Fortunately, I have NEVER seen/heard an Oriental claim that the eastern church is not orthodox. If you have heard it, then I apologize. However, practically every eastern TH-camr, that I have watched, claims the oriental church is heretical. This is very sad.😔
All OO orthodox respect EO and pray for unity while EO hate the guys of OO .They do not even acknowledge them as Christians. They would talk tonthe heretic catholic pope but not to OO
That's like saying "If Mormons don't call you heretical then you shouldn't call them either". Even if the Oriental church didn't denounce the Orthodox Church it wouldn't mean that they are suddenly not committing heresies.
I am an oriental orthodox from the Tewahedo church. The word "tewahedo" is directly related to our Christology teachings. My church emphasizes the five doctrines known as "amade misterate," which I have studied extensively. Even the way we understand the Trinity is uniquely sophisticated. Having said that, I would find it fascinating if you could facilitate a debate with a prominent Tewahedo scholar fluent in English. If you have organized such a discussion in the past, I would be grateful for the opportunity to learn from it.
The problem with Miaphysitism is that it creates incoherence when discussing soteriology and Christ's act of redemption for humanity. Miaphysitism insists on Christ's unity to the degree that how the Logos connects to humanity becomes impossible to answer, as Christ ends up being neither fully Divine nor fully human but something else, new, or what Orthodox Theology refers to as the "Tertiary Quid". If Christ's identity as fully Divine and fully human allows for both the Divine and the human will to be present, yet in perfect harmony via energetic co-operation, then we have a way of describing how Christ redeems the believer = via the realignment of the wills, and by extension, the natures in the person of Christ. Miaphysitism avoids that formula as they interpret it as being a division within Christ, but it's based on mistakenly perceiving distinction and division to be the same (although the criticism does apply to Roman Catholic "sacred heart" veneration, which the EO also makes). But assuming this false equivalence also creates problems for the Trinity, as Miaphysites would be logically required to either proclaim the distinct persons to be in some way illusory (=modalism) in order to avoid the problem of division in God. If real distinction =/= division, you can have Dyophysite theology that explains Christ's redemption, and also allow for the Trinity to be an absolute revealed truth about God.
I am not smart as you are... But from what I gather the oriental position leads to monophelstism and monoenergism which compromises free will which is a dead end for them
❤selam, i would love if he had a conversation with Deacon Henok elias. Wonderful man. Also to the people in the comments, the Tewahado orthodox may not be myaphisite
@helpIthinkmylegsaregone I think there is a misunderstanding in your description. First I am by no means qualified to answer this but I merely wanted to put forth my understanding of Miaphysitism. First to understand it, I think it would do good to look at the origin of the word first. Mia means one. Not in the sense like Mono but composite one. If you look at Mark 10:8 when it says "...but one flesh" the word used there is Mia. One Flesh -》 Mia-flesh. And the context of that verse was marriage of two people. So by that, Christ said the husband and wife will become one. So now let me ask you, when you say not fully God and not fully man, are you insinuating when Christ used the same word when taking about marriage, he is saying somehow the wife become something another and the husband the same? It's the Miaphysite belief that Christ is both fully God and Man. We simply, honoring holy tradition taught by Saint Cyril when he said: 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. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete. 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 (1 Pet. 4.1) and it would be better for us to speak this way rather than [say he suffered] in the nature of the manhood, even though such a statement (unless it is said uncompromisingly by certain people) does not damage the sense of the mystery. For what else is the nature of manhood except the flesh with a rational soul? (Ep. 46.5) Thus, if we are talking on theoretical grounds, sure we can discuss the nature's as two. But when you claim, Christ after the incarnation has 2 natures, instead of one incarnate (God-man) nature, as dyophisitism says, you deny Saint Cyril, you deny Ephsus, which is an Ecumenical Council and inerrant led by the Holy spirit. Again, on your second paragraph, you talk about two wills. There are no two wills. There is only one. This is why we split from you guys. It's dangerous to speak of to wills cause you will end up, as glarely dyophisitism became, Nestorian. Cause here is a reminder, Nestorian NEVER said Two Persons. But by saying two natures, saint cyril was explaining how he will most definitely end up confessing two persons. And Just as you have demonstrated, nature is completely associated with nature. But we understand the will of Christ, not exactly but to give an example, as the will of the Holytrinity. One nature, one will. Such is Christ. There is only one will in Christ. But at the same time we are not monothelites. By that I mean, we don't say absolutely one will exist. Same as his nature, in contemplation, in willing what is humanly(rest for example) he had human will, and in willing the divine(judgment), he has divine will. But on the matter of purpose of the incarnation, the God man, the incarnate Christ has one will. I quote from an oriental Orthodox on this point: St. Severus of Antioch said by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “He displays two wills in salvific suffering.” Two wills: to save us through death (as He was God) and not to die (as He was human). One will: to undergo death and suffer for our salvation (the will/purpose of the God-man, the Incarnate Logos). He had blameless human desires and underwent voluntary, blameless passions for our sakes, that we might be Deified through His Life-Giving Cross and Resurrection from the dead. The two wills, to not die and to save, are displayed through His one will: salvific suffering. On the next paragraph, I don't know what division you are talking about exactly, but we don't see any division. In fact, in our Church's name, there this word "Tewahdo" meaning, United, or better translated, "having been made one." We no longer, after the incarnation, speak of, not think of realistically, not theoretically of two natures. If we do so we go against Ephsus which you guys accept too. And on the holy Trinity, we have absolutely no problem emanating from our Christology. We do not see division, just like we don't see no two natures, and thus is the same for the Holy Trinity. 1 nature. I'd we are talking about distinctions, we then are only talking about persons in the Holy trinity. If you say then there is distinction in Christ, you are saying there are two persons, just like Saint Cyril warned us against. With that logic, Dyophysitism is neo-nestorian. Just his belief with another coat. And that is why Nestorius and the Nestorian Church, the Assyrian Church of the each ACCEPT CHALCEDONE. I mean that should tell you something . But nonetheless, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is a true Miaphysite Church with her true sister oriental churches. And we fully happy and in truth we are because of it. I am saying this because I read below somebody doubting it. Thank you and let me know if I got anything wrong.
My girlfriend and I just went to our first divine liturgy this last Sunday and plan on going again next week. It was truly something I had never experienced before
Me too. We will never accept 2 Natures in reality this is against the Orthodox faith and the teaching of the Church fathers. Two Natures in contemplation alone.
Oriental Orthodoxy is the Truth: please watch this video to understand in full from someone who well-studied all its details what the 4th Council was about. I appreciate Kyle but it seems like he's in an Echo chamber, repeating things he's heard and not basing it on his own research from all perspectives: th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html
"The following comes from the time of St. Cyril’s condemnation of Nestorius; we will show, both from his synodal letter to the Orientals and his writings to Eulogius, that even after Nestorius’ condemnation his teaching on the confession concerning the two natures in Christ is the same, and he receives those who are the same mind. He says in his letter to Eulogius: “There are some who receive the definition of faith drawn up by the Orientals and say; ‘why does the Alexandrian uphold and commend those who say two natures? For those who are of the opinion of Nestorius say that they, too, believe this.’ But those [who say this] are being carried away by things they don’t accurately understand. We must say this to those who condemn us: it is not necessary to flee from, or to avoid everything heretics say, for they confess many things we confess. Whenever the Arians say that the Father is the Creator and Lord of all things, will we therefore no longer hold this confession? The same is true in the case of Nestorius; although he said that there are two natures and understood that the flesh and the Divine Logos are different - for the nature of the Logos is different from the nature of the flesh - yet he did not confess with us the union.” Notice the father clearly teaches us that Nestorius was not condemned because he said two natures, but because he denied the hyspostatic union of the two natures, thereby producing two sons. And so, wishing to put an end to such impiety, St. Cyril said, “One nature of the Son,” and he added the term “incarnate” to indicate that the nature of the divinity is one [nature], and the nature of the flesh is another, out of which the Christ is one, the same Son of God and Son of Man, and there are not two Christs or two Sons. And the holy Church of God rightly receives all the words spoken by St. Cyril, including the formula, “One nature of God the Word incarnate,” since it indicates that the nature of the flesh is another, out of which the one single Christ is produced." - Emperor St. Justinian the Great, St. Justinian on the Mia Physis Terminology, Against the Monophysites.
@@OrthodoxKyle I see but I was also just pointing out they dont treat these Jewish practices the same way as the Jews do. When you said in the veideo they have judiazing practices it seems like that.
@@TheRealRealOK it is part of their history before Christianity. They considered themselves Jews and that tradition remained. I wouldn't exactly call them full judaizers but it is problematic
I'm coptic orthodox and proud. I have nothing against eastern orthodox individuals. Liturgies are almost identical, many holidays and Saint commemorations are on the same day (old calander) and we have not changed the faith at all. Many saints of both churches were coptic. Also we have many miracles! Our icons Drip holy oil occasionally and Saint Mary appeared in the church of zaiton in the 1960s. Even the Egyptian government tried to debunk this miracle (Muslims) and they could not. If we were heratics why would this happen?.... Having said that happy feast of the cross!
@@OrthodoxKyle Please address the _Three Chapters_ of Nestorian theology written by Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, that were formally accepted by Chalcedon as, quote, "orthodox." . Why were those excommunicated Nestorian bishops reinstated in Chalcedon? . Why did Constantinople II later anathematise the _Three Chapters_ by labelling them as "impious"? . Why did the Chalcedonians later condemn Theodore after previously accepting his theology? . How can a council led by the Holy Spirit endorse three entire chapters of heresies? Your guest has declined to answer, as do several others, including two priests; but those are well-known facts.
True, if we Coptic people were wrong than no great mircales would take place. The Lord Christ even visited egypt and blessed it and even the phrophecy of the old testmant that said there would be an altar to the Lord in the midst of Egypt is the altar of the coptic monestary.
Cyril confessed to the Pope of Rome clearly that he confesses that: "Christ is from and in two natures." The leader of the group who assassinated Proterius, Timothy “the Cat” was elected in 457 to be the patriarch of Monophysites. Timothy condemned Saint Cyril on account of the agreements: “Cyril […] having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ.” Even Severus of Antioch, the famous Monophysite figure condemned St. Cyril of Alexandria along with all the Holy Fathers saying: “The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril’s.” The faith of the Copts and the faith articulated by Saint Cyril (the teachings of Chalcedon) are not equivalent are not reconcilable. Therefore, the difference between them Are dogmatic and not cultural or linguistic. Different Creeds, different worship, different faith. One must be heretical. Christ has two natures, not one as Dioscorus, Severus and Timothy taught. Dyophysitism is the teaching of the saints of the east (basil and Gregory the theologian, John Damascus) and west (Leo, Cyprian, Augustine). Heresy is not Christian.
Misinformation in this video: about icon veneration, about what is said about Ethiopian Orthodox church and its Jewish relations (instead, given the country's historical background, the fact they had Old testaments' faith before the coming of Christ is the truth), ...and of course about the nature of Christ. The oriental teaching does not say "mixed". "United", yes but not "mixed". "Mixed" implies another being entirely. But "union" implies Without Mingling, Confusion, Alteration or Transmutation. And literally it is from the fact that God's Word was conceived by the Virgin St. Mary that the theological stance one nature comes from. She gave birth to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is perfectly God and perfectly human but in union we don't say she gave birth to man and God but to an incarnate God. As a result of the unity of both natures (the divine-Logos and the human-inside the the Virgin St. Mary's womb), one nature was formed out of both. An example to explain the one nature of Christ is written in the book "The nature of Christ" by his holiness Pope Shenouda III (I highly recommend the book) "In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration." as the iron is still iron and the fire is still fire. Another example is of Human nature...do we say two nature of human? But it is true human consists of the body and the soul as one.
I attended my first orthodox service today, and didn't know that they that "coptic" was under oriental. Still It was a very informative visit. I had known about the history and specifics of orthodoxy, but not oriental. I spoke with the priest and he told me about the eastern churches, and while I continue looking around orthodoxy, choose a church where I can feel God in the most. So I'll keep looking but this video does help a lot with insight.
Kyle, usually love your content and I’m not getting into the Christological details but I will call out the blatant misinformation even if it’s likely unintentional. I’ll be specifically referring to that slide you had up around the 8 minute mark. 1. Orientals Orthodox DO believe in Theosis. It’s all over post Chalcedonian OO fathers 2. We also believe in Essence-energies distinction even if our articulation isn’t as developed as the EO, we would generally agree on the concept. 3. Ethiopians aren’t “judaizers” like you claimed. Customs like circumcision are just that: cultural traditions that are unrelated to salvation. We are culturally tied to Judaism. This is seen not only in scripture with the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah before running into Phillip in Acts but we also have blood ties with Jews from the Solomonic dynasty of Emperor Menelik I. Ethiopia was Jewish before it was Christian so we’ve held onto many Jewish customs over the centuries. 4. You didn’t mention this but we also believe in tollhouses. We may not call it that but the concept is EXACTLY the same. 5. How do we disagree on icons? We venerate icons exactly as you do and have the exact same concept of them. Another lie or misunderstanding on your part 6. Leavened vs. Unleavened bread. Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread for communion just like the Oriental Orthodox. 7. Cousin marriage!? What on earth are you talking about? Do the Eastern Orthodox allow cousin marriage? Because I know the Oriental Orthodox don’t. In fact the Ethiopian church forces you to make sure you don’t have any common ancestor in the past 7 generations before they’ll allow you to get married to someone. Again, it’s not smart to make claims you can’t prove or are comfortable enough to debate with a knowledgeable opponent. Kyle if you’re genuine, you’ll admit your mistakes and misinformation and reupload this video with your mistakes corrected. The main reason for the split at Chalcedon wasn’t even Christology it was actually the council itself and the politics surrounding it. This is why the EO had to convene a 5th council to clarify the confusion of the 4th. Clearly there was something wrong with Chalcedon.
1. Jewish Customs must be forbidden in the church, even if it's just cultural and has no part in your salvation. 2. We have diffrent systems of Theosis, and ours is much more consistent with logical drawings of christology. 3. Armenians use unleavened bread for communion. 4. Coptics allow cousin marriage in a lot of cases, also making the "cultural" argument which goes against the theological nature of marriage. 5. Slightly diffrent doctrine of Iconography.
@@hannasaad495 Who says Jewish customs must be forbidden in church? Greeks have Greek customs, Russians have Russian customs etc. Ethiopia had Jewish culture so a lot of the Ethiopian culture just happens to be Jewish like I said. Do you think Jewish culture is an exception just because it’s Jewish? Like I said concerning Theosis. The general concept is the same. Christ becoming man so that man can become God. Hesychasm is the point of contention really since it’s a 14th century development on Mt. Athos and unheard of in the Middle East and Africa. Armenians have been using unleavened bread since forever. It’s really a non-issue. I brought it up because he tried to conflate the use of unleavened bread to Oriental Orthodoxy as a whole. This is almost as irrelevant as bearded vs clean shaven priests. Concerning the Coptics. I actually looked into it and the only reason they allow cousin marriage is due to Islamic oppression that required cousins to marry in order to preserve the faith. Like a lot of these polemics between EOs and OOs the context of continuous Islamic oppression has to be applied to understand anything. So this practice isn’t universal among OO’s nor is it necessarily encouraged with the Coptics but is allowed to keep the population from disappearing in Egypt. Seems weird to you and I but in a position where your women are constantly being taken by Islamic overlords, you can see how they don’t have much choice. They do condemn continuously marrying cousins generation to generation to avoid genetic issues though. I’m guessing the doctrines of iconography you refer to are the practices of kissing icons directly or kissing your fingers first before placing them on the icons? Again variances exist between different churches isolated in Islands in a sea of Islam but at least for us Ethiopians, we kiss icons directly. Really nothing worth mentioning. A lot of substance less dialectics used by EOs to cause unnecessary conflict and division. It’s not that hard to admit that the only real difference between EOs and OOs is Chalcedon without trying to insert things to cause further strife all for the cause of virtue signaling as being anti-ecumenical.
