian definition as McGuckin notes in his work. I don’t think Maximus’ work that was referenced exists in English currently. Thoughts?
I believe the St. Maximus text regarding the Monophysites is not in english yet. The citations in this text for St. Maximus are from: Patrolica Graeca. Vol. XCI
1. St Cyril when condemning Nestorius for dividing the hypostases, did he use the term hypostasis or did he use physis? He used physis and concluded one incarnate physis of Christ from 2 which is dogmatically accepted in Ephesus. In Chalcedon you guys (Leo) dogmatically declare that saying of 2 physis is the same iniquity as saying in 1 in direct contradiction to the definiton of Ephesus and teaching of St Cyril. 2. The letter to John of Antioch says of 2 natures. He clarifies his letter in letters 40 and 44 where he describes the distinction in sayings from the bible to be in contemplation and subtle speculation, only and that there is one incarnate nature of Christ. 3. Nestorius did teach a communication of idioms through the one person of Christ that 2 qnome or hypostasis inside of him. The reason you guys always fail to understand Nestorius is because the terms have since been conflated where hypostasis now apparently means person. Mind you this equivocation, other than being non patristic also means the 3 prosopa of the trinity are not really distinct as prodopa actually means face used to denote a collection of names. This isn't what u guys believe but what the Modalists do, just pointing out the issue in equivocating the definitions. 4. Where did St Cyril teach 2 natures in Christ? He condemns any form of duality? 5. How does Chacledon accept St Cyril: The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret When the discussion has considered closely what elements have come together to become, or to compose, the single person and nature, or hypostasis, then it may use either of the terms, “together with” or “with,” because it has already secured what it denotes and has thereby defined it as a single composite entity rather than dividing it into a duality. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Bishops of Oriens A view rejected at Chalcedon by Leo: In response to the bishops proposing a formula of 2 natures Leo responds with 'Dioscorus said, "I accept "from two natures, but I do not accept "two'" But the most holy Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without confusion, change or separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour. So whom do you follow - the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?' Council of Chalcedon, session 5 "for the impiety of saying that the Son of God was of two natures before His incarnation is only equalled by the iniquity of asserting that there was but one nature in Him after the Word became flesh." Leo, the Tome Again direct contradiction with St Cyril: "We know perfectly well that the divine, transcendent nature cannot experience any “shadow of turning,” nor did the Word of God give up being what he is to be transformed into a fleshly nature. Since he points out that God’s form took upon himself the form of a servant, let him go on and explain whether it was just these “forms” that came together by themselves, quite apart from their hypostases. Well, I reckon that even he would shrink from saying that, for it was not mere resemblances and forms, things with no hypostasis, that conjoined together to bring about the saving union; rather, it was a convergence of the very things themselves, of two hypostases. Then we can really have faith that a genuine incarnation took place." "Now, given that we say that the flesh was genuinely united to God the Word, within whom was a rational soul, I would gladly learn of him whether he argues that the Word was genuinely united to the man, that is, to the rationally ensouled holy body; or whether he accords with others in thinking that it happened by a connection pertaining between a servant-like form without its own hypostasis and a divine form similarly without its own hypostasis; or in yet another way, by means of an ambiguity in the term “son” or by their sharing an equal dignity" - St. Cyril, Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret of Cyrus, Defense 1 > "If the union is a genuine one, then there can in no way be two; Christ is to be understood only as a single, solitary individual arising out of both - St Cyril, Defense of the Twelve Anathemas Against the Oriental Bishops 6. Find the heresy in Eutyches statement of faith at Ephesus 2. There is none. Yes he reverted back to his heresy later in life and was condemned by us as well but at Ephesus 2 he was Orthodox. 7. We went through 300 years of beheadings and imperial punishment from the Byzantine empire for rejecting Chalcedon (until the Muslims took over most of the region) they killed all of our bishops and most of the other Patriarchs had to live in exile because of this. It was imperial not logical reasons that Chalcedon was accepted by the clergy and after the council it was not received well at all. 8. Again. Where did St Cyril accept in 2 natures. He says of 2 natures in the letter to John of Antioch and he explicitly clarified the letter in letter 40 and 44 where he condemns 2 natures. 9. The miracle of St Euphemia wasn't ever mentioned in the minutes or in any document at all until around 200 years after Chalcedon. 10. Nature cannot mean essence. One incarnate essence of Christ is heresy. John of Damascus' position would mean St Cyril is a heretic. 