วีดีโอ

asomen

And also, the Coptics said they have no issue with the later councils except Chalcedon.

Study better.

@@luizfilipecouto1030 So... do they venerate icons or not?

@@andyontheinternet5777 Of course they do. There is nothing wrong with icon veneration and if think like this you are committing a heresy called Iconoclasm

@@luizfilipecouto1030 I'm cool with being a heretic if it means I don't have to worship images.

@@andyontheinternet5777 Why would you worship an image?

But still under Syria?

​@@AndrewSucksAtHymns Nope, it's independent from syrian patriarch. It's an autocephalous church following the same west Syriac liturgy as their conterpart.

its " MALANKARAORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH" also called as " indian orthodox church" it dosent act it is independent church.

@@stephen0306 Yes it does. What you're talking about is the Jacobite Church which does consider itself under the Syriac Patriarch.

Malankara _Orthodox Syrian_ Church to be specific. Glad you clarified though.

Miaphysitism is not a heresy, it’s what St. Cyril taught. If you looked at what was read in the video, you’d see we believe exactly what was said at the Council of Ephesus - and the Council of Chalcedon contradicted it. That’s why we rejected it.

@@copticconceptIt's not that simple. St. Cyril taught about what he called hypostatic unity. He fought against Nestorian teaching of two hypostasis. He was insisting that Christ is one, because according to Nestorius there were two hypostasis and two natures (The Son of God and the son of Mary). That's why St. Syril came up with the term "hypostatic unity". St.Cyril explained that one can talk about both “one nature” and “two natures”: the main thing is to understand the unity of deity and humanity as indissoluble, “hypostatic” (καθ' ύπόστασιν) and “natural” (φυσική), and not as superficial "contact". This terminological vagueness subsequently became the reason for deepening misunderstandings. The problem with "one complex nature" that what you guys believe in destroys the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If Christ has one complex nature then He is not one essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit anymore, because His nature has changed from one Divine nature to one complex nature. It's still one nature but it's different. Now you have two options: 1. The nature of the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity has changed in incarnation, and it's not one essence with the other two hypostasis. 2. Or, there are two Words of God: one is Logos that has Divine nature, as God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And the other one is Jesus with one complex divine - human nature, Whose nature is different from the nature of the Holy Trinity. In any case it's heresy.

@@alexs8335 I encourage you to read the dialogue between St. Acacius of Melitene and St. Cyril. It is as follows: St. Acacius of Melitene, Epistle 1 to St. Cyril "let everyone be forced to publicly anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore: especially those who say two natures after the union, properly each one working. For of those who are in Germanicia I have found some experienced, indeed refusing to say two sons. BUT INDEED NOT REFUSING TOS SAY TWO NATURES. Wherefore if it be granted, that it may be said and taught by them, that each nature worketh by itself, and this indeed is suffered, but that remaineth impassive, there is no other thing than to confess two sons again, and bring in the parts." St. Cyril then responds in Letter 40, agreeing and saying he was delighted by this letter. Letter 40 [Response] of St Cyril of Alexandria to St Acacius of Melitene, CPG 5340: "Addressing one another is a sweet thing for brothers and admirable and deserving of all consideration among those of truly sound thinking, and I say that it is necessary that those of one faith and of one soul unceasingly should hasten to do this ..." "Delighted, therefore, exceedingly at the letter from your excellency and having marveled at your disposition towards me, I thought it proper to make known to you the way in which peace came about for the churches and to indicate how everything happened." '(Idem) Letter 40 (Response] of St Cyril of Alexandria to St Acacius of Melitene, CPG 5340: Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, since He is one Son." From this dialogue its clear that St. Acacius and St. Cyril witnessed people refusing to say two sons after the union (Nestorians) - but that they also witnessed people saying two natures after the union, which they considered to be wrong and leading to mean the same conclusion as two sons.

@@copticconcept oh no! Don't send me articles. On every article you send, I will send you three articles.

@@alexs8335 it’s not an article, it’s from the letters they wrote to each other. Please read what was said by our fathers by their very own words - why is there a need to use articles to explain this part, when we can read exactly what they said

We say that after the incarnation, the duality has been abolished and there is One Incarnate Nature of the Logos (fully human and fully divine) The EO position affirms Christ in two natures after the union. There are several differences that have come about over the years especially because we did not attend the following councils. We never had an issue with iconoclasm, we don’t have the filioque, there’s other topics we differ on though

@Rishal-sx2gk we don’t do that, it would be ridiculous. We do not hold the same theological beliefs about Icons as the Eastern Orthodox. We didn’t have an issue with Iconoclasm, and never had a Council to declare anything extreme in matter.

@Rishal-sx2gk yes, my email is @copticconcept@gmail.com - if Instagram is easier you could reach me at @copticconcept - I am more available there.

Show me in the Creed where it says that we believe in st. Cyril or in any other saint. We believe in the Church, and this Church condemned Monophysitism as heresy. Even St. Syril later changed his mind and agreed with the Antiochian Christology.

@@alexs8335 st. Cyril did not change his mind. St. Cyril agreed that John of Antioch could use his preferred language as long as they both agreed they were saying the same thing. Also, I would recommend you read the minutes of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. It will begin to answer why St. Cyril’s theology is so important to unification.

​@minacross979 where to find the minutes?

Can you answer two questions: 1. What was the nature of Logos before the incarnation? 2. What is the nature of Logos after the incarnation ?