No, the split isn’t due to politics. OO have incorrect christology. This is the same lie about the schism with Rome. People want to deny the major theological differences and blame politics.
@@TheRealRealOK Never denied any Christological differences. I said the Chalcedon controversy was mostly about the deposition of Dioscorus and the authority of Leo in imposing his tome. Read a little more carefully.
"can't be created and uncreated at the same time" yet God is infinite yet finite in Christ...there are many "seeming" contradictions (another is how an infinite God was born to a woman) that exist with God because we can't know how it works. So you're limiting God and calling it reason. Why can't God have a single nature that is both human and divine? Maybe it's the over emphatic focus on "logic" that prevents you from seeing the real logic - God can do all things. Every label limits Him. Every situation you say it has to be this or that limits Him. You rely on your reason and not on God.
Amen Notice how kyle responds to the comments hr can readily refute. But not the ones that make sense. Love you kyle but you're missing something here.
@@bond3161 obviously. The point is to address the original commenter’s assertion that “God can do all things” and “Every label limits him”. God can do all that is within his nature to do. Given that God rationality and coherence are a part of his nature, it is no more limiting to insist that our conception of him must be rational and coherent, than it is to say he can only do good. God is inherently good, but he is inherently coherent and logical too. If God can only do good because that is what he is by nature, then God can only be logically coherent because he is logically coherent by nature.
From my observations, as a member of the Greek diaspora I see that Greeks outside of the homeland have this view of Greece as this sanctuary of culture and orthodoxy but unfortunately leftist ideology has taken a hold in some parts of Greece and brought it farther from orthodoxy, but people in the diaspora fail to recognize that.
In Greece the education system is screwed up bc teachers are constantly striking and the kids don't have the will to learn anything and just go to bars to escape and complain about some dumb thing a priest did on the news and just focus on having fun and lose interest in maintaining their farms and hence why Greece don't make shit and losing their culture
Hello, if you wanna learn about oriental Orthodox more please check Sam Shammoun series on TH-cam. You will love it. Here is just a single episode th-cam.com/video/Pdvz96zKwaQ/w-d-xo.html There are 6 more and still coming.
There's a Coptic guy at my church (Russian Orthodox Church) who sometimes attends the divine liturgy, just to visit & have dialogues with people & my priest. He didn't take the Holy Communion, obviously. He's a convert from Protestanism, not a "cradle" Coptic Orthodox. So maybe he's still searching. I think he's inquiring & want to join my church, but I'm still not sure. I hope so, though.
@@OrthodoxKyle Of course. He converted around the same time as I, in 2016. I also came from Protestant background. So, we have some things in common. He's a proper bloke, from what I've known.
Nope, the first national churches in the world are today known as Oriental Orthodox. Armenia first to convert globally, then Ethiopia second to convert globally. Both converted to what is today known as Oriental Orthodoxy. So actually Oriental Orthodoxy definitely older than Eastern European orthodoxy.
Oriental Orthodoxy is the Truth: please watch this video to understand in full from someone who well-studied all its details what the 4th Council was about. I appreciate Kyle but it seems like he's in an Echo chamber, repeating things he's heard and not basing it on his own research from all perspectives: th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html
You have been magnificent in teaching me the first steps and basics of Eastern Orthodoxy and how it contrasts towards other religions like Roman Catholicism and the like. My thanks!
An issue I see on both sides of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy is that there is a minority group within them that believe that by being fervently against the other Orthodox Church is to be super Orthodox and that it shows that they are super believer…however it is actually the opposite. Our Orthodox fathers listened to the world (not of the world) and through the Holy Spirit they spread the Gospel and pressed forward with the mission of the Church with love.
It's mostly an issue for EO not the OO. Eastern orthodox are known for calling everyone else heretics. While the oriental orthodox focus on following Christ and don't really care or every talk about other churches
@@unknown-vo3diI think you are being disingenuous. Take for example this video itself, as I have seldom come across any videos on TH-cam of OOs doing the same
In REALITY the eastern and oriental BISHOPS have come to many key agreements on the Nature of Christ and are in serious dialogue to reunite. Please follow the direction of your BISHOPS and not what you see on TH-cam. In REALITY Both churches love each other and want to there to be full communion once more.
A good few years back I was returning home from Palm Sunday feast and went past the Eritrean tewahedo church, who had their own service. All dressed in white as usual and holding olive branches. It certainly looks like they had celebrated more originally than we did in the Canonical Church, but how do we pray for them...
@@OrthodoxKyle if you want to know the truth study the Oriental ortodox better than spreading misinfomation and mocking it. If you have any questions about it there are many people out there who can help you clear your misunderstanding
hi - watched your interview with Fr Peter on your other channel. I do have a question for him (or you). I attended a few Divine Liturgies at a local church, what shocked me is the way the congregation (or some members of it) chat during the service and even talk and giggle in line for Communion! As a Trad Catholic I found this hard to deal with. Does this happen in Orthodoxy (it does in the Vatican II mainstream church but not in Trad Catholic churches)? I'm assuming/hoping this is an aberration. It put me off but I'll try another Orthodox Church.
Like any Church, there is some good / some bad.. Maybe even some bad apples at a Good Church! go visit a few in the area: orthodoxyinamerica.org/ Trad Catholic Parishes FSSP / SSPX will create environment where only the MOST serious people go there, versus 99% of other Catholics. Average Orthodox Church will have cradle / cultural Christians. But the motive for coming to Orthodoxy = true faith, unchanged teaching, Saints, Sacraments etc. Try out a few Local Orthodox Churches, talk to people, priest at Lunch hour. join discord if you have questions!
Something many clergy say: The Church is a hospital, sick people go there. Who walks into a hospital and goes "I can't be here, there are sick people!" People need healing. Pray for them and be patient with them. My parish is quite lukewarm and has the same problem. Look for a parish that has a priest that considers your salvation and Orthodoxy as important. Then be patient with parishioners that are spiritually sick.
@@florida5236 - yes, agreed. As Kyle said in response to my point, Trad Catholics are a different breed and they travel miles to go to the rare Trad Churches so they're all really committed. I guess that spoilt me a bit. I just find chatter etc so distracting. I will try another Orthodox Church
So a few things I take issue with: 1. The Holy Spirit/Language Barrier argument: the Holy Spirit can never fail in its mission and one day the true church will be united and revealed. What a lot of EO fail to recognise is external church influences like politics and THE ENEMY (do I need to say his name?) led to certain individuals having pride. The non-acceptance at Chalcedon wasn’t a willing one. The Church of Alexandria wasn’t even given a proper seat at the table. Also, the Apostles speaking in tongues is not the same. 2. Limited information - OO church has a lot of books that have not been published online 3. A person is particular nature, if there are two natures in Christ that means there are two particular natures, that means that are two persons - David just plain butchered this and confused himself. This wasn’t even a proper response and a very watered down explanation on how the difference in Christology came about. 4. Heretics use slogans - so do you. 5. The conclusion was not even a conclusion. Nothing was debunked.
Immature and combative video. Unnecessary sound effects throughout. Not the correct tone to approach this subject. The guy you are interviewing does not seem to be well-informed on the reason the meetings took place in the '90s, nor informed on the purpose behind the slogans. No one is crafting theology around those slogans, so he is arguing a moot point and belittling the efforts of goodwill from his own EO fathers on attempts at reconciliation. As far as repeatedly using the word "Oriental" in the video, none of the Churches refer to themselves as such. They are simply Orthodox. There are no "monophosyte apologists". And yes, the way things are worded is of deepest, most significant importance because we are attempting to apply human understanding to the mysterious, incomprehensible nature of the Holy Trinity. Language is of utmost importance because there are words in Coptic/Armenian/Ge'ez/etc that do not have direct substitutes in Greek/Latin/English, and vice versa. It should not be lost that the split that happened in 451 was also steeped in political intrigue (primarily against Alexandria), which reared its head again when the Catholics mutually excommunicated the EO 600 years later (Rome vs Constantinople) to position themselves as the center of the Christian World. You are not displaying Christ-like behavior in this video. At the very least, you should approach this subject with grace, humility, invitation, and respect. Irrespective of what you believe, the "Oriental" believers that are the target of your video hail from the factually oldest Churches in the world, and have long been persecuted, maimed, and killed for their Faith for millenia. You and your friend cannot judge their virgin Church, their uncompromising beliefs, and their incredible dedication of preserving their Faith into this modern era. Only the High Priest knows their hearts, and will judge them before the Father. As He will judge you. God Bless.
I hope Orthodox Kyle replies to what you said anytime soon, but yes I agree that this sort of topic needs to be faced with humility, instead of just clowning on the Orientals, the Copts are powerful with amazing Saints and beautiful church tradition, while also facing persecution constantly.
You are right, this video seems more of a mockery about an important faith in Christianity, possibly the most martyred one, such as the Armenians and Syriac.
"You are not displaying Christ-like behavior in this video" - try not to judge people. Only God can decide who is a good beliver or not. What happend on the Holy Synod from Chalcedon is not a matter of language. The Holy Fathers prayed long time before they written the document. They were under of the Holy Spirit inspiration. Moreover, Saint Euphemia made a miracle there, Fathers have written two documents, one was with the Orthodox confession, the other one was with the confession of Monophysites and let these two documents on the head of Saint Euphemia. The next day, after a night of vigil, they found the Orthodox document in the right hand of the Saint Euphemia and the monophysite document on their feets.
@cgabriel777 way to redact my post to "try not to judge" when I clearly stated that God will judge (which He will), then discuss a version of events that's disputed. Unsure what you're getting at aside from moving goalposts. Meanwhile, you didn't address the vast majority of what I wrote, which points out that the video is immature, combatitive, and has unecessary sound effects. Well done!
I'd like to clarify something important with reference to the "Common Declaration of His Holiness Paul VI and His Holiness Patriarch Amba Shenouda III" from 1973. Both leaders, representing the Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox churches respectively, affirmed their shared belief in the dual nature of Christ. The document clearly states that Christ is "perfect God with respect to His divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity." They stress that these two natures are inseparably and indivisibly united in Christ, contrary to the claims of Monophysitism. This demonstrates that the Coptic Orthodox Church does not espouse Monophysitism. Please consider this historical evidence when sharing information about different faiths.
This is fantastic and interesting, but catholicism is cognitive dissonance ever since Vatican II. Pope can say whatever he wants depending how he feels. Kissing the Quran and all that
My goal was not to provide the authority of the Roman catholic pope, but rather to show the theological call statement of the Coptic church, that some of you may not heard of
How exactly? can you explain how this is misinformed? There is entire playlist on the issue: th-cam.com/play/PL3QQ7jHr1GrTO3WLauMBQ6kbTEphu2rHg.html IN the Playlist David has debated two OO? and they conceded the debate? so what am I missing?
@@OrthodoxKyle David erhan is a dishonest polemicist who even admits here that he was irked into his positions by unpleasant encounters with idiotic polemical orientals like the ones debated on his channel. In people like St. Nersus Snorhaili you can see that the Oriental and Eastern traditions have developed in their relationship and mutual understanding. There have been common christological statements and formal acceptances of each others sacraments (Like between Greek orthodox of Alexandria and Copts). These bad faith internet arguments cement schism, when the reality is that both traditions have a patristic basis and differ in focus and wording, not any meaningful theological distinctions. The history is also complex, and there are Monophysite saints in EO like empress theodra and St. Mark the ascetic. So we should be pushing for unity, not for stupid rehashing of 1000+ year old Christological debates that straight up do not matter.
@@OrthodoxKyleYou’re a fool. You made a video on us while having incorrect information everywhere. Thanks for proving the only way EO can get converts is from lies and deceit.
Thus far I heard from this “expert” he fails to prove that Oriental Orthodox do not believe in the full integrity of Christ’s humanity and the full integrity of Christ’s divinity. He furthermore downplays the talks of the 1960s to the 1990s as a bunch of ignorant folks who are sticking to slogans. Asking if the nature is created or uncreated is as stupid as a question as asking if God is omnipotent enough to create a rock heavier than Himself. Otherwise, Erhan falls into the same criticism he claims of Orientals, he also is a man who supports his own slogans. The fact that this video supports slogans over another church’s slogans shows that this is a debate about slogans, not about faith, confirming that this is an issue of semantics. You have yet to show where the heresy lies. For instance, Erhan admits our fathers believe in one COMPOSITE will. The fact that you say COMPOSITE shows that it is stupid to ask what this “composition” is uncreated or created. That’s a Muslim tactic when they ask “Is Jesus created or uncreated?”
Something funny I noticed. We make a distinction between EO and OO by name but Oriental literally means Eastern in Latin, so we call them Eastern Orthodox without realizing lol
The procession of the spirit is much more significant than the pious misunderstandings of linguistic context.. Christ was both fully God and fully man.. The Eastern and Orientals both fully agree with this truth. Future will prove past Enoch
And arianism and trinitiarianism? Still one god still jesus is god. And muslim and jesus? Still one god. You haven't challenged your own views. Why not go the other way? When you realize its absurd to entertain the contrary, the truth is a one way direction with a very precise existence Would you drink a drop of poison in a glass? Only 1% Don't you know? Even the most righteous person is like dirty rags to the holy God. Dont belittle the Lord. Humble yourself first and challenge your own views.
The Greek Patriarch of Alexandria and the Coptic Pope allow inter-marriages between Egyptian Christians and signed common Christianity. The Greek Patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch allow inter-communion and forbid conversions between their churches in the middle east. Also signed common christological agreements. Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals and Assyrians now agree in Christology since the last century. Kyle is being divisive.
Greeks are bringing many novelties into the fod of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That does not make them right... that alienates the from the EOC instead.
After a huge amount of thinking and deciding, I have decided to become an Orthodox as a now ex-Presbyterian, you have explained a lot of theology and church history to me, you also influenced the decision that I made so I thank you for that. Hope you succeed my brother ❤
GLORY TO GOD! watch this playlist if you have any last question as you leave Protestansim, Fr Josiah Trenham was x-Presbyterian, also. Not Orthodox Priest : th-cam.com/play/PL6eyVWFC0v8ceRe-hveesAjWERK3Rj8eV.html&si=HgnoEf7L30kvujkM I also have a playlist called becoming Orthodox! Come visit a Church! orthodoxyinamerica.org/ let me know how it goes and reach out if you have questions! I can help. God bless!
Severus disagrees with your statement. Cyril confessed to the Pope of Rome clearly that he confesses that: "Christ is from and in two natures." The leader of the group who assassinated Proterius, Timothy “the Cat” was elected in 457 to be the patriarch of Monophysites. Timothy condemned Saint Cyril on account of the agreements: “Cyril […] having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ.” Even Severus of Antioch, the famous Monophysite figure condemned St. Cyril of Alexandria along with all the Holy Fathers saying: “The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril’s.”
The Byzantine authorities launched a wide scale persecution of the Coptic church following Chalcedon. Since you believe in your dangerously close line to Nestorianism, where are your martyrs? How many defenders of the faith does the Eastern church have? The entire country of Greece is Orthodox, why are your churches empty? Where are the martyrs?
I’m glad you made this video. Many EOs, including some priests, fall for the nonsense that the schism between EO and OO is just semantics. Honestly, if it was just language, we would have repaired the schism hundreds of years ago.
hi brother, did u know that the unfortunate disagreement was about be pardoned in the 5th century by emperor zeno, and was halted by the pope of Constantinople(who accepted calcedon) , because they thought that the non calcedonians was not in the fault but the byzantine empire should apologies, we are human and none of us can say all the ecumenical councils had 0 politics, and calcedon was the worst of all the others.
@@eyoel_sh5496how can you say it’s political when it wasn’t? Are you trying to say Orthodox are in fault? Even though it was the non-caledonians who rejected and refused to even go to the council?