11. John of Damascus does clarify what he means by composite hypostasis, idk where u got the idea he doesn't from. It just isn't spread because it outright teaches change in the hypostasis of the Word: For when one composite hypostasis comes to be out of two natures, the ones and the others, that is, the natural and hypostatic idioms of the divine and the human natures become constitutive of the same hypostasis. John of Damascus, De Duabus In Christo Voluntatibus, 1-2 "Before the incarnation the hypostasis of God the Word was simple and non composite and incorporeal and uncreated, but once it had been enfleshed it also became a hypostasis with regard to the flesh and became composite from the divinity that it always possessed and from the flesh which it received in addition, and bears the properties of the two natures acknowledged in the two natures, with the result that the same single hypostasis is both uncreated with respect to the divinity and created with respect to the humanity, being both visible and invisible. Otherwise we would be obliged either to divide the one Christ by saying that there are two hypostases, or to deny the difference and introduce change and confusion." John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 78 James, but standing within the bounds of piety, we affirm one composite hypostasis from both deity and humanity. For this pre-eternal hypostasis of the Word of God, having dwelled in the womb of the holy ever-virgin, established within itself a living, rational flesh, by itself determining the hypostasis in the living and rational flesh, and became one Christ from perfect deity and perfect humanity, one Son, the same of God and man, one Lord, the same, perfect God and perfect man, wholly God and wholly man, united indistinguishably, unchangeably, and inseparably by these natures. Indistinguishably indeed: for each nature preserves its own difference. John of Damascus de natura composita The reason John of Damascus confesses such obvious heresy is because Chalcedon and Leo (as I previous pointed out) make clear that the product of the incarnation is not 1 composite hypostasis of 2 hypostases. So John of Damascus resorts to confessing the Word went from simple to composite through an enhypostatic (in the hypostasis) humanity. The Word is his view went from simple to composite, went from without humanity to with humanity rather than the Orthodox belief of St Cyril that the Word united to a non self subsistent hypostasis producing 1 incarnate whole composed of 2 elements.
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it) "Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis." - St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis: The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret 12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym. 13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view. 14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times... 15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril: As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus What was this analogy used to demonstrate? They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it) "Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis." - St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis: The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret 12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym. 13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view. 14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times... 15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril: As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus What was this analogy used to demonstrate? They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it) "Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis." - St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis: The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret 12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym. 13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view. 14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times... 15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril: As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus What was this analogy used to demonstrate? They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it) "Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis." - St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis: The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret 12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym. 13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view. 14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times... 15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril: As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus What was this analogy used to demonstrate? They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
It makes a difference for all who are struggling to confess the faith and gain the mind of Christ. Also for all the Non-Chalcedonians who are open to Orthodoxy.
Some people complain when nothing is said, and then there's: it makes no difference. It does. It matters. We can't be silent on such matters. Falsehood needs to be exposed, and then people can freely choose whether to remain with the lies or rethink their position. Such statements and explanations clarified things for me personally and I am very grateful to all who share and elaborate on these matters.
0:00 Beginning
0:19 Prologue by Abbot George Kapsanis
2:00 Introduction
Part I: Ecclesiological Presuppositions
5:30 The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
6:01 The Church is Conscious of Her Identity Over Time
6:47 Using “Polemical” Language
Part II: The Historical Witness
8:34 Union Attempts in the Past
13:24 The Agreements of 433 Expose the Non-Chalcedonians
22:03 The Witness from the Synaxaria (Lives of Saints)
Part III: Dogmatic Differences
28:42 Is Severos Orthodox?