​@@alexs8335Hi! Before the Incarnation the Nature was One and Simple, afterwards One and Composite of Two. "We say that there is One Son, and as the Holy Fathers have said, that there is One Physis of the Word [of God] made flesh." - St. Cyril Of Alexandria "Wherefore, we say that the Two Natures were United, from which there is the One and Only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the Union since the distinction into Two is now done away with, we believe that, there is One Physis of the Son." - St. Cyril Of Alexandria

Your being mislead bruh.....these people are apostates

Glory To The Only One True God Jesus Christ Is The only Beggoten Son Of God❤

The western saints Pre-Chalcedon were taught dyophysitism

The "oriental orthodox" tell you something in dialogues and teach something else to their theologically illiterate people

@@StopBanningMaStuff how I might ask

We are not united with the Eastern Orthodox Church. They split from us in the years following the Council of Chalcedon. We share many of the same elements, but we differ on our Christology, and the teaching of the nature of Christ. The Oriental Orthodox believe that Christ is 1 nature out of two, after the union. The Eastern Orthodox believe Christ has two natures after the union. The Oriental Orthodox are Miaphysite (one incarnate nature) and we follow St. Cyril’s teaching on the nature of Christ. St. Cyril taught One Incarnate nature of Christ after the union, and says the duality of the nature is abolished after the union. Proof of this is the following: Second Letter of St Cyril to Succensus, CPG 5346: This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured… This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete... Also, St. Cyril in his Letter to St. Acacius of Melitine he says: “When we have the idea of the elements of the one and unique Son and Lord Jesus Christ, we speak of two natures being united; but after the union, the duality has been abolished and we believe the Son's nature to be one, since he is one Son, yet become man and incarnate”

The western fathers Pre-Chalcedon teach dyophysitism. The Eastern Orthodox Church is correct on Christology. The Copts reject any instance of Saint Cyril teaching dyophysitism as "a forgery" yet cite Appolonarian forgeries attributed to saints for their position.

@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese no the official documents of the council of ephesus are enough to affirm our position

@@sharif8326 The Pre-Chalcedonian fathers of the West teach dyophysitism

Yes brother, of course. Keep up the work on your channel 🙏

Don’t be discouraged. God has a plan for Joel that me and you cannot fathom at the moment, but the truth will prevail at the end. Pray for him and his ministry. Pray for the Orthodox Church.

I am Joining the Coptic church, the Holy Spirit has led me to the true church, I am sure in part due to your prayers, please pray for me and my family more and more. Blessings always in the name of Christ Our Lord Amen 🙏

@@bavlyfahmy9776Pray for me ❤🙏☦️

To be properly Orthodox, and to be properly Eastern, it’s necessary to follow the Council of Ephesus, which condemned Dyophysitism as heretical in the writings of Sts Theodotus and Cyril. If you want to follow these, it’s necessary to leave any group that isn’t in communion with the Oriental Orthodox Church. God bless you.

@@copticconcept to be honest this dispute over christology is something ill never understand, im too dull for such a thing. But thanks anyways bro

@@copticconcept Eastern Orthodoxy isn't in communion with the oriental Orthodox church?

@@LauDataMarketer We are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church

​@@LauDataMarketerthere is limited communion with the Antiochian Church and the Orientals through a joint Ecumenical agreement in 1991

strugling between EO and OO

Thank you 🙏

They Reject the miracle of St. Euphemia. They venerate heretics. They have a different faith from Chalcedon

From what I know, the Oriental Orthodox Church, in any of those joint statements, never once conceded or contradicted what She believes, whereas the Chalcedonians did make contradictions of their fathers' teachings (such as of John of Damascus)-I can confirm that I saw this expressed by militant Chalcedonians themselves; likewise, I think we say that the Chalcedonians altered their Christology over the course of their "ecumenical" councils to conform as closely as possible to that which is Orthodox (that which was and is preserved today in the Oriental Orthodox Church), and that's why their Christology will bear so much similarity-in other words, they knew that they were wrong but refused to admit this, so they simply revised their Christology over time but still condemned the holy fathers who confessed Orthodox Christology in the beginning (such as Abba Dioscorus and Abba Severios but also implicitly their predecessors such as Abba Anthanasios and Abba Kyrillos (Cyril) of Alexadria); so, if I'm not mistaken, these statements reflect that our patriarchs have accepted today's Chalcedonians' expressed confession of faith but say nothing about their former leaders (such as the once pope of Rome, Leo); I do think, however, that, for as long as the "Eastern Orthodox" Church and the "Roman Catholic" Church claim continuity to those who gathered at Chalcedon, their theology as a whole is tainted and will always revert to Nestorianism (and, perhaps, worse) when sufficiently stressed.

🤓

No we are miaphysite

@@fatjoshua664 The strict miaphysitism you profess is monophysite

@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese can you explain how

@@fatjoshua664 The Copts reject the miracle of Saint Euphemia at chalcedon. The Pre-Chalcedonian such as Augustine and Hilary were teachers of dyophysitism. St. Cyril taught dyophysitism and used the miaphysite formula to teach Dyophysitism. Severus, Timothy the cat and dioscous did not have the same faith as the Western Fathers or Saint Cyril

Same 😅

Same

Same

Same

They are lying, It's not Orthodoxy. Don't get confused with the word "oriental". Their teaching was condemned as heresy on the Fourth Ecumenical Councils of the Church.

Love you Anne. Christ is lord🇪🇷❤️🇦🇲

Thank you may our lord bless you

im struggling between OO and EO i have prayed to God for signs but my prayers seem to be unheard

@@FloridaCrusader Ephesus 431 condemns the 2 nature heresy taught by the Chalcedonians. The Chalcedonians admit that Ephesus 431 is binding on all Christians yet reject its teaching. This means the Chalcedonian heretics condemn themselves out of their own mouths.