In fact, the schism could have sorted if Islam came a lot later. There were several attempts to sort out the schism like the second Constantinople council, but because the Muslims invaded, they'd have seen any Christian communion as a threat.
@@david-468Politics do indeed subvert the Churches back then just as they do today. It's sad and pathetic. Mind you I'm not saying it's only or even primarily political. But to say that politics are never involved is a naive way of looking at it.
NOTE: this is broken down into two comments due to word limit. Dear viewers (if you plan to read this, please read it slowly and with mindfulness), I am a Coptic Orthodox, and I am writing this long comment mainly because it really hurts to be directly/indirectly referred to as a “heretic” or “not orthodox” in such a video particularly from people taking up the role of representing a cousin church (Eastern/Chalcedonian Orthodox) that we are partially in communion with. I can easily say things like “confessing only to three councils shows that Oriental is the most original and pure version of faith because more councils means more things needed correction”. This statement would make the Eastern Orthodox appear further from the truth and the Catholics even further (since they have even more councils). But, I am sorry I said that; I only wrote it to make a point - that is anyone can have a philosophy and make sound arguments about things (btw, there is a rule in studying liturgical texts saying shorter prayers are dated further back in time). Now, I truly have a number of aspects to elaborate on: = Non-Copts talking about Copts: - If I say I am left-handed, you cannot tell me that I am right-handed. If I tell you my name is Peter, you cannot tell me that my name is Mark. Similarly, only Copts get to tell if they are Monophysites, Miaphysites, or else. - Then, you can base your discussion on how we define things and ONLY take it from there. = Notable facts about the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria: - It was established by St. Mark, the writer of the first historic gospel, whose home was the first church, and whose blood was shed over the streets of Alexandria by dragging. Now, we have his relics after Pope Paul VI (Catholic) graciously gave them to Pope Kyrillos VI (Coptic) in 1968. - Its patriarch lineage (unbroken since St. Mark till today) included St. Athanasius (the defender in Nicea 325) and St. Cyril (the defender in Ephesus 431). Their successor St. Dioscorus (representing the faith of Alexandria) is the one excommunicated after Chalcedon in 451. - It was prophesied about in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:19), and the altar in the midst of Egypt exists in St. Mary’s Monastery El-Muharraq (where the Holy Family took dwelling for ~ 6 months during their escape to Egypt). - The Great St. Anthony the Father of Monasticism and St. Pachomius the founder of communal monasticism (i.e., monasteries) are both from Upper (Southern) Egypt. Now, I really doubt that the spiritual children of those two founders (i.e., all Egyptian monks) heeded the “heretic” path of the Coptic church of Alexandria and left the path of the “true Orthodox” church after Chalcedon. It is always told that if you want to find originality in anything, then you go to Upper Egypt (least affected by invasions); those in Upper Egypt would have admonished any wrong beliefs (since they are the children of the Great St. Anthony, whom St. Athanasius took pleasure in writing about for the benefit of the whole world). - “If the martyrs of the whole world were put on one arm of the balance and the martyrs of Egypt on the other, the balance will tilt in favor of the Copts” - Tertullian (on martyrs during the Roman Empire). To keep record of the martyrs, the church established the Coptic calendar to commemorate martyrs on their respective martyrdom days. Unsurprisingly, the same Coptic church of martyrs (that the video is debunking) recently presented to Christ 21 martyrs in Libya by whom the whole world was humbled. It is also noteworthy that most of the recent persecutions on Christians by extremists of any kind occurred usually in Africa, India, and in between which happens to be mostly Oriental. I hope that tells people something about those “heretic” Oriental Orthodox Christians. - The first theological school in the world is the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some have it that it was established in the 2nd century, but we hold that St. Mark is the one who founded it (either way it was very early). Therefore, I really hope everyone including the two gentlemen in the video would take great care and caution when talking about the Church of Alexandria or using our pope's picture in the thumbnail. = Oriental attempting to approach/reconcile with Eastern: - I really want to clarify to ALL that we are not dying to be united with the Eastern Orthodox Church because it is the true church representative of the unbroken apostolic faith. We have been doing really really REALLY fine on our own. My church is truly rich beyond measure (as I am sure most other traditional churches are) - the availability of Coptic resources in English is by no means a statistic of how deep the Coptic Church runs. - Yet, we are striving really hard for union SOLELY to set the Christian example of love, forgiveness, and humility before the whole world. As children of Christ, this is what we must do. = Why wait 1500 years? - Egypt has been strictly governed by subsequent Islamic dynasties continuously over the past 1200 years. - Travelling and communication only started to be practically viable in the last century with the rise of the industrial revolution and the modern age of technology. - Potentially other reasons too. We do not know what God’s plans are, but we believe in his timing and economy. = Who discusses these matters? - The church has people of certain spiritual level, wisdom, and experience become bishops for a reason. Those people are qualified to shepherd others and are entrusted by others to represent church in official affairs “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace.” - It only fits that those are the people to lead their churches during like conversations. At the very least, those people start and end their meetings with prayers for union through God’s grace and mutual love and humility. - Then comes David Erhan (the author of the TH-cam series Kyle keeps referencing in his replies) with his explicitly judgmental, debate style and tries to interpret the recent 1989/1990 agreement (1st step for unity between Oriental and Eastern) in his own light (refer to th-cam.com/users/liveE1woCx31Cq0?si=SMfaDB9TPXvueXUN ). - Even scholars (like the two Ph.D.’s referenced below) present this topic with 1) extreme care and 2) hope for unity (whereas David says in one of his debates that he does not think we will ever unite; that hopefully shows people whether David’s work is in Christ or not). - I understand why David would make statements about my church in his video, but I do not know why he would not practice caution and choice of words when he talks about what “his” church leaders should or should not have done. I mean if I do not follow my church’s spiritual leaders and overseers at least to some extent, then the overall church hierarchy solely becomes a formality with no spiritual submission (refer to how sub-deacon Danial (Coptic) clarifies that his statements only represent him when different from the Coptic Church Synod th-cam.com/users/liveeZp-uXNkDw0?si=1T0jVlLUahwc3NqB ).
= My humble opinion and understanding (vulnerable to flaws and inaccuracies): - It is painful to remember the Council of Chalcedon because it is the hardest strike Satan launched on the church. It is particularly difficult for us the people of Alexandria because our Pope (St. Dioscorus) was humiliated and persecuted during it and in the aftermath. The only way past it is to “forget” what happened in Chalcedon (because the Coptic church will never renounce our heroes like St. Dioscorus and St. Severus of Antioch). We, represented by Anba Bishoy delegated by Pope Shenouda III, did that in 1990 (i.e., forgot/forgave what happened in Chalcedon) in order to move forward towards unity. - Satan has always been the spirit of division since his fall, first dividing angels, then man from God, then man and man, then the Israelites, and finally the body of Christ (the church). However, God’s way of doing things is to transform anything Satan does into goodness via his synergy with human submitting to him (for “all things work together for good to those who love God”). For, to Satan, God is still the Pantocrator (just like to us). The “great” schism in ~1054 produced the Catholic church which in turn gave rise to the Protestant Reformation. Now, nearly every household in the world has a Bible thanks to the Protestants (despite all our differences). Similarly, we have faith that the Eastern and Oriental will fully unite through God’s plan - whether people like it or not - and show everyone that the church of Christ is ONE, praying that all other churches also join. - I am especially most comfortable with my church’s theology because it rejects digging deeper into areas that are governed mostly by intellect - regardless of how much those areas diversify, enrich, or deepen our understanding of a certain idea. What we already have in store is more than sufficient for everyone to arrive safely in heaven and to lead a spiritually advanced relationship with God - sometimes even beyond human capability and conception (and we have numerous examples of this). Some matters are only fit for contemplation within one’s personal relationship with God for my sister the bride is a garden enclosed, an eye shut up, and a sealed spring. Some Eastern people might consider this to be a limited mindset or an ideology that has been rid of potential, but I prefer this way of approaching things (i.e., cautiously). - For example, Pope Shenouda III (117th pope of Alexandria) excommunicated people for merely inviting readers/listeners to wonder about matters that are typically not a topic of sermons or public teaching in our church - whereas those matters might not have been inherently incorrect but could be easily misunderstood or ill received by many. This does NOT mean that those people are not going to heaven but mainly marking them as a source to be extremely cautious with. I really do not see how much more Orthodox we can get!! Then, we see certain individuals (sadly from within the church sometimes) explicitly criticizing and judging Pope Shenouda (and bishops and priests), dropping all the submission and respect for priesthood and forgetting the fact that Pope Shenouda is the successor of St. Athanasius (the 20th pope of Alexandria) on the same order and in terms of shepherding the church rightly as deemed fit during their respective times. - Another personal view on our Orthodoxy is Coptic hymns. Our hymnology is passed down primarily via oral tradition (refer to this great article www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/04/a-coptic-good-Friday ). I think that Coptic hymns sound really good from everyone (even with no musical background or good voice) as long as they stick to the tune without making mistakes or overperforming outside the known flow of the hymn. I usually do not prefer clergy who utilize their vocal abilities to make any sort of additions to the hymn. Again, I really do not see how much more Orthodox we can get. Coptic liturgical services are notorious for being one of the longest (if not the longest), and I think the main reason for this is that we kept adding hymns and rites over time without any deletions in fear of losing any piece of it. Here are references for those interested in further details: 1- Interview about the Coptic Church (with Fr. James - great priest in Chicago): th-cam.com/video/YF_QHHp_Ts4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=q8YIN7CyFCsr3Dqb (this is one of 4 parts but is the one relevant to our discussion here) 2- Overview of Chalcedon from an amazing Coptic priest monk (Father Anthony Paul): th-cam.com/users/livebJcUWLH4klg?si=wBCsAnokUm3YKOOI 3- General Q&A with Dr. Jeannie Constantinou (a very good Eastern scholar and a priest wife) hosted by a Coptic church where she talks about the schism in minute 1:01:20 (the link takes you directly to that part): th-cam.com/users/liveN5OTG54VQnc?si=odkrLS6uKThj6ALL&t=3679 4- Academic overview of Chalcedon from an Eastern professor: th-cam.com/video/ghn1nwki2q4/w-d-xo.html 5- Academic book from a Coptic deacon (great personal acquaintance too) showing how Chalcedon was not purely theological (I did not read the book but had a presentation by the author). He received his master’s on this topic from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (who definitely would not have granted him his degree if he did not back up everything he wrote by credible historical references): “An Embedded Tome and the Healing of the Chalcedonian Divide: Unity of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Volume 1 The Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo” Here is his website as well (where you can find more details about his work and an intro video from a revered Coptic priest who participated in 1989/1990 discussions): michaelmeshreki.wordpress.com/ P.S.: I wrote all of this to vent out and maybe provide more context to others. I do not have time for debates, and I am not qualified to talk about the history/theology. That is why I did not go into any of the theological details. I just hope it orients/guides some people.
everything is beautifully written, thank you brother❤ it is really saddening to me with how much disrespect EO Christians talk about OO. Much love from an Armenian Apostolic,stay strong.🙏💕
This is so wonderfully written. To me the Coptic church represents the most authentic Church in orthodoxy. Please also remember our 34 Ethiopian Christian brothers who were also martyred at the hands of Libyan isis in 2015 🙏
The way we were taught it at school, they made it seem like monophysitism was a small, insignificant sect of Christianity in the early Byzantine period, they never explained the theological differences, or that it exists today. Thanks for shedding some light on this Kyle, as an Orthodox Christian, I feel like im learning a lot in your channel 👍
They would be right because the Oriental Orthodox are NOT monophysites. It’s a slander term used by EO like David Erhan to belittle and mock OO. In fact, at the time of the split, the OO were the majority.
@@user-fh9kf5ps4p Not really sure why you put english in the mix, but still the words are completely different. Μόνος,-η,-ο ie. monos (adjective) means alone, sole. From the adjective derives the adverb μόνο(ν) that means only. Ένας, μία ie. mia (or μια, with the accent on α), ένα is a numeral (cardinal number) [=one]; it is also used as the indefinite article: a, an.
@@user-fh9kf5ps4p Why are you still bringing up english? English is one of the poorest languages in the world. In english "mono" and "one" may be synonymous but in Greek it's a whole other story. Words have meaning and specific words are used for a reason. I'm guessing you are eastern orthodox and if so you should know the importance of language and wording. So please stop trying to convince yourself that mono and mia are the same just because it is in the english language.
Might be an unpopular opinion, and while I like Jay Dyer, I find your videos to be a lot better in terms of editing. I also appreciate how humble you are. Please pray for me. I’m a catechumen at an OCA Church in Texas. Pray that I get over my urges to sin. It’s difficult. Thanks.
Jay's video are great for quality & depth. I think my videos are short form, pop but you can go deeper with people like Jay or David. God bless! join discord if you have questions: discord.com/invite/wtqDsy4eVs
Let’s have a council to address the Nestorian heresy…then let’s flirt dangerously close to that heresy, and everyone who doesn’t do it is a heretic-We’ll just call them Orientals and put the word Orthodoxy in quotations.
I have a question and I don’t ask it with any ill intent , I’m a Coptic Christian and my question is do you think even with these theological differences that the oriental church is not saved ? Because I had an experience with Jesus Christ in the Coptic Church I grew up in my whole life , just interested to see your viewpoint
@@3wL7 how could you say this , how are you saved because I believe Jesus died for my sins , I have been baptized, I am a deacon , I receive the Holy Eucharist , and I have experienced the Holy Spirit soul for you to come in to say I am not saved. You are then playing the role of God to say who makes the cut and who does it the difference between oriental and eastern orthodox from my viewpoint, at least, is minuscule, and it does not change what Jesus Christ did for all of us, if an oriental Christian spends their life living for Jesus Christ, you think because we believe he is fully man fully God in one essence instead of two I am in danger of hellfire we cannot play the role of God. We must have our faith and especially for the Christian community except others because if in the end of the day, we are all rooted in Christ that is the most important thing.
@@The35AD Wrong christology is not a minuscule difference, sorry. _You are then playing the role of God to say who makes the cut and who does it the difference between oriental and eastern orthodox_ I'm not playing the role of God. Ask yourself why are we not in communion with Oriental Orthodox? _you think because we believe he is fully man fully God in one essence instead of two I am in danger of hellfire_ "Filioque" seems to be "a minuscule difference" too, but with terrible consequences. Same for "in one essence". I'm sorry, but this is not minuscule at all, it is a major heresy. That's why the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Church are not one Church any longer. Just drop that heresy and accept Chalcedon. Your efforts and struggle and faith in Christ are in vain because of a "minuscule" heresy, sadly... It is really sad and painful for us to say this, but... it is what it is...
@@3wL7 OO have more martyrs(just like Jesus Prophesized ) and much more welcoming than EO without cursing or calling others heretics non stop like you guys do, even their church is still persecuted even today, Their Church have miracles such as Lady of Zeitoun, Walls Dripping oil. And one question who are you to say who is saved or who is not? Are you god? God will judge people according to their hearts and it's complete mystery for us. To Lord EYES we are still are ONE church(Orientals,Catholics,Eastern) it's just us humans who divided the body of christ. Because those 3 churches have apostolic succesions!
I have a question that is more of an opinion then a concrete answer but I’d still enjoy your take on it, but would intoxicants that are used medicinally be considered sin? Because not trying to argue any way about it, but I’ve seen the “if it intoxicates you it’s sin” argument for why recreational weed is a sin for example, but I’ve had morphine and fentanyl in a hospital before, would that be sin? And the argument that you can drink alcohol but not be drunk, you could make the same arguments for many other things, maybe I should ask a priest, but i wanted an open dialogue in the comments about this for some unseen insight
"morphine and fentanyl in a hospital before, would that be sin" WHY WOULD that be a sin? those are to help / save your life??? medicine helps us! AND yes! pleas ask a priest. God bless!