32:32 1) The Theology of Serveros is Aristotelian
37:09 2) Severos Accepts that the Human Nature of Christ Subsists as a Hypostasis
43:54 3) The Hypostatic Union According to Severos
50:59 4) Severos teaches Monoenergism
56:56 5) Severos Accepts the Heretical Teaching of Individual Essences
59:03 6) How Does Severos Conceive the Deification of Man?
1:02:22 The Theopaschite Addition to the Trisagion
1:06:10 St. Maximus the Confessor on the Phrase “In Thought Alone”
1:09:26 Iconoclasm and its Monophysite Presuppositions
1:14:00 Thoughts on the Joint Declarations of 1989 and 1990
1:17:22 Conclusions
📖 This is a reading of _The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics_ by the Monastery of Gregoriou (Mount Athos) (originally published as _The Non-Chalcedonian Heresy_ in Orthodox Life (Jordanville)). Buy here:
www.ctosonline.org/ecumenism/N.html
Christ has two natures - If Christ did not have a nature identical to ours, then His sacrifice and Resurrection means nothing for our salvation!
@@rainbowvision974 i feel like you can answer your own question by acknowledging that his human nature was not manifested before the incarnation....
Yes, I learnt this a long time ago and already converted from the EOTC. I used to be an Ethiopian “Orthodox” who converted to the true Orthdox faith. My first turning point was the multitude of modern saints in the Greek, Russian, Antiochan and Ukraine orthdox churches. I was like “why is there not the same kind of grace or saints in our church” and I did some digging. Here you go, monophysitm is a heresy. I was out. Glory to God that he has shown me the way ☦️ Two natures in one Person.
Orthodox brothers and sisters, pray for Metropolitan Longhin who is currently harshly persecuted and dragged through the courts in Ukraine. Watch this video :
Результат сегодняшнего судебного заседания над Митрополитом Лонгиным 30.10.2024
In this health state the zelensky regime wants to throw the Metropolitan in prison for at least 12 years. Just like the people in Gaza, nobody is helping the persecuted Orthodox christians in Ukraine. Today Ukraine, tomorrow the world !
Lord have mercy. May his reward be eternal and God forgive the persecutors.
Your timestamp skills are on a different level.
Thanks for all your hard work Timothy ☦️☦️☦️
This is the monastery of the same holy abbot Geronda George Kapsanis who brought Father John Romanides of blessed memory to change his mind regarding the Monophysites. Those friends who knew Father John in the latter years of his life can testify to how blunt he became against the Monophysites.
Fr. John really doesn't hold back on the monophysites in the book from Metropolitan Hierotheos.
@ Which book is that?
They didn't accept Chalcedon, therefore they're not Orthodox. When we accept explanations of Church dogma but neglect to have clarified our own Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology, we give explanations that are partial at best, essentially Protestant, and convincing to no one at all.
Thank you!
The only union Christian’s will have will be the blood union, there is too much mistrust and name calling between Eastern Orthodox and orientals, catholic and Protestants. Lord have mercy and help to attain the salvation of our souls
We in the Oriental Orthodox are not heretics.
“The Confession
Priest
Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath that this is the life-giving Flesh that Your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos, Saint Mary.
He made It one with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration.
He confessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate.
He gave It up for us upon the holy wood of the Cross, of His own will, for us all.
Truly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment, nor a twinkling of an eye;
given for us for salvation, remission of sins, and eternal life to those who partake of Him.
I believe, I believe, I believe that this is true. Amen.”
Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St. Basil
What about the will and energy? Is Dioscorus a saint? Is Severus a saint? Do you accept ALL Ecumenical Councils?
From the prayerful theology of the Orthodox Church services:
...The Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychians and Dioscorans, the Appollinarians,
Sabellians and Severians, savage wolves who came clad in sheep skins, did ye, as true
pastors, drive far away from the flock of the Savior, stripping the thrice-wretched
ones in particular of their sheep’s clothing. Wherefore, we call you blessed. ..