St Cyril and the 3rd Ecumenical council taught the contemplation of the two natures after the union in thought alone. To emphasize the 2 natures separately as though they were different centres of activity, as though they were persons in Christ sounds Nestorian. To emphasize the 2 natures separately as though they were different centres of activity, as though they were persons in Christ sounds Nestorian.
As an Ethiopian, I'd like to clarify that the Jewish practices we have are deeply rooted in our culture. A wise Ethiopian Orthodox will tell you abstaining from pork ("unclean" animals) is our culture, not our religion. Ethiopia's first introduction to monotheism was actually through Judaism. According to tradition, the Queen of Sheba was Ethiopian (Axumite). She and Solomon had a son who stole the Arc of Covenant and placed it in Ethiopia where it rests. Whether this tale is true, I could not confirm nor deny (highly unlikely because only priests were allowed to carry the Ark of Covenant), but this is what Ethiopians believe to be the origin of our Jewish culture. Also, circumcision is not a bad practice, although not necessary. After all, we are Abraham's sons, and all of Abraham's sons were required to be circumcised. The unclean part is sad though. Yes, women on their periods cannot enter the church (in tradition, not necessarily today). It's very extreme in my opinion. I still go to church on my period, but I don't take communion (like all Orthodox people)
Also we do not believe Christ has one nature! That's the monophysites. 2 in 1. We have a line from St. Basil's liturgy "truly I believe that His Divinity and His Humanity did not seperate for a moment or twinkling of an eye" and "without mingling or confusion (referring to Jesus' Divinity and Humanity)" How I understand Jesus' will is that He had the "human" will of the fear of death, but He did not have the will of flesh or any temptations (because He is God, and cannot be tempted) We also call St Mary the Theotokos, mother of God, literally. We venerate her so highly in this way that Ethiopian Protestants think we worship her.
you shouldnt go to church on your period. It isnt extreme if its in your book? Im not even Christian, but the fact that I see Christians like you and many, many many many many others, disrespecting the religion you claim to follow makes me stay the heck away from it. You people, all of you, will have to answer for that, if ever your religion is true.
@@basementlm4200 you shouldnt go to church on your period. It isnt extreme if its in your book? Im not even Christian, but the fact that I see Christians like you and many, many many many many others, disrespecting the religion you claim to follow makes me stay the heck away from it. You people, all of you, will have to answer for that, if ever your religion is true.
@@kidus_1010 thank you 🙏🏾 I'm just saddened when I see Eastern Orthodox and Catholics try to confuse us with nestorians (our patriarchs Cyril and Dioscorus actually opposed Nestorianism!) and monophysites when it's not true. The Council of Chalcedon was sadly very political. Thanks for understanding and God bless 🙌🏾
0:52 the Roman Catholic (Chalcedonian) NOW accepted the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, Syro-Malabar Catholic, Eritrean Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Syro-Malankara Catholic) without reconciliating their erroneous Non Chalcedonian Faith !!!! AND just labeled them as CATHOLIC !!! 😖😖😖😖😖 why on earth they need all the 7 ecumenical councils??? No wonder they accept Pachamama and all crazies just for numbers … no wonder the Scripture stated: when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth? … will he find His Church ???????? Or He will find a Frankenstein Bride instead ? That consisted of dead body parts
The likes of you need to be banned from the internet. These are Eastern Rite Catholics, not accepted OOs. And no. I'm not Catholic and even I know they didn't accept the so called Pachamama. Do y'all even take 5 minutes of your time to verify your info or are you happy being blind sheep?
What none of these churches are miasphyte even though they were once oriental orthodox Only the syro malankara (separated from syrian orthodox/indian orthodox church Syriac catholic church (separated from syrian orthodox church) Coptic catholic church(separated from coptic orthodox church) Armenian catholic church (separated from armenian orthodox church) Ethiopian/eritrean catholic church (separed from ethiopian and eritrean orthodox church) The rest of the churches (syro malabar and chaldean catholic) separated from the church of the east in 1552 who did not accept nestorianism. All these churches are dyophysite and renounced miasphytism when the returned to the one true church
@@giggabrigga82 is this even true? They renounced their Miaphysitism? This is really piqued my interest 🙏🏼 please if you have ecclesiastical documents or historical account on that matter 🙏🏼🙏🏼
@@gottliebgrubber92 These churches of course had to renounce miaphysitism before reuniting with the catholic church. I dont know what you mean by historical accounts and ecclesiastical documents. Some of my family is malankara catholic and i do know they were syrian orthodox/indian orthodox before Moran Geevarghese mar ivanios re united to the catholic church and asked the pope to consecrate another chruch under rome (syro malankara catholic church)
On the Sinod of Chalcedon God made a miracle that clarified that the confession of the Orthodox is correct and the Monophysites are wrong. We cannot ignore what the Holy Spirit told us.
Perhaps the church should make an orthodox liturgy based on their historical rites, but transformed by correct theology. Just a thought. Great video, very informative
St. Nektarios already did as his missionary work under the Patriarch of Alexandria. ROCOR at Jordanville will celebrate it on St. Nektarios' and St. Mark's feast day.
Ex Catholic converted to orthodoxy after A LOT of study. Chose the Coptic Orthodox Church. I can strongly say it’s the same faith and same christology. If you study the council of Chalcedon you’ll see: one side wanted to keep the original Cyrillian formula “μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη” Literally “one (Mia in Greek means one, in a union sense) nature of God the Logos incarnate”. Both oriental and Eastern Orthodox accept the Cyrillian formula as the best and most original christological formula. It doesn’t negate the two natures of Christ, as Eutyches did, nor it separates them like Nestorious did. The two natures are united without change, alteration nor mingling. EO tended to underline the distinction, OO tended to underline the union. But the christology is the same. OO didn’t want to change from Cyril’s formula and thus they were punished for it. EO didn’t want to change it either, but, because of the great heresies and debates wanted to make it more specific. OO didn’t see any reason to add anything to what Cyril left us. The truth is that Chalcedon was a great mess, politically, ecclesiastically and linguistically. The faith is the same, the christology is the same. Dyoschorus was beaten by the Greeks because he defended the cyriallian formula that the Greeks themselves accepted!
Now I understand you arguing about Christology and Energy/Essence distinction differences, maybe even Theosis even tho that's a stretch. But your other arguments are plain wrong and not even worth discussing, respectfully, like Iconography (literally no difference), and Cousin Marriage (not even an OO doctrine, was something that happened in certain regions of the COC, and was already condemned in local synods of said church). Not to mention the Armenian unleavened bread and the "judaizer" tendencies of the ETOC, these are literally their traditions ever since their churches existed. Why did no church father from Rome, Constantinople or Antioch before 451AD spoke against them as heresies? Or are we just nitpicking what we believe are heresies to make it inconveniently harder for both EO and OO churches to unite?
I never said we disagree on Iconography? "judaizer" tendencies on circumsncsion? So you are are admitting that they exist. "spoke against them as heresies?" there was? some times that don't know everything that was going on? "it inconveniently harder" I only briefly mentioned these in the video? the MAIN disputes are on Christology, One side needs to admit they are wrong! and we should discuss these issues, David has debates them... God bless!
The Christological agreements between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox are as follows: " The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of “one nature of the incarnate Logos” (mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is “in thought alone” (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene.
These are divine mysteries, my friend. It seems from my experience that even most Orthodox realize that Oriental miaphysitism isn't necessarily, blatantly false - if everyone portrays each other with integrity. False accusations of false doctrine are rampant in this topic. Miaphysites and Monophysites are _not_ the same.
@@alannt7St Thomas chrsitians were never nestorian we were under the church of the east and after the schsim of 1552 St Thomas christians were under the Chaldean Catholic Church Oriental orthodoxy came much later in the 1600s when Gregorios Qbdal Jaleel a syrian orthodox Bishop came to kerala and then Baselius Shakerullah Qasabgi replaced its original chaldean catholic liturgy to west syriac miasphytism
St thomas christians did not discrimate others based on caste as all christians were all one caste (syrian christian) St Thomas coverted higher caste hindus like brahmins and some jews but after we became christian we were all 1 caste and lost our privileges as brahmins.
Lmao yes. He asserted that each form does what is proper to it. This is nestorian. Furthermore, they accepted three chapters of heresy written by Theodoret, Ibas, and Theodore of Mospuestia, all known nestorians and the contents of which were written AGAINST Cyril’s 12 chapters that were accepted in Ephesus. Leo went as far as to reinstate the former Theodoret. Furthermore, Leo’s Tome says “Each nature is the agent of what is proper to it , working in fellowship with the other: the Word doing what is appropriate to the Word and the flesh what is appropriate to the flesh. THE ONE SHINES FORTH IN THE MIRACLES; THE OTHER SUBMITS TO THE INJURIES” There are more displays of Leo’s blatant Nestorianism in his sermons and even an explicit repudiation of St. Cyril’s formulation of “one physis of the Word of God made flesh”in his letter to Paschasinus.
This is so petty oh my gosh. So many Christians currently reject the real presence, the liturgy, and even delve into Nestorianism. You’re gonna get mad about this? Just go to Athos if you’re this pissed about something this petty.
The churches got together on several occasions in the last 60 years, and some of the lost knowledge clerics in the world agree that this is merely 2 ways to say the same thing. Insisting that there is a difference when the greatest orthodox minds disagree is striving for division
What do you think of this? Kallistos Ware, a Greek Eastern Orthodox bishop, expressed this doctrine as follows: "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
We KNOW the Grace/Salvation outside is IN the Church!! th-cam.com/video/bA3FqkGzrjk/w-d-xo.html yes, the quotes are correct But we want people to join the VISIBLE Church? WE CANOT validate beliefs we KNOW are false?? We know God is just but he also established a Church.. if people are aware of the truth = they should join. God bless!
@@OrthodoxKyle I wrestle with this because of God's justice. I understand the hesitancy to say that this statement is true as it could be stretched to lead people to believe that heresy is okay. But in terms of awareness of the truth, would it count as awareness of the truth if the people aware of the truth are unaware that it is the truth? Or would that just be a matter of God knowing the hearts of men? Also is there a hierarchy of sacraments importance in the Church? If participating in them is necessary for, and not just supplemental in, salvation how much participation does it take? For context I was raised Pentecostal and after my "struggle with God" phase I think I want to be Orthodox or Catholic so I am trying to learn as much about them as possible.
This guy is confusing, name me one other human born of immaculate conception and you can call Jesus human in nature, otherwise his entire premise is off
@@OrthodoxKyleSee my and other people's comment on uncreated and created. Is jesus not human? Is he not divine? So neing dyophysitism, how can he be both created and uncreated? You just shot yourself in the foot while trying to dismantle miaphysitism that is clearly OUT OF TWO NATURES.
My brother in Christ, we can agree to disagree on this one. Scholars on both sides have agreed that the Oriental view of the nature of Christ is valid, and the idea simply arose from trying to make Jesus out as one person, whereas in the Dyophysite view, it is less so. However, this has recently been understood to be a misunderstanding between the churches, and soon, I, a Copt, may be able to take communion in a Russian Orthodox Church. your misunderstanding of Miaphysitism only leads to more miscommunication and gives your followers the wrong idea. While I probably wouldn't attend Liturgy in a Dyophysite Church even if I could, we need to be able to come to an understanding referring to our 'differences', which are small when you really look at them. We are not Monophysites, nor should we be referred to as 'Anti-Chalcedonians' simply because we understood the natures of Christ differently, and were then not invited to following Councils. I like your content, but I think that you could have represented your opposition better. P.S.: While I have your attention, you should really be pronouncing Theotokos with less emphasis on the beginning of each syllable. Hearing you say "TheOhToKos" just fries my brain.
@@kidus_1010 they don't, they believe in Christ's two natures in a way that makes them sound like 2 persons which is similar to what the orientals believe (they don't differentiate between nature and person) but instead separate them instead of making one nature put of them
As to the question posed by this video of how can Christ's "One Nature" be both created and uncreated, which seems like a contradition, the answer is that His Nature is a united nature not a sungle nature it is a MIAphysis. He took his human nature which is created from St. Mary, and hypostatically united it with His Uncreated Divinity. That is what Miaphysites means by Miaphisis.He took His Humanity from Saint Mary and Made it One with His Divinity without change, alteration, confusion, or separation. This confession whiclh is announced in every liturgy clearly means that the duvinity fid not change or mix or get altered in anyway and is cimpletely intact... likewise with the humanity. The uncreatedness of the Divinity and the createdness of the Humanity exist united and unchanged in the "Miaphysis" of Christ. From that perspective, the Dyophysis of Christ is close to Nestorianism because they are not, as St. Cyril says, in thought alone but are dlistinct to the point of seeming separate in the dyoohysite formula, even though the Easter Orthodox confess they are not separate.
The idea of one nature in Ethiopian Orthodox has deeper meaning than u mentioned. It contains ur idea of two natures, who exist simultaneously but its discription may seem its just one natural. You have to know the language and culture to get the idea. Don't forget the great saints of the oriental Orthodox church.
@@OrthodoxKyleno it’s not Ephesus taught there is one One incarnate Nature from Two (Fully Divine and Fully Man). There cannot be two natures in reality it’s only in contemplation. Do you believe in 2 natures in reality or one?
@@therealkingbaldwin so you believe that two natures exist after the union? And that Christ is not One? Or is the two Nature in theoria (contemplation?) you sound Nestorian.
@@OrthodoxKyleactually the opposite. Oriental Orthodox population are increasing while EO is decreasing overall. Not to mention I’ve met many EO who converted to OO myself
@@OrthodoxKyle Oriental Orthodoxy is the closest you can get to the truth. Once you realize that Chalcedon goes entirely against Ephesus you find that OO is the way to go. Also we will never forget the fact that Nestorius accepted Chalcedon and Leo the heretic
Brother I have been a fan of yours for quite a while now, but this video was just beyond awful. You seem to have a very loose understanding of Oriental Orthodoxy, which is fine; But what I take issue with, is how you approached this video very combatively and painted a very inaccurate picture of Oriental Orthodoxy. I am Coptic and will always be Coptic Orthodox. Still, I regularly attend Paraklesis at a nearby Greek Orthodox Church, I pray for unity between our 'Orthodox' churches but videos like this do no service to either church tbh. Luckily from what I understand, recent ecumenical proceedings have been very promising. As always God bless ☦
You are welcome to reject Monophysite heresies, profess true faith by accepting all 7 Ecumenical Councils, we will Baptize you and you will become member of the Lord's Eastern orthodox Church. That is the only way to unite. Tomorrow we read anathemas over all heretics including Monophysites and sadly, as per your own admission, you will be included.
He took created human nature from the Theotokos and made it one with His Divinity without mingling, confusion, change, alteration or separation. This is from the Liturgy of St. Basil that the Miaphysites pray. Clearly then the "ousia" or "essence" or what the chalcedonians understand as "nature" was not changed altered or become composite which is the same as what the Eastern Orthodox believe. Miaphysite Christology is fully Orthodox.
What the chalcedonian eastern Orthodox think of when they say "nature" or physis is really "Essence" or Ousia. The Miaphysites do not belive in a MiaOusia, which is really what the Eastern Orthodox seem to misunderstand. Miaphysis to the Oriental Orthodox really just means that Christ is One Hypostasis, One Person, One Centre of Actvity One Concrete Entity, who is completely God and Completely Man. It might help the Eastern Orthodox to think of the Oriental Orthodox almost as they espouse 2 essences in the One Hypostasis of Christ who us fully consubstantial with the Father and fully Consubstantial with us. Miaphysitism is the Original Orthodox Christolgical definition as outlined in the third Ecumenical council.
Armenians are some of the strongest faithfuls out there. From 300 AD you guys have been faithful. Bless you and Bless your people in their struggle rn.
Your understanding in this matter is lacking. It is a wise thing to examine both sides of the story (unbiased) before making conclusions. There was so much more going on before and after the forth council. Language was certainly an issue, specifically the comprehension or application of certain terminologies in use by either side. The ‘Orientals’ could not agree to certain terminologies proposed by ‘the Chalcedonians’, due to their (Orientals) previous encounters with heretics such as Nestorius, Arius or Sabellius (who used some of the ‘phrasings in question’),which ultimately led them (Nestor etc.) astray into a heretical belief. It was (arguably) the Orientals, who maintained the Athanathian, Cyrilian, Basilian theological understanding of these matters, which was the guide line in the orthodox faith regarding the matter surrounding the 4th council. Bad politics fueled by Rome and Constantinople played the biggest part in what led to the split. For those who would like to get a better/deeper understanding of what occurred in and around the 4th council, I would recommend to read (for starters) ‘The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined by Fr. Samuel’. And for those who are content with believing that the ‘Easterners’ are the ‘bees knees’ … I am not sure if anything will persuade, and may the good Lord have mercy on us all.
He does it very clearly in his 2nd letter to Succensus. “the Only Begotten Son of God, in so far as he is understood to be, and actually is, God, did not himself suffer [bodily things] IN his own nature, but suffered rather IN his earthly nature.”
@@Luis-kn4pmyou need to deny your senses to say that, read the full letter. Letter 2 to Succensus is explicitly Miaphysite. > 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__****. They have forgotten, **however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level** which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why **__the two are no longer two__**, but through both of them **the one living creature is rendered complete**. St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus
And when you read his other passage, speak no more of the two separate natures after the union This noy only acknowledges two union, but further than that, at a deeper level, insists theres a union, not to emphasize the two natures anymore. Dont you think this is a deeper mature understanding than just two simple natures separately?
@@johnnyd2383 dont falsify me please if ypu can hear listen in a good manner fallen angels do not thanl GOD of falling but Let me say Again Thanks God am proud Oriental Orthodox Chrstian😍
Please guys watch the Oriental Orthodoxy series by Sam Shammoun on TH-cam. Then decide after hearing what Miaphysitism is from a Miaphysite. This video is by no means the accurate representation of Miaphysitism nor Dyophysitism. It's just overly simplified statements.
9:56 - 12:09 dude this debate is potentially very productive and instructive, and I do think it is not only important but crucial. But in the end, when we talk about Christianity, we are talking about several different religions, cause it's too complicated to define how much of the tradition is autoritative. Most Christians, specially western, Protestant, Pentecostal Christians (I would also say Baptists and Anabaptists, but I don't know them enough to do so) are not vocated to do Philosophy and enter so deep of a debate. But I should mention that our attachment to Sola Scriptura gives us some different interpretations on that issue. Say, when Jesus said "not my, but thy will be done" he was reffering to the crucifixion or to the calice of the Wrath of God?😊
Oriental Orthodoxy is the only other broken off group I believe could possibly reunite back with Eastern Orthodoxy. I must say I do think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Roman Catholicism is too far gone at this point.
I don’t think it’s a misunderstanding at all. I used to believe that when I was new to EO, especially because I had OO friends. Now, I know it’s down to different Christology.
It is more than a misunderstanding!! I don't see a REAL reunion with Rome possible. Eastern or Orientals would need to admit ONE of them was wrong, and admit their saints from 400s-now cannot be sure if they are Saints. It takes humility to admit you are wrong. I pray, but for now, we need to keep bringing everyone to the true Church!
Fun fact: You know what Eastern Orthodox are called in Oriental Orthodoxy? Roman Orthodox. They also won't let you commune because you're Nestorian. Coptic monks are some of the holiest men on planet Earth. The monks of the desert can easily go head to head with the holiness of Athos any day of the week.
Fortunately, I have NEVER seen/heard an Oriental claim that the eastern church is not orthodox. If you have heard it, then I apologize. However, practically every eastern TH-camr, that I have watched, claims the oriental church is heretical. This is very sad.😔
Let them accuse us all they want. It's not going to change anything.
All OO orthodox respect EO and pray for unity while EO hate the guys of OO .They do not even acknowledge them as Christians. They would talk tonthe heretic catholic pope but not to OO
@@felobatirmoheb4884
I am thinking of converting to Oriental church, actually...
That's like saying "If Mormons don't call you heretical then you shouldn't call them either". Even if the Oriental church didn't denounce the Orthodox Church it wouldn't mean that they are suddenly not committing heresies.
This is true and it hurts because I am Coptic Orthodox and I love Greek Orthodox church
I am an oriental orthodox from the Tewahedo church. The word "tewahedo" is directly related to our Christology teachings. My church emphasizes the five doctrines known as "amade misterate," which I have studied extensively. Even the way we understand the Trinity is uniquely sophisticated. Having said that, I would find it fascinating if you could facilitate a debate with a prominent Tewahedo scholar fluent in English. If you have organized such a discussion in the past, I would be grateful for the opportunity to learn from it.
The problem with Miaphysitism is that it creates incoherence when discussing soteriology and Christ's act of redemption for humanity. Miaphysitism insists on Christ's unity to the degree that how the Logos connects to humanity becomes impossible to answer, as Christ ends up being neither fully Divine nor fully human but something else, new, or what Orthodox Theology refers to as the "Tertiary Quid".
If Christ's identity as fully Divine and fully human allows for both the Divine and the human will to be present, yet in perfect harmony via energetic co-operation, then we have a way of describing how Christ redeems the believer = via the realignment of the wills, and by extension, the natures in the person of Christ.
Miaphysitism avoids that formula as they interpret it as being a division within Christ, but it's based on mistakenly perceiving distinction and division to be the same (although the criticism does apply to Roman Catholic "sacred heart" veneration, which the EO also makes).
But assuming this false equivalence also creates problems for the Trinity, as Miaphysites would be logically required to either proclaim the distinct persons to be in some way illusory (=modalism) in order to avoid the problem of division in God.
If real distinction =/= division, you can have Dyophysite theology that explains Christ's redemption, and also allow for the Trinity to be an absolute revealed truth about God.
I am not smart as you are... But from what I gather the oriental position leads to monophelstism and monoenergism which compromises free will which is a dead end for them
❤selam, i would love if he had a conversation with Deacon Henok elias. Wonderful man. Also to the people in the comments, the Tewahado orthodox may not be myaphisite
@@Biruk-um5rf We most definitely are Miaphysite
@helpIthinkmylegsaregone
I think there is a misunderstanding in your description. First I am by no means qualified to answer this but I merely wanted to put forth my understanding of Miaphysitism. First to understand it, I think it would do good to look at the origin of the word first. Mia means one. Not in the sense like Mono but composite one. If you look at Mark 10:8 when it says "...but one flesh" the word used there is Mia. One Flesh -》 Mia-flesh. And the context of that verse was marriage of two people. So by that, Christ said the husband and wife will become one.
So now let me ask you, when you say not fully God and not fully man, are you insinuating when Christ used the same word when taking about marriage, he is saying somehow the wife become something another and the husband the same?
It's the Miaphysite belief that Christ is both fully God and Man. We simply, honoring holy tradition taught by Saint Cyril when he said:
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. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete.
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 (1 Pet. 4.1) and it would be better for us to speak this way rather than [say he suffered] in the nature of the manhood, even though such a statement (unless it is said uncompromisingly by certain people) does not damage the sense of the mystery. For what else is the nature of manhood except the flesh with a rational soul? (Ep. 46.5)
Thus, if we are talking on theoretical grounds, sure we can discuss the nature's as two. But when you claim, Christ after the incarnation has 2 natures, instead of one incarnate (God-man) nature, as dyophisitism says, you deny Saint Cyril, you deny Ephsus, which is an Ecumenical Council and inerrant led by the Holy spirit.
Again, on your second paragraph, you talk about two wills. There are no two wills. There is only one. This is why we split from you guys. It's dangerous to speak of to wills cause you will end up, as glarely dyophisitism became, Nestorian. Cause here is a reminder, Nestorian NEVER said Two Persons. But by saying two natures, saint cyril was explaining how he will most definitely end up confessing two persons.
And Just as you have demonstrated, nature is completely associated with nature. But we understand the will of Christ, not exactly but to give an example, as the will of the Holytrinity. One nature, one will. Such is Christ. There is only one will in Christ. But at the same time we are not monothelites. By that I mean, we don't say absolutely one will exist. Same as his nature, in contemplation, in willing what is humanly(rest for example) he had human will, and in willing the divine(judgment), he has divine will. But on the matter of purpose of the incarnation, the God man, the incarnate Christ has one will.
I quote from an oriental Orthodox on this point:
St. Severus of Antioch said by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “He displays two wills in salvific suffering.” Two wills: to save us through death (as He was God) and not to die (as He was human). One will: to undergo death and suffer for our salvation (the will/purpose of the God-man, the Incarnate Logos). He had blameless human desires and underwent voluntary, blameless passions for our sakes, that we might be Deified through His Life-Giving Cross and Resurrection from the dead. The two wills, to not die and to save, are displayed through His one will: salvific suffering.
On the next paragraph, I don't know what division you are talking about exactly, but we don't see any division. In fact, in our Church's name, there this word "Tewahdo" meaning, United, or better translated, "having been made one." We no longer, after the incarnation, speak of, not think of realistically, not theoretically of two natures. If we do so we go against Ephsus which you guys accept too.
And on the holy Trinity, we have absolutely no problem emanating from our Christology. We do not see division, just like we don't see no two natures, and thus is the same for the Holy Trinity. 1 nature. I'd we are talking about distinctions, we then are only talking about persons in the Holy trinity. If you say then there is distinction in Christ, you are saying there are two persons, just like Saint Cyril warned us against.
With that logic, Dyophysitism is neo-nestorian. Just his belief with another coat. And that is why Nestorius and the Nestorian Church, the Assyrian Church of the each ACCEPT CHALCEDONE. I mean that should tell you something .
But nonetheless, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is a true Miaphysite Church with her true sister oriental churches. And we fully happy and in truth we are because of it. I am saying this because I read below somebody doubting it.
Thank you and let me know if I got anything wrong.
My girlfriend and I just went to our first divine liturgy this last Sunday and plan on going again next week. It was truly something I had never experienced before
Glory to God ☦☦
Meanwhile on the car ride home:
😴
Pretty disgusting to see people say, "I'm praying for them," as an insult
fr bro
No way bro! Bro! Bro! How old are you bro! I mean bro!
I pray you stop getting emotional.
It is not an insult, we actually pray for them.
I do at least.
@@johnsambo9379 fr bro i mean bro idk ngl no cap bruh. fr bruh? No cap ngl
Was Oriental Orthodox before this video, still am 😂
Check out David's other videos. Look into Eastern Orthodoxy. God bless!
Me too. We will never accept 2 Natures in reality this is against the Orthodox faith and the teaching of the Church fathers. Two Natures in contemplation alone.
@@OrthodoxKyletwo natures after the incarnation in any way is nestorianism
Oriental Orthodoxy is the Truth: please watch this video to understand in full from someone who well-studied all its details what the 4th Council was about. I appreciate Kyle but it seems like he's in an Echo chamber, repeating things he's heard and not basing it on his own research from all perspectives: th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html
Sorry you don’t accept the truth of the Orthodox Church.
I converted to Oriental Orthodoxy 10 years ago. Glory be to God ✝️✝️✝️
can you give me some proof of it?
Change your username then. You aren't Orthodox
they are orthodox@@ver939
@@ver939oriental *orthodox*. did you not see it?
@@ver939 HE is Orthodox but you EO are filled with evil in your hearts for thousans of years.
"The following comes from the time of St. Cyril’s condemnation of Nestorius; we will show, both from his synodal letter to the Orientals and his writings to Eulogius, that even after Nestorius’ condemnation his teaching on the confession concerning the two natures in Christ is the same, and he receives those who are the same mind. He says in his letter to Eulogius:
“There are some who receive the definition of faith drawn up by the Orientals and say; ‘why does the Alexandrian uphold and commend those who say two natures? For those who are of the opinion of Nestorius say that they, too, believe this.’ But those [who say this] are being carried away by things they don’t accurately understand. We must say this to those who condemn us: it is not necessary to flee from, or to avoid everything heretics say, for they confess many things we confess. Whenever the Arians say that the Father is the Creator and Lord of all things, will we therefore no longer hold this confession? The same is true in the case of Nestorius; although he said that there are two natures and understood that the flesh and the Divine Logos are different - for the nature of the Logos is different from the nature of the flesh - yet he did not confess with us the union.”
Notice the father clearly teaches us that Nestorius was not condemned because he said two natures, but because he denied the hyspostatic union of the two natures, thereby producing two sons. And so, wishing to put an end to such impiety, St. Cyril said, “One nature of the Son,” and he added the term “incarnate” to indicate that the nature of the divinity is one [nature], and the nature of the flesh is another, out of which the Christ is one, the same Son of God and Son of Man, and there are not two Christs or two Sons. And the holy Church of God rightly receives all the words spoken by St. Cyril, including the formula, “One nature of God the Word incarnate,” since it indicates that the nature of the flesh is another, out of which the one single Christ is produced."
- Emperor St. Justinian the Great, St. Justinian on the Mia Physis Terminology, Against the Monophysites.
As a syrian orthodox i hope u realize u are wrong
Damn bro such a good argument, why is he wrong?
You have a Nazi soldier as your image. That's quite disgusting and you obviously are a troll.
@@lunox69 Imagine if all the Church fathers just said to eachother "You are wrong lol"
@@worldexposed7 all churche fathers? Man you dont even accept all councils what do you have to do with them you heretic
The Ethiopians are not judaizers. For example with circumcision, The Ethiopians dont do it for salvation like the Jews in the OT.
I said they have some Judaizing tendencies? (e.g. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church calls for male circumcision) not needed.
Don’t they follow certain OT dietary laws like no pork? They definitely have Judaizing tendencies.
@@OrthodoxKyle I see but I was also just pointing out they dont treat these Jewish practices the same way as the Jews do. When you said in the veideo they have judiazing practices it seems like that.
@@TheRealRealOK it is part of their history before Christianity. They considered themselves Jews and that tradition remained. I wouldn't exactly call them full judaizers but it is problematic
Ethiopia had a massive Jewish community before they all went to Israel during the civil war. They did influence the new Christians a lot.
I'm coptic orthodox and proud. I have nothing against eastern orthodox individuals. Liturgies are almost identical, many holidays and Saint commemorations are on the same day (old calander) and we have not changed the faith at all. Many saints of both churches were coptic. Also we have many miracles! Our icons Drip holy oil occasionally and Saint Mary appeared in the church of zaiton in the 1960s. Even the Egyptian government tried to debunk this miracle (Muslims) and they could not. If we were heratics why would this happen?.... Having said that happy feast of the cross!
I have nothing against anyone. I just think the theological issues matter! Check out David Erhan! God bless!
@@OrthodoxKyle
Please address the _Three Chapters_ of Nestorian theology written by Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, that were formally accepted by Chalcedon as, quote, "orthodox."
. Why were those excommunicated Nestorian bishops reinstated in Chalcedon?
. Why did Constantinople II later anathematise the _Three Chapters_ by labelling them as "impious"?
. Why did the Chalcedonians later condemn Theodore after previously accepting his theology?
. How can a council led by the Holy Spirit endorse three entire chapters of heresies?
Your guest has declined to answer, as do several others, including two priests; but those are well-known facts.
True, if we Coptic people were wrong than no great mircales would take place. The Lord Christ even visited egypt and blessed it and even the phrophecy of the old testmant that said there would be an altar to the Lord in the midst of Egypt is the altar of the coptic monestary.
Cyril confessed to the Pope of Rome clearly that he confesses that: "Christ is from and in two natures."