...The pious council of the fathers, which once assembled against Eutyches, truly
preached the Savior in two inseparable natures, manifestly walking and abiding
according to the doctrine of the godly father Cyril.
The six hundred and thirty pious men, having cast down the deception of
Eutyches and the heresy of Severus, attained unto this hymn: We preach Christ in
two natures, walking according to the pronouncement of the blessed Cyril.
Let him that doth not confess Christ, the Word of the Father, to be in two natures
and activities, fall under our anathema! For the Fourth Council of the holy fathers
unanimously preached thus. Let us all, therefore, call them blessed....
Those who have foolishly inclined towards the words of Severus, which are full of
dreadful poison, are ever put to shame, cut off from the Church like predatory wolves
and dogs.
O ye faithful who join chorus together, we honor the Savior and Creator of all in
two indivisible natures, two wills and activities. Wherefore, we utterly reject the
deception of Severus.
Come ye, and let us openly spurn the deception of the pernicious Severus and
Jacob, and with them Theodosius and Dioscorus; but let us praise the Fourth Council
of the pious fathers with divine hymns.
Odes at the Matins Canon for the Feast day of the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council
There is more...
Yeah you are. You didn’t discover some magic argument that hasn’t been tried over the last 1500 years.
Oriental orthodox is purest.
See, I read the whole "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" bit, and it just reads to me as though Christ's Divinity and humanity are inseperable, yet retain their unique characteristics. Christ is not a demigod, a unique third nature, but rather fully Man and fully God, two natures in one person (hypostasis) - or as the Copts would put it, fully Man and fully God in one nature (physis). Both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian confessions say that, at least in English, so I genuinely don't see where the heresy lies.
There's clearly something I'm missing. The fathers of the day were well learned, had plenty of interpreters and I'm sure some even spoke/read/wrote all the necessary languages themselves. There surely must be more to this than "saying the same thing with different words" for a schism to last ~1700 years.
@@KnoxEmDownIt is probably as much as if not simply political factionalism based along ethnic lines
Actually the chalcedonian christology is heresy
Apostolic orthodoxy is already responding
Actually?
As far as I have understood by studying the councils of ephesus and chalcedon the non chalcedonians were right
It seems as though the “in thought alone” controversy is truly the lynchpin of this whole thing. The Cappadocians oft repeat the phrase made known to the mind although they also seems to retain an ontological distinction as well. The phrase continues in some of Cyril’s letters and the Chalcedonian definition as McGuckin notes in his work. I don’t think Maximus’ work that was referenced exists in English currently. Thoughts?
I believe the St. Maximus text regarding the Monophysites is not in english yet. The citations in this text for St. Maximus are from: Patrolica Graeca. Vol. XCI
1. St Cyril when condemning Nestorius for dividing the hypostases, did he use the term hypostasis or did he use physis? He used physis and concluded one incarnate physis of Christ from 2 which is dogmatically accepted in Ephesus. In Chalcedon you guys (Leo) dogmatically declare that saying of 2 physis is the same iniquity as saying in 1 in direct contradiction to the definiton of Ephesus and teaching of St Cyril.
2. The letter to John of Antioch says of 2 natures. He clarifies his letter in letters 40 and 44 where he describes the distinction in sayings from the bible to be in contemplation and subtle speculation, only and that there is one incarnate nature of Christ.
3. Nestorius did teach a communication of idioms through the one person of Christ that 2 qnome or hypostasis inside of him. The reason you guys always fail to understand Nestorius is because the terms have since been conflated where hypostasis now apparently means person. Mind you this equivocation, other than being non patristic also means the 3 prosopa of the trinity are not really distinct as prodopa actually means face used to denote a collection of names. This isn't what u guys believe but what the Modalists do, just pointing out the issue in equivocating the definitions.