The leader of the group who assassinated Proterius, Timothy “the Cat” was elected in 457 to be the patriarch of Monophysites. Timothy condemned Saint Cyril on account of the agreements: “Cyril […] having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ.” Even Severus of Antioch, the famous Monophysite figure condemned St. Cyril of Alexandria along with all the Holy Fathers saying: “The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril’s.”
The faith of the Copts and the faith articulated by Saint Cyril (the teachings of Chalcedon) are not equivalent are not reconcilable. Therefore, the difference between them Are dogmatic and not cultural or linguistic. Different Creeds, different worship, different faith.
One must be heretical. Christ has two natures, not one as Dioscorus, Severus and Timothy taught. Dyophysitism is the teaching of the saints of the east (basil and Gregory the theologian, John Damascus) and west (Leo, Cyprian, Augustine). Heresy is not Christian.
@@yojacqmiracles aren't a sign of truth. All denominations have miracles. Catholics do, and we eastern orthodox most certainly do.
Misinformation in this video: about icon veneration, about what is said about Ethiopian Orthodox church and its Jewish relations (instead, given the country's historical background, the fact they had Old testaments' faith before the coming of Christ is the truth), ...and of course about the nature of Christ.
The oriental teaching does not say "mixed". "United", yes but not "mixed". "Mixed" implies another being entirely. But "union" implies Without Mingling, Confusion, Alteration or Transmutation.
And literally it is from the fact that God's Word was conceived by the Virgin St. Mary that the theological stance one nature comes from. She gave birth to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is perfectly God and perfectly human but in union we don't say she gave birth to man and God but to an incarnate God. As a result of the unity of both natures (the divine-Logos and the human-inside the the Virgin St. Mary's womb), one nature was formed out of both.
An example to explain the one nature of Christ is written in the book "The nature of Christ" by his holiness Pope Shenouda III (I highly recommend the book) "In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration." as the iron is still iron and the fire is still fire.
Another example is of Human nature...do we say two nature of human? But it is true human consists of the body and the soul as one.
I attended my first orthodox service today, and didn't know that they that "coptic" was under oriental. Still It was a very informative visit. I had known about the history and specifics of orthodoxy, but not oriental. I spoke with the priest and he told me about the eastern churches, and while I continue looking around orthodoxy, choose a church where I can feel God in the most. So I'll keep looking but this video does help a lot with insight.
Join discord: discord.com/invite/wtqDsy4eVs
if you have questions
Check this: orthodoxyinamerica.org/
God bless
Kyle, usually love your content and I’m not getting into the Christological details but I will call out the blatant misinformation even if it’s likely unintentional. I’ll be specifically referring to that slide you had up around the 8 minute mark.
1. Orientals Orthodox DO believe in Theosis. It’s all over post Chalcedonian OO fathers
2. We also believe in Essence-energies distinction even if our articulation isn’t as developed as the EO, we would generally agree on the concept.
3. Ethiopians aren’t “judaizers” like you claimed. Customs like circumcision are just that: cultural traditions that are unrelated to salvation. We are culturally tied to Judaism. This is seen not only in scripture with the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah before running into Phillip in Acts but we also have blood ties with Jews from the Solomonic dynasty of Emperor Menelik I. Ethiopia was Jewish before it was Christian so we’ve held onto many Jewish customs over the centuries.
4. You didn’t mention this but we also believe in tollhouses. We may not call it that but the concept is EXACTLY the same.
5. How do we disagree on icons? We venerate icons exactly as you do and have the exact same concept of them. Another lie or misunderstanding on your part
6. Leavened vs. Unleavened bread. Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread for communion just like the Oriental Orthodox.
7. Cousin marriage!? What on earth are you talking about? Do the Eastern Orthodox allow cousin marriage? Because I know the Oriental Orthodox don’t. In fact the Ethiopian church forces you to make sure you don’t have any common ancestor in the past 7 generations before they’ll allow you to get married to someone.
Again, it’s not smart to make claims you can’t prove or are comfortable enough to debate with a knowledgeable opponent. Kyle if you’re genuine, you’ll admit your mistakes and misinformation and reupload this video with your mistakes corrected. The main reason for the split at Chalcedon wasn’t even Christology it was actually the council itself and the politics surrounding it. This is why the EO had to convene a 5th council to clarify the confusion of the 4th. Clearly there was something wrong with Chalcedon.
1. Jewish Customs must be forbidden in the church, even if it's just cultural and has no part in your salvation.
2. We have diffrent systems of Theosis, and ours is much more consistent with logical drawings of christology.
3. Armenians use unleavened bread for communion.
4. Coptics allow cousin marriage in a lot of cases, also making the "cultural" argument which goes against the theological nature of marriage.
5. Slightly diffrent doctrine of Iconography.
@@hannasaad495 Who says Jewish customs must be forbidden in church? Greeks have Greek customs, Russians have Russian customs etc. Ethiopia had Jewish culture so a lot of the Ethiopian culture just happens to be Jewish like I said. Do you think Jewish culture is an exception just because it’s Jewish?
Like I said concerning Theosis. The general concept is the same. Christ becoming man so that man can become God. Hesychasm is the point of contention really since it’s a 14th century development on Mt. Athos and unheard of in the Middle East and Africa.
Armenians have been using unleavened bread since forever. It’s really a non-issue. I brought it up because he tried to conflate the use of unleavened bread to Oriental Orthodoxy as a whole. This is almost as irrelevant as bearded vs clean shaven priests.
Concerning the Coptics. I actually looked into it and the only reason they allow cousin marriage is due to Islamic oppression that required cousins to marry in order to preserve the faith. Like a lot of these polemics between EOs and OOs the context of continuous Islamic oppression has to be applied to understand anything. So this practice isn’t universal among OO’s nor is it necessarily encouraged with the Coptics but is allowed to keep the population from disappearing in Egypt. Seems weird to you and I but in a position where your women are constantly being taken by Islamic overlords, you can see how they don’t have much choice. They do condemn continuously marrying cousins generation to generation to avoid genetic issues though.
I’m guessing the doctrines of iconography you refer to are the practices of kissing icons directly or kissing your fingers first before placing them on the icons? Again variances exist between different churches isolated in Islands in a sea of Islam but at least for us Ethiopians, we kiss icons directly. Really nothing worth mentioning.
A lot of substance less dialectics used by EOs to cause unnecessary conflict and division. It’s not that hard to admit that the only real difference between EOs and OOs is Chalcedon without trying to insert things to cause further strife all for the cause of virtue signaling as being anti-ecumenical.
No, the split isn’t due to politics. OO have incorrect christology. This is the same lie about the schism with Rome. People want to deny the major theological differences and blame politics.
@@TheRealRealOK Never denied any Christological differences. I said the Chalcedon controversy was mostly about the deposition of Dioscorus and the authority of Leo in imposing his tome. Read a little more carefully.
Good to see a fellow ethiopian here
"can't be created and uncreated at the same time" yet God is infinite yet finite in Christ...there are many "seeming" contradictions (another is how an infinite God was born to a woman) that exist with God because we can't know how it works. So you're limiting God and calling it reason.
Why can't God have a single nature that is both human and divine?
Maybe it's the over emphatic focus on "logic" that prevents you from seeing the real logic - God can do all things.
Every label limits Him. Every situation you say it has to be this or that limits Him.
You rely on your reason and not on God.
Amen
Notice how kyle responds to the comments hr can readily refute.
But not the ones that make sense. Love you kyle but you're missing something here.
Can God do that which is evil?
@@MrDantheNobody negative
God is inherently good
I think even athiest agree with this definition
@@bond3161 obviously. The point is to address the original commenter’s assertion that “God can do all things” and “Every label limits him”. God can do all that is within his nature to do. Given that God rationality and coherence are a part of his nature, it is no more limiting to insist that our conception of him must be rational and coherent, than it is to say he can only do good. God is inherently good, but he is inherently coherent and logical too. If God can only do good because that is what he is by nature, then God can only be logically coherent because he is logically coherent by nature.
@@MrDantheNobody mb
Ain't keeping up
God bless you
my brother, i am glad you make these videos. in greece where i live a lot of people are very liberal and you spread the truth for me.
🙏
From my observations, as a member of the Greek diaspora I see that Greeks outside of the homeland have this view of Greece as this sanctuary of culture and orthodoxy but unfortunately leftist ideology has taken a hold in some parts of Greece and brought it farther from orthodoxy, but people in the diaspora fail to recognize that.
In Greece the education system is screwed up bc teachers are constantly striking and the kids don't have the will to learn anything and just go to bars to escape and complain about some dumb thing a priest did on the news and just focus on having fun and lose interest in maintaining their farms and hence why Greece don't make shit and losing their culture
Η Αλήθεια χρειάζεται ταπεινότητα και προσευχή.. Όχι απόψεις χωρίς ακριβή ανάλωση..
🔥☦️🔥
As a Man who lives in a Liberal Area in Greece, its completely true. Greek society is very liberal @@thebalkanhistorian.3205
Proud Coptic Orthodox convert 😂
Hello, if you wanna learn about oriental Orthodox more please check Sam Shammoun series on TH-cam. You will love it.
Here is just a single episode
th-cam.com/video/Pdvz96zKwaQ/w-d-xo.html
There are 6 more and still coming.
There's a Coptic guy at my church (Russian Orthodox Church) who sometimes attends the divine liturgy, just to visit & have dialogues with people & my priest. He didn't take the Holy Communion, obviously. He's a convert from Protestanism, not a "cradle" Coptic Orthodox. So maybe he's still searching. I think he's inquiring & want to join my church, but I'm still not sure. I hope so, though.
Glory to God! be kind to him! talk to him. Pray for him! (:
@@OrthodoxKyle Of course. He converted around the same time as I, in 2016. I also came from Protestant background. So, we have some things in common. He's a proper bloke, from what I've known.
You accuse us of believing Jesus was a demigod and we accuse you of believing Jesus had a split/double personality.
The same mistake that nestorians did, you do not give birth to a nature, you give birth to person. What arr those 2 natures
Lol oriental orthodox are even older than Eastern Orthodox still telling us about Jesus
They are the same age... they were the same Church... until the Schism...
Nope, the first national churches in the world are today known as Oriental Orthodox. Armenia first to convert globally, then Ethiopia second to convert globally. Both converted to what is today known as Oriental Orthodoxy. So actually Oriental Orthodoxy definitely older than Eastern European orthodoxy.
I'm glad you made a video on oriental orthodoxy. I had been wondering what the differences were but too busy lately to look in to it
God bless!
Yea this video is full of blatant misrepresentation and misinformation. Do your own research and don’t blindly listen to a TH-camr.
@@kidus_1010 እኮ፤ ይሄ ደሃ ከተወሃዶ ኦርቶዶክስ ክርስትያን ጋር ክርክር ከማድረግ ዝም ብሎ "አዋቂ" ነኝ የሚል ሰው አምጥቶ የራሱን ሃሳብ ብቻ ይተረትራል።
The video is totally false we orientals are not like what he does on the video
Oriental Orthodoxy is the Truth: please watch this video to understand in full from someone who well-studied all its details what the 4th Council was about. I appreciate Kyle but it seems like he's in an Echo chamber, repeating things he's heard and not basing it on his own research from all perspectives: th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html
You have been magnificent in teaching me the first steps and basics of Eastern Orthodoxy and how it contrasts towards other religions like Roman Catholicism and the like. My thanks!
Glory to God!
Join discord if you have other questions: discord.com/invite/wtqDsy4eVs
Come visit: orthodoxyinamerica.org/
Thank you SO much kyle, it was worth the wait☦️☦️☦️
☦
Shame on you but Proud oriental orthodox church believer you totally talk false
An issue I see on both sides of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy is that there is a minority group within them that believe that by being fervently against the other Orthodox Church is to be super Orthodox and that it shows that they are super believer…however it is actually the opposite. Our Orthodox fathers listened to the world (not of the world) and through the Holy Spirit they spread the Gospel and pressed forward with the mission of the Church with love.
It's mostly an issue for EO not the OO. Eastern orthodox are known for calling everyone else heretics. While the oriental orthodox focus on following Christ and don't really care or every talk about other churches
@@unknown-vo3diPlus Orientals are more persecuted by Evil doers than EO just like Jesus
@@unknown-vo3diI think you are being disingenuous. Take for example this video itself, as I have seldom come across any videos on TH-cam of OOs doing the same
In REALITY the eastern and oriental BISHOPS have come to many key agreements on the Nature of Christ and are in serious dialogue to reunite. Please follow the direction of your BISHOPS and not what you see on TH-cam. In REALITY Both churches love each other and want to there to be full communion once more.
Ecumenism is a heresy.
i agree
A good few years back I was returning home from Palm Sunday feast and went past the Eritrean tewahedo church, who had their own service. All dressed in white as usual and holding olive branches. It certainly looks like they had celebrated more originally than we did in the Canonical Church, but how do we pray for them...
Pray that they become Orthdox, show them the truth!
@@OrthodoxKyle we are orthodox and we don't need ur blessings and prayers to become orthodox heretics!!
Cuz they are the original one
@@OrthodoxKyle if you want to know the truth study the Oriental ortodox better than spreading misinfomation and mocking it. If you have any questions about it there are many people out there who can help you clear your misunderstanding
hi - watched your interview with Fr Peter on your other channel. I do have a question for him (or you). I attended a few Divine Liturgies at a local church, what shocked me is the way the congregation (or some members of it) chat during the service and even talk and giggle in line for Communion! As a Trad Catholic I found this hard to deal with. Does this happen in Orthodoxy (it does in the Vatican II mainstream church but not in Trad Catholic churches)? I'm assuming/hoping this is an aberration. It put me off but I'll try another Orthodox Church.
Like any Church, there is some good / some bad.. Maybe even some bad apples at a Good Church! go visit a few in the area: orthodoxyinamerica.org/
Trad Catholic Parishes FSSP / SSPX will create environment where only the MOST serious people go there, versus 99% of other Catholics. Average Orthodox Church will have cradle / cultural Christians. But the motive for coming to Orthodoxy = true faith, unchanged teaching, Saints, Sacraments etc. Try out a few Local Orthodox Churches, talk to people, priest at Lunch hour. join discord if you have questions!
Something many clergy say: The Church is a hospital, sick people go there. Who walks into a hospital and goes "I can't be here, there are sick people!" People need healing. Pray for them and be patient with them.
My parish is quite lukewarm and has the same problem. Look for a parish that has a priest that considers your salvation and Orthodoxy as important. Then be patient with parishioners that are spiritually sick.
@@florida5236 - yes, agreed. As Kyle said in response to my point, Trad Catholics are a different breed and they travel miles to go to the rare Trad Churches so they're all really committed. I guess that spoilt me a bit. I just find chatter etc so distracting. I will try another Orthodox Church
So a few things I take issue with:
1. The Holy Spirit/Language Barrier argument: the Holy Spirit can never fail in its mission and one day the true church will be united and revealed. What a lot of EO fail to recognise is external church influences like politics and THE ENEMY (do I need to say his name?) led to certain individuals having pride. The non-acceptance at Chalcedon wasn’t a willing one. The Church of Alexandria wasn’t even given a proper seat at the table. Also, the Apostles speaking in tongues is not the same.
2. Limited information - OO church has a lot of books that have not been published online
3. A person is particular nature, if there are two natures in Christ that means there are two particular natures, that means that are two persons - David just plain butchered this and confused himself. This wasn’t even a proper response and a very watered down explanation on how the difference in Christology came about.
4. Heretics use slogans - so do you.
5. The conclusion was not even a conclusion. Nothing was debunked.
That bookshelf in the back is looking good dawg, don't break my heart by telling me it's a green screen.
looks expensive
I think it’s Jay Dyer’s bookshelf lol
@@therealkingbaldwin. Kyle is actually Jay’s son.
Immature and combative video. Unnecessary sound effects throughout. Not the correct tone to approach this subject. The guy you are interviewing does not seem to be well-informed on the reason the meetings took place in the '90s, nor informed on the purpose behind the slogans. No one is crafting theology around those slogans, so he is arguing a moot point and belittling the efforts of goodwill from his own EO fathers on attempts at reconciliation. As far as repeatedly using the word "Oriental" in the video, none of the Churches refer to themselves as such. They are simply Orthodox. There are no "monophosyte apologists". And yes, the way things are worded is of deepest, most significant importance because we are attempting to apply human understanding to the mysterious, incomprehensible nature of the Holy Trinity. Language is of utmost importance because there are words in Coptic/Armenian/Ge'ez/etc that do not have direct substitutes in Greek/Latin/English, and vice versa. It should not be lost that the split that happened in 451 was also steeped in political intrigue (primarily against Alexandria), which reared its head again when the Catholics mutually excommunicated the EO 600 years later (Rome vs Constantinople) to position themselves as the center of the Christian World.
You are not displaying Christ-like behavior in this video. At the very least, you should approach this subject with grace, humility, invitation, and respect. Irrespective of what you believe, the "Oriental" believers that are the target of your video hail from the factually oldest Churches in the world, and have long been persecuted, maimed, and killed for their Faith for millenia. You and your friend cannot judge their virgin Church, their uncompromising beliefs, and their incredible dedication of preserving their Faith into this modern era. Only the High Priest knows their hearts, and will judge them before the Father. As He will judge you.
God Bless.
I hope Orthodox Kyle replies to what you said anytime soon, but yes I agree that this sort of topic needs to be faced with humility, instead of just clowning on the Orientals, the Copts are powerful with amazing Saints and beautiful church tradition, while also facing persecution constantly.
@@chris.1237absolutely....
You are right, this video seems more of a mockery about an important faith in Christianity, possibly the most martyred one, such as the Armenians and Syriac.
"You are not displaying Christ-like behavior in this video" - try not to judge people. Only God can decide who is a good beliver or not. What happend on the Holy Synod from Chalcedon is not a matter of language. The Holy Fathers prayed long time before they written the document. They were under of the Holy Spirit inspiration. Moreover, Saint Euphemia made a miracle there, Fathers have written two documents, one was with the Orthodox confession, the other one was with the confession of Monophysites and let these two documents on the head of Saint Euphemia. The next day, after a night of vigil, they found the Orthodox document in the right hand of the Saint Euphemia and the monophysite document on their feets.
@cgabriel777 way to redact my post to "try not to judge" when I clearly stated that God will judge (which He will), then discuss a version of events that's disputed. Unsure what you're getting at aside from moving goalposts. Meanwhile, you didn't address the vast majority of what I wrote, which points out that the video is immature, combatitive, and has unecessary sound effects. Well done!
I'd like to clarify something important with reference to the "Common Declaration of His Holiness Paul VI and His Holiness Patriarch Amba Shenouda III" from 1973. Both leaders, representing the Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox churches respectively, affirmed their shared belief in the dual nature of Christ. The document clearly states that Christ is "perfect God with respect to His divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity." They stress that these two natures are inseparably and indivisibly united in Christ, contrary to the claims of Monophysitism. This demonstrates that the Coptic Orthodox Church does not espouse Monophysitism. Please consider this historical evidence when sharing information about different faiths.
This is fantastic and interesting, but catholicism is cognitive dissonance ever since Vatican II. Pope can say whatever he wants depending how he feels. Kissing the Quran and all that
My goal was not to provide the authority of the Roman catholic pope, but rather to show the theological call statement of the Coptic church, that some of you may not heard of
This has to be one of the most misinformed videos I’ve seen on this channel - actually bring an OO on the channel to discuss this has so many errors
He wont, he is a polemical neophyte
How exactly? can you explain how this is misinformed? There is entire playlist on the issue: th-cam.com/play/PL3QQ7jHr1GrTO3WLauMBQ6kbTEphu2rHg.html
IN the Playlist David has debated two OO? and they conceded the debate? so what am I missing?
@@OrthodoxKyle David erhan is a dishonest polemicist who even admits here that he was irked into his positions by unpleasant encounters with idiotic polemical orientals like the ones debated on his channel. In people like St. Nersus Snorhaili you can see that the Oriental and Eastern traditions have developed in their relationship and mutual understanding. There have been common christological statements and formal acceptances of each others sacraments (Like between Greek orthodox of Alexandria and Copts). These bad faith internet arguments cement schism, when the reality is that both traditions have a patristic basis and differ in focus and wording, not any meaningful theological distinctions. The history is also complex, and there are Monophysite saints in EO like empress theodra and St. Mark the ascetic. So we should be pushing for unity, not for stupid rehashing of 1000+ year old Christological debates that straight up do not matter.
It would be good indeed if he brought a OO on this channel to discuss this topic
@@OrthodoxKyleYou’re a fool. You made a video on us while having incorrect information everywhere. Thanks for proving the only way EO can get converts is from lies and deceit.
Thus far I heard from this “expert” he fails to prove that Oriental Orthodox do not believe in the full integrity of Christ’s humanity and the full integrity of Christ’s divinity. He furthermore downplays the talks of the 1960s to the 1990s as a bunch of ignorant folks who are sticking to slogans.
Asking if the nature is created or uncreated is as stupid as a question as asking if God is omnipotent enough to create a rock heavier than Himself. Otherwise, Erhan falls into the same criticism he claims of Orientals, he also is a man who supports his own slogans.
The fact that this video supports slogans over another church’s slogans shows that this is a debate about slogans, not about faith, confirming that this is an issue of semantics. You have yet to show where the heresy lies.
For instance, Erhan admits our fathers believe in one COMPOSITE will. The fact that you say COMPOSITE shows that it is stupid to ask what this “composition” is uncreated or created. That’s a Muslim tactic when they ask “Is Jesus created or uncreated?”
Context matters, cherry picking is dangerous for sure. Especially when dealing w/ faith. God Bless Brother!
Yet context is exactly what this video lacks and cherry-picking is what it does.
I took my brother and his girlfriend to Liturgy and Vespers this weekend.
She seems more open to it than he does.
Thanks for sharing! just be patient! watch my video How to Convert people Christianity.. Be patient with them. God bless!
Something funny I noticed. We make a distinction between EO and OO by name but Oriental literally means Eastern in Latin, so we call them Eastern Orthodox without realizing lol
No we do know
In Spanish the Greek schismatics are called "Orthodox" while the Orientals are called "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox"
i’m a little confused, why are there two different christologies expressed at two different councils?
The procession of the spirit is much more significant than the pious misunderstandings of linguistic context..
Christ was both fully God and fully man..
The Eastern and Orientals both fully agree with this truth.
Future will prove past
Enoch
th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html
This video is like an argument about omelette and scrambled eggs. There both eggs.
Yes, both sides are debating about Christ, but the issue is differing theology about Christ's natures.
@@d.rey5743 yeah I know but there’s a 5% difference in the theology
And arianism and trinitiarianism? Still one god still jesus is god.
And muslim and jesus? Still one god.
You haven't challenged your own views. Why not go the other way? When you realize its absurd to entertain the contrary, the truth is a one way direction with a very precise existence
Would you drink a drop of poison in a glass? Only 1%
Don't you know? Even the most righteous person is like dirty rags to the holy God. Dont belittle the Lord. Humble yourself first and challenge your own views.
Kyle and the expert you guys are amazing.
Your work is Apostlic,Holy and real OG (original Godly)
The Greek Patriarch of Alexandria and the Coptic Pope allow inter-marriages between Egyptian Christians and signed common Christianity.
The Greek Patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch allow inter-communion and forbid conversions between their churches in the middle east. Also signed common christological agreements.
Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals and Assyrians now agree in Christology since the last century. Kyle is being divisive.
Greeks are bringing many novelties into the fod of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That does not make them right... that alienates the from the EOC instead.
The idea of ተዋህዶ is every Where in the Orthodox church service.
After a huge amount of thinking and deciding, I have decided to become an Orthodox as a now ex-Presbyterian, you have explained a lot of theology and church history to me, you also influenced the decision that I made so I thank you for that. Hope you succeed my brother ❤
GLORY TO GOD!
watch this playlist if you have any last question as you leave Protestansim, Fr Josiah Trenham was x-Presbyterian, also. Not Orthodox Priest : th-cam.com/play/PL6eyVWFC0v8ceRe-hveesAjWERK3Rj8eV.html&si=HgnoEf7L30kvujkM
I also have a playlist called becoming Orthodox!
Come visit a Church! orthodoxyinamerica.org/
let me know how it goes and reach out if you have questions! I can help. God bless!
Severus disagrees with your statement.
Cyril confessed to the Pope of Rome clearly that he confesses that: "Christ is from and in two natures."
The leader of the group who assassinated Proterius, Timothy “the Cat” was elected in 457 to be the patriarch of Monophysites. Timothy condemned Saint Cyril on account of the agreements: “Cyril […] having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ.” Even Severus of Antioch, the famous Monophysite figure condemned St. Cyril of Alexandria along with all the Holy Fathers saying: “The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril’s.”
The Byzantine authorities launched a wide scale persecution of the Coptic church following Chalcedon. Since you believe in your dangerously close line to Nestorianism, where are your martyrs? How many defenders of the faith does the Eastern church have? The entire country of Greece is Orthodox, why are your churches empty? Where are the martyrs?
I’m glad you made this video. Many EOs, including some priests, fall for the nonsense that the schism between EO and OO is just semantics. Honestly, if it was just language, we would have repaired the schism hundreds of years ago.
hi brother, did u know that the unfortunate disagreement was about be pardoned in the 5th century by emperor zeno, and was halted by the pope of Constantinople(who accepted calcedon) , because they thought that the non calcedonians was not in the fault but the byzantine empire should apologies, we are human and none of us can say all the ecumenical councils had 0 politics, and calcedon was the worst of all the others.
@@eyoel_sh5496how can you say it’s political when it wasn’t? Are you trying to say Orthodox are in fault? Even though it was the non-caledonians who rejected and refused to even go to the council?
In fact, the schism could have sorted if Islam came a lot later. There were several attempts to sort out the schism like the second Constantinople council, but because the Muslims invaded, they'd have seen any Christian communion as a threat.
@@david-468Politics do indeed subvert the Churches back then just as they do today. It's sad and pathetic. Mind you I'm not saying it's only or even primarily political. But to say that politics are never involved is a naive way of looking at it.
@@fadikhoory5350 that's exactly my point.
NOTE: this is broken down into two comments due to word limit.
Dear viewers (if you plan to read this, please read it slowly and with mindfulness),
I am a Coptic Orthodox, and I am writing this long comment mainly because it really hurts to be directly/indirectly referred to as a “heretic” or “not orthodox” in such a video particularly from people taking up the role of representing a cousin church (Eastern/Chalcedonian Orthodox) that we are partially in communion with.
I can easily say things like “confessing only to three councils shows that Oriental is the most original and pure version of faith because more councils means more things needed correction”. This statement would make the Eastern Orthodox appear further from the truth and the Catholics even further (since they have even more councils). But, I am sorry I said that; I only wrote it to make a point - that is anyone can have a philosophy and make sound arguments about things (btw, there is a rule in studying liturgical texts saying shorter prayers are dated further back in time). Now, I truly have a number of aspects to elaborate on:
= Non-Copts talking about Copts:
- If I say I am left-handed, you cannot tell me that I am right-handed. If I tell you my name is Peter, you cannot tell me that my name is Mark. Similarly, only Copts get to tell if they are Monophysites, Miaphysites, or else.
- Then, you can base your discussion on how we define things and ONLY take it from there.
= Notable facts about the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria:
- It was established by St. Mark, the writer of the first historic gospel, whose home was the first church, and whose blood was shed over the streets of Alexandria by dragging. Now, we have his relics after Pope Paul VI (Catholic) graciously gave them to Pope Kyrillos VI (Coptic) in 1968.
- Its patriarch lineage (unbroken since St. Mark till today) included St. Athanasius (the defender in Nicea 325) and St. Cyril (the defender in Ephesus 431). Their successor St. Dioscorus (representing the faith of Alexandria) is the one excommunicated after Chalcedon in 451.
- It was prophesied about in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:19), and the altar in the midst of Egypt exists in St. Mary’s Monastery El-Muharraq (where the Holy Family took dwelling for ~ 6 months during their escape to Egypt).
- The Great St. Anthony the Father of Monasticism and St. Pachomius the founder of communal monasticism (i.e., monasteries) are both from Upper (Southern) Egypt. Now, I really doubt that the spiritual children of those two founders (i.e., all Egyptian monks) heeded the “heretic” path of the Coptic church of Alexandria and left the path of the “true Orthodox” church after Chalcedon. It is always told that if you want to find originality in anything, then you go to Upper Egypt (least affected by invasions); those in Upper Egypt would have admonished any wrong beliefs (since they are the children of the Great St. Anthony, whom St. Athanasius took pleasure in writing about for the benefit of the whole world).
- “If the martyrs of the whole world were put on one arm of the balance and the martyrs of Egypt on the other, the balance will tilt in favor of the Copts” - Tertullian (on martyrs during the Roman Empire). To keep record of the martyrs, the church established the Coptic calendar to commemorate martyrs on their respective martyrdom days. Unsurprisingly, the same Coptic church of martyrs (that the video is debunking) recently presented to Christ 21 martyrs in Libya by whom the whole world was humbled. It is also noteworthy that most of the recent persecutions on Christians by extremists of any kind occurred usually in Africa, India, and in between which happens to be mostly Oriental. I hope that tells people something about those “heretic” Oriental Orthodox Christians.
- The first theological school in the world is the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some have it that it was established in the 2nd century, but we hold that St. Mark is the one who founded it (either way it was very early).
Therefore, I really hope everyone including the two gentlemen in the video would take great care and caution when talking about the Church of Alexandria or using our pope's picture in the thumbnail.
= Oriental attempting to approach/reconcile with Eastern:
- I really want to clarify to ALL that we are not dying to be united with the Eastern Orthodox Church because it is the true church representative of the unbroken apostolic faith. We have been doing really really REALLY fine on our own. My church is truly rich beyond measure (as I am sure most other traditional churches are) - the availability of Coptic resources in English is by no means a statistic of how deep the Coptic Church runs.
- Yet, we are striving really hard for union SOLELY to set the Christian example of love, forgiveness, and humility before the whole world. As children of Christ, this is what we must do.
= Why wait 1500 years?
- Egypt has been strictly governed by subsequent Islamic dynasties continuously over the past 1200 years.
- Travelling and communication only started to be practically viable in the last century with the rise of the industrial revolution and the modern age of technology.
- Potentially other reasons too. We do not know what God’s plans are, but we believe in his timing and economy.
= Who discusses these matters?
- The church has people of certain spiritual level, wisdom, and experience become bishops for a reason. Those people are qualified to shepherd others and are entrusted by others to represent church in official affairs “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace.”
- It only fits that those are the people to lead their churches during like conversations. At the very least, those people start and end their meetings with prayers for union through God’s grace and mutual love and humility.
- Then comes David Erhan (the author of the TH-cam series Kyle keeps referencing in his replies) with his explicitly judgmental, debate style and tries to interpret the recent 1989/1990 agreement (1st step for unity between Oriental and Eastern) in his own light (refer to th-cam.com/users/liveE1woCx31Cq0?si=SMfaDB9TPXvueXUN ).
- Even scholars (like the two Ph.D.’s referenced below) present this topic with 1) extreme care and 2) hope for unity (whereas David says in one of his debates that he does not think we will ever unite; that hopefully shows people whether David’s work is in Christ or not).
- I understand why David would make statements about my church in his video, but I do not know why he would not practice caution and choice of words when he talks about what “his” church leaders should or should not have done. I mean if I do not follow my church’s spiritual leaders and overseers at least to some extent, then the overall church hierarchy solely becomes a formality with no spiritual submission (refer to how sub-deacon Danial (Coptic) clarifies that his statements only represent him when different from the Coptic Church Synod th-cam.com/users/liveeZp-uXNkDw0?si=1T0jVlLUahwc3NqB ).