4. Where did St Cyril teach 2 natures in Christ? He condemns any form of duality?
5. How does Chacledon accept St Cyril:
The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret
When the discussion has considered closely what elements have come together to become, or to compose, the single person and nature, or hypostasis, then it may use either of the terms, “together with” or “with,” because it has already secured what it denotes and has thereby defined it as a single composite entity rather than dividing it into a duality.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Bishops of Oriens
A view rejected at Chalcedon by Leo:
In response to the bishops proposing a formula of 2 natures Leo responds with
'Dioscorus said, "I accept "from two natures, but I do
not accept "two'" But the most holy Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without confusion, change or separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour. So whom do you follow - the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?'
Council of Chalcedon, session 5
"for the impiety of saying that the Son of God was of two natures before His incarnation is only equalled by the iniquity of asserting that there was but one nature in Him after the Word became flesh."
Leo, the Tome
Again direct contradiction with St Cyril:
"We know perfectly well that the divine, transcendent nature cannot experience any “shadow of turning,” nor did the Word of God give up being what he is to be transformed into a fleshly nature. Since he points out that God’s form took upon himself the form of a servant, let him go on and explain whether it was just these “forms” that came together by themselves, quite apart from their hypostases. Well, I reckon that even he would shrink from saying that, for it was not mere resemblances and forms, things with no hypostasis, that conjoined together to bring about the saving union; rather, it was a convergence of the very things themselves, of two hypostases. Then we can really have faith that a genuine incarnation took place."
"Now, given that we say that the flesh was genuinely united to God the Word, within whom was a rational soul, I would gladly learn of him whether he argues that the Word was genuinely united to the man, that is, to the rationally ensouled holy body; or whether he accords with others in thinking that it happened by a connection pertaining between a servant-like form without its own hypostasis and a divine form similarly without its own hypostasis; or in yet another way, by means of an ambiguity in the term “son” or by their sharing an equal dignity"
- St. Cyril, Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret of Cyrus, Defense 1
> "If the union is a genuine one, then there can in no way be two; Christ is to be understood only as a single, solitary individual arising out of both
- St Cyril, Defense of the Twelve Anathemas Against the Oriental Bishops
6. Find the heresy in Eutyches statement of faith at Ephesus 2. There is none. Yes he reverted back to his heresy later in life and was condemned by us as well but at Ephesus 2 he was Orthodox.
7. We went through 300 years of beheadings and imperial punishment from the Byzantine empire for rejecting Chalcedon (until the Muslims took over most of the region) they killed all of our bishops and most of the other Patriarchs had to live in exile because of this. It was imperial not logical reasons that Chalcedon was accepted by the clergy and after the council it was not received well at all.
8. Again. Where did St Cyril accept in 2 natures. He says of 2 natures in the letter to John of Antioch and he explicitly clarified the letter in letter 40 and 44 where he condemns 2 natures.
9. The miracle of St Euphemia wasn't ever mentioned in the minutes or in any document at all until around 200 years after Chalcedon.
10. Nature cannot mean essence. One incarnate essence of Christ is heresy. John of Damascus' position would mean St Cyril is a heretic.
11. John of Damascus does clarify what he means by composite hypostasis, idk where u got the idea he doesn't from. It just isn't spread because it outright teaches change in the hypostasis of the Word:
For when one composite hypostasis comes to be out of two natures, the ones and the others, that is, the natural and hypostatic idioms of the divine and the human natures become constitutive of the same hypostasis.
John of Damascus, De Duabus In Christo Voluntatibus, 1-2
"Before the incarnation the hypostasis of God the Word was simple and non composite and incorporeal and uncreated, but once it had been enfleshed it also became a hypostasis with regard to the flesh and became composite from the divinity that it always possessed and from the flesh which it received in addition, and bears the properties of the two natures acknowledged in the two natures, with the result that the same single hypostasis is both uncreated with respect to the divinity and created with respect to the humanity, being both visible and invisible. Otherwise we would be obliged either to divide the one Christ by saying that there are two hypostases, or to deny the difference and introduce change and confusion."
John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 78
James, but standing within the bounds of piety, we affirm one composite hypostasis from both deity and humanity. For this pre-eternal hypostasis of the Word of God, having dwelled in the womb of the holy ever-virgin, established within itself a living, rational flesh, by itself determining the hypostasis in the living and rational flesh, and became one Christ from perfect deity and perfect humanity, one Son, the same of God and man, one Lord, the same, perfect God and perfect man, wholly God and wholly man, united indistinguishably, unchangeably, and inseparably by these natures. Indistinguishably indeed: for each nature preserves its own difference.
John of Damascus de natura composita
The reason John of Damascus confesses such obvious heresy is because Chalcedon and Leo (as I previous pointed out) make clear that the product of the incarnation is not 1 composite hypostasis of 2 hypostases. So John of Damascus resorts to confessing the Word went from simple to composite through an enhypostatic (in the hypostasis) humanity. The Word is his view went from simple to composite, went from without humanity to with humanity rather than the Orthodox belief of St Cyril that the Word united to a non self subsistent hypostasis producing 1 incarnate whole composed of 2 elements.
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it)
"Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis."
- St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron
Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis:
The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret
12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym.
13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view.
14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times...
15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril:
As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition.
St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
What was this analogy used to demonstrate?
They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh
Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it)
"Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis."
- St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron
Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis:
The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret
12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym.
13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view.
14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times...
15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril:
As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition.
St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
What was this analogy used to demonstrate?
They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh
Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
Who became incarnate?
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it)
"Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis."
- St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron
Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis:
The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret
12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym.
13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view.
14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times...
15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril:
As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition.
St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
What was this analogy used to demonstrate?
They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh
Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
12. Rather than taking the words of a professor why don't you read St Severus himself he used physis as a contranym (as the fathers before him used it)
"Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis."
- St. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Maron
Again, St Cyril used physis as hypostasis:
The result is that we believe the two hypostases to have been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret
12. John of Damascus has a book called the fountain of knowledge, which is probably the most Aristotelian book any of ur fathers wrote and you used him to prove being Aristotelian is heresy. The Cappadocians define hypostasis as we do see St Basil letter 210 and 214 and again, St Severus did not equivocate physis with hypostasis. He used the term as St Cyril did and clarifies its a contranym.
13. Terminology ambiguity? Distinguish hypostasis from person and distinguish nature from essence in your view.
14. Again, St Cyril defines physis as hypostasis countless times...
15. That same body soul analogy you guys criticise St Severus of using was taken directly from St Cyril:
As I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition.
St. Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
What was this analogy used to demonstrate?
They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh
Saint Cyril 2nd Letter to Succensus
That is just the first 40 minutes of the video. If you guys are interested, I can do the rest as well. This is not intended to spark argument or offence but rather for any Oriental Orthodox watching this and questioning their position to have assurance aimless attacks against Orthodoxy are not true and largely misinterpretations of the truth. Everyone please pray for me, that I have not spoken falsely for I should rather death than to take a sheep from the Lord's flock. And also that the Lord guides me.
If you say he has two natures which nature died for us which nature forgave us. He is one. One God. God died for us . St mary is Mother of God
Chalcedonian christology is too problematic
It didn’t make much of a difference. Joint statements are still in place.
It makes a difference for all who are struggling to confess the faith and gain the mind of Christ. Also for all the Non-Chalcedonians who are open to Orthodoxy.
@OrthodoxWisdom May God grant.
Some people complain when nothing is said, and then there's: it makes no difference.
It does. It matters. We can't be silent on such matters. Falsehood needs to be exposed, and then people can freely choose whether to remain with the lies or rethink their position.
Such statements and explanations clarified things for me personally and I am very grateful to all who share and elaborate on these matters.
@@OrthodoxWisdom It doesnt matter
@mclkr9174 the zoomers consuming Orthodox apologetics will one day be the bishops of the world