= My humble opinion and understanding (vulnerable to flaws and inaccuracies):
- It is painful to remember the Council of Chalcedon because it is the hardest strike Satan launched on the church. It is particularly difficult for us the people of Alexandria because our Pope (St. Dioscorus) was humiliated and persecuted during it and in the aftermath. The only way past it is to “forget” what happened in Chalcedon (because the Coptic church will never renounce our heroes like St. Dioscorus and St. Severus of Antioch). We, represented by Anba Bishoy delegated by Pope Shenouda III, did that in 1990 (i.e., forgot/forgave what happened in Chalcedon) in order to move forward towards unity.
- Satan has always been the spirit of division since his fall, first dividing angels, then man from God, then man and man, then the Israelites, and finally the body of Christ (the church). However, God’s way of doing things is to transform anything Satan does into goodness via his synergy with human submitting to him (for “all things work together for good to those who love God”). For, to Satan, God is still the Pantocrator (just like to us). The “great” schism in ~1054 produced the Catholic church which in turn gave rise to the Protestant Reformation. Now, nearly every household in the world has a Bible thanks to the Protestants (despite all our differences). Similarly, we have faith that the Eastern and Oriental will fully unite through God’s plan - whether people like it or not - and show everyone that the church of Christ is ONE, praying that all other churches also join.
- I am especially most comfortable with my church’s theology because it rejects digging deeper into areas that are governed mostly by intellect - regardless of how much those areas diversify, enrich, or deepen our understanding of a certain idea. What we already have in store is more than sufficient for everyone to arrive safely in heaven and to lead a spiritually advanced relationship with God - sometimes even beyond human capability and conception (and we have numerous examples of this). Some matters are only fit for contemplation within one’s personal relationship with God for my sister the bride is a garden enclosed, an eye shut up, and a sealed spring. Some Eastern people might consider this to be a limited mindset or an ideology that has been rid of potential, but I prefer this way of approaching things (i.e., cautiously).
- For example, Pope Shenouda III (117th pope of Alexandria) excommunicated people for merely inviting readers/listeners to wonder about matters that are typically not a topic of sermons or public teaching in our church - whereas those matters might not have been inherently incorrect but could be easily misunderstood or ill received by many. This does NOT mean that those people are not going to heaven but mainly marking them as a source to be extremely cautious with. I really do not see how much more Orthodox we can get!! Then, we see certain individuals (sadly from within the church sometimes) explicitly criticizing and judging Pope Shenouda (and bishops and priests), dropping all the submission and respect for priesthood and forgetting the fact that Pope Shenouda is the successor of St. Athanasius (the 20th pope of Alexandria) on the same order and in terms of shepherding the church rightly as deemed fit during their respective times.
- Another personal view on our Orthodoxy is Coptic hymns. Our hymnology is passed down primarily via oral tradition (refer to this great article www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/04/a-coptic-good-Friday ). I think that Coptic hymns sound really good from everyone (even with no musical background or good voice) as long as they stick to the tune without making mistakes or overperforming outside the known flow of the hymn. I usually do not prefer clergy who utilize their vocal abilities to make any sort of additions to the hymn. Again, I really do not see how much more Orthodox we can get. Coptic liturgical services are notorious for being one of the longest (if not the longest), and I think the main reason for this is that we kept adding hymns and rites over time without any deletions in fear of losing any piece of it.
Here are references for those interested in further details:
1- Interview about the Coptic Church (with Fr. James - great priest in Chicago):
th-cam.com/video/YF_QHHp_Ts4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=q8YIN7CyFCsr3Dqb (this is one of 4 parts but is the one relevant to our discussion here)
2- Overview of Chalcedon from an amazing Coptic priest monk (Father Anthony Paul):
th-cam.com/users/livebJcUWLH4klg?si=wBCsAnokUm3YKOOI
3- General Q&A with Dr. Jeannie Constantinou (a very good Eastern scholar and a priest wife) hosted by a Coptic church where she talks about the schism in minute 1:01:20 (the link takes you directly to that part):
th-cam.com/users/liveN5OTG54VQnc?si=odkrLS6uKThj6ALL&t=3679
4- Academic overview of Chalcedon from an Eastern professor:
th-cam.com/video/ghn1nwki2q4/w-d-xo.html
5- Academic book from a Coptic deacon (great personal acquaintance too) showing how Chalcedon was not purely theological (I did not read the book but had a presentation by the author). He received his master’s on this topic from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (who definitely would not have granted him his degree if he did not back up everything he wrote by credible historical references):
“An Embedded Tome and the Healing of the Chalcedonian Divide: Unity of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Volume 1 The Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo”
Here is his website as well (where you can find more details about his work and an intro video from a revered Coptic priest who participated in 1989/1990 discussions): michaelmeshreki.wordpress.com/
P.S.: I wrote all of this to vent out and maybe provide more context to others. I do not have time for debates, and I am not qualified to talk about the history/theology. That is why I did not go into any of the theological details. I just hope it orients/guides some people.
everything is beautifully written, thank you brother❤ it is really saddening to me with how much disrespect EO Christians talk about OO. Much love from an Armenian Apostolic,stay strong.🙏💕
This is so wonderfully written. To me the Coptic church represents the most authentic Church in orthodoxy. Please also remember our 34 Ethiopian Christian brothers who were also martyred at the hands of Libyan isis in 2015 🙏
The way we were taught it at school, they made it seem like monophysitism was a small, insignificant sect of Christianity in the early Byzantine period, they never explained the theological differences, or that it exists today. Thanks for shedding some light on this Kyle, as an Orthodox Christian, I feel like im learning a lot in your channel 👍
They would be right because the Oriental Orthodox are NOT monophysites. It’s a slander term used by EO like David Erhan to belittle and mock OO. In fact, at the time of the split, the OO were the majority.
Just as the Arian heresy almost overtook the church@@kidus_1010
@@user-fh9kf5ps4pwrong, mono means lonely or singular. It' not the same as one.
@@user-fh9kf5ps4p Not really sure why you put english in the mix, but still the words are completely different.
Μόνος,-η,-ο ie. monos (adjective) means alone, sole. From the adjective derives the adverb μόνο(ν) that means only.
Ένας, μία ie. mia (or μια, with the accent on α), ένα is a numeral (cardinal number) [=one]; it is also used as the indefinite article: a, an.
@@user-fh9kf5ps4p Why are you still bringing up english? English is one of the poorest languages in the world. In english "mono" and "one" may be synonymous but in Greek it's a whole other story. Words have meaning and specific words are used for a reason. I'm guessing you are eastern orthodox and if so you should know the importance of language and wording. So please stop trying to convince yourself that mono and mia are the same just because it is in the english language.
Good timing seeing lots of Chalcedon talk lately
one more: th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html
W, I disslike when orientals say we are talking about the same thing when refering to Nature.
We don’t believe we are talking about the same thing. Miaphysitism is Orthodox
No we are not talking of the same thing
More Videos on the Issue @therealMedWhite ☦☦
th-cam.com/play/PL3QQ7jHr1GrTO3WLauMBQ6kbTEphu2rHg.html
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/OrthodoxKyle 🐦
@OrthodoxKyle have you read the Orthodox Joint Commission statement?
I post a link to the statement but I see it's being removed.
Might be an unpopular opinion, and while I like Jay Dyer, I find your videos to be a lot better in terms of editing. I also appreciate how humble you are. Please pray for me. I’m a catechumen at an OCA Church in Texas. Pray that I get over my urges to sin. It’s difficult. Thanks.
What does Jay have to do with anything?
Jay's video are great for quality & depth. I think my videos are short form, pop but you can go deeper with people like Jay or David. God bless! join discord if you have questions: discord.com/invite/wtqDsy4eVs
@@TheRealRealOKBecause Dyer is arrogant and don’t have the Holy Spirit. He might be knowledgeable of theology but he still empty spiritually.
@TheRealRealOK late reply, but I think Kyle has a jay dyer clip channel
@@YourBoyJohnny94 how do you know that?
Let’s have a council to address the Nestorian heresy…then let’s flirt dangerously close to that heresy, and everyone who doesn’t do it is a heretic-We’ll just call them Orientals and put the word Orthodoxy in quotations.
I have a question and I don’t ask it with any ill intent , I’m a Coptic Christian and my question is do you think even with these theological differences that the oriental church is not saved ? Because I had an experience with Jesus Christ in the Coptic Church I grew up in my whole life , just interested to see your viewpoint
Unfortunately, it is not saved.
@@3wL7 how could you say this , how are you saved because I believe Jesus died for my sins , I have been baptized, I am a deacon , I receive the Holy Eucharist , and I have experienced the Holy Spirit soul for you to come in to say I am not saved. You are then playing the role of God to say who makes the cut and who does it the difference between oriental and eastern orthodox from my viewpoint, at least, is minuscule, and it does not change what Jesus Christ did for all of us, if an oriental Christian spends their life living for Jesus Christ, you think because we believe he is fully man fully God in one essence instead of two I am in danger of hellfire we cannot play the role of God. We must have our faith and especially for the Christian community except others because if in the end of the day, we are all rooted in Christ that is the most important thing.
@@The35AD
Wrong christology is not a minuscule difference, sorry.
_You are then playing the role of God to say who makes the cut and who does it the difference between oriental and eastern orthodox_
I'm not playing the role of God. Ask yourself why are we not in communion with Oriental Orthodox?
_you think because we believe he is fully man fully God in one essence instead of two I am in danger of hellfire_
"Filioque" seems to be "a minuscule difference" too, but with terrible consequences. Same for "in one essence".
I'm sorry, but this is not minuscule at all, it is a major heresy. That's why the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Church are not one Church any longer. Just drop that heresy and accept Chalcedon.
Your efforts and struggle and faith in Christ are in vain because of a "minuscule" heresy, sadly... It is really sad and painful for us to say this, but... it is what it is...
Here's the TRUTH: th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html Proclaiming judgement is only for Christ and is a grave sin!
@@3wL7 OO have more martyrs(just like Jesus Prophesized ) and much more welcoming than EO without cursing or calling others heretics non stop like you guys do, even their church is still persecuted even today, Their Church have miracles such as Lady of Zeitoun, Walls Dripping oil. And one question who are you to say who is saved or who is not? Are you god? God will judge people according to their hearts and it's complete mystery for us. To Lord EYES we are still are ONE church(Orientals,Catholics,Eastern) it's just us humans who divided the body of christ. Because those 3 churches have apostolic succesions!
Best Orthodox TH-camr! Lord bless you Kyle 🙏
thanks haha
I have a question that is more of an opinion then a concrete answer but I’d still enjoy your take on it, but would intoxicants that are used medicinally be considered sin? Because not trying to argue any way about it, but I’ve seen the “if it intoxicates you it’s sin” argument for why recreational weed is a sin for example, but I’ve had morphine and fentanyl in a hospital before, would that be sin? And the argument that you can drink alcohol but not be drunk, you could make the same arguments for many other things, maybe I should ask a priest, but i wanted an open dialogue in the comments about this for some unseen insight
"morphine and fentanyl in a hospital before, would that be sin"
WHY WOULD that be a sin? those are to help / save your life??? medicine helps us!
AND yes! pleas ask a priest. God bless!
St Cyril and the 3rd Ecumenical council taught the contemplation of the two natures after the union in thought alone. To emphasize the 2 natures separately as though they were different centres of activity, as though they were persons in Christ sounds Nestorian. To emphasize the 2 natures separately as though they were different centres of activity, as though they were persons in Christ sounds Nestorian.
The two natures act in synergy, or "in communion" as Leo said. Not two acting subjects
Great video Kyle
thanks!
As an Ethiopian, I'd like to clarify that the Jewish practices we have are deeply rooted in our culture. A wise Ethiopian Orthodox will tell you abstaining from pork ("unclean" animals) is our culture, not our religion. Ethiopia's first introduction to monotheism was actually through Judaism. According to tradition, the Queen of Sheba was Ethiopian (Axumite). She and Solomon had a son who stole the Arc of Covenant and placed it in Ethiopia where it rests. Whether this tale is true, I could not confirm nor deny (highly unlikely because only priests were allowed to carry the Ark of Covenant), but this is what Ethiopians believe to be the origin of our Jewish culture. Also, circumcision is not a bad practice, although not necessary. After all, we are Abraham's sons, and all of Abraham's sons were required to be circumcised.
The unclean part is sad though. Yes, women on their periods cannot enter the church (in tradition, not necessarily today). It's very extreme in my opinion. I still go to church on my period, but I don't take communion (like all Orthodox people)
Also we do not believe Christ has one nature! That's the monophysites. 2 in 1. We have a line from St. Basil's liturgy "truly I believe that His Divinity and His Humanity did not seperate for a moment or twinkling of an eye" and "without mingling or confusion (referring to Jesus' Divinity and Humanity)"
How I understand Jesus' will is that He had the "human" will of the fear of death, but He did not have the will of flesh or any temptations (because He is God, and cannot be tempted)
We also call St Mary the Theotokos, mother of God, literally. We venerate her so highly in this way that Ethiopian Protestants think we worship her.
you shouldnt go to church on your period. It isnt extreme if its in your book? Im not even Christian, but the fact that I see Christians like you and many, many many many many others, disrespecting the religion you claim to follow makes me stay the heck away from it. You people, all of you, will have to answer for that, if ever your religion is true.
@@basementlm4200 you shouldnt go to church on your period. It isnt extreme if its in your book? Im not even Christian, but the fact that I see Christians like you and many, many many many many others, disrespecting the religion you claim to follow makes me stay the heck away from it. You people, all of you, will have to answer for that, if ever your religion is true.
Tell them sister. God bless you for standing firm in your faith.
@@kidus_1010 thank you 🙏🏾 I'm just saddened when I see Eastern Orthodox and Catholics try to confuse us with nestorians (our patriarchs Cyril and Dioscorus actually opposed Nestorianism!) and monophysites when it's not true. The Council of Chalcedon was sadly very political. Thanks for understanding and God bless 🙌🏾
When will you have a FaceBook group and chat.
If you were to choose which of Catholicism and Oritiental Orthodoxy is close to Eastern Orthodoxy, which would you pick?
0:52 the Roman Catholic (Chalcedonian) NOW accepted the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, Syro-Malabar Catholic, Eritrean Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Syro-Malankara Catholic) without reconciliating their erroneous Non Chalcedonian Faith !!!! AND just labeled them as CATHOLIC !!! 😖😖😖😖😖 why on earth they need all the 7 ecumenical councils??? No wonder they accept Pachamama and all crazies just for numbers … no wonder the Scripture stated: when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth? … will he find His Church ???????? Or He will find a Frankenstein Bride instead ? That consisted of dead body parts
The likes of you need to be banned from the internet.
These are Eastern Rite Catholics, not accepted OOs.
And no. I'm not Catholic and even I know they didn't accept the so called Pachamama.
Do y'all even take 5 minutes of your time to verify your info or are you happy being blind sheep?
What none of these churches are miasphyte even though they were once oriental orthodox
Only the syro malankara (separated from syrian orthodox/indian orthodox church
Syriac catholic church (separated from syrian orthodox church)
Coptic catholic church(separated from coptic orthodox church)
Armenian catholic church (separated from armenian orthodox church)
Ethiopian/eritrean catholic church (separed from ethiopian and eritrean orthodox church)
The rest of the churches (syro malabar and chaldean catholic) separated from the church of the east in 1552 who did not accept nestorianism.
All these churches are dyophysite and renounced miasphytism when the returned to the one true church
@@giggabrigga82 is this even true? They renounced their Miaphysitism? This is really piqued my interest 🙏🏼 please if you have ecclesiastical documents or historical account on that matter 🙏🏼🙏🏼
@@gottliebgrubber92 These churches of course had to renounce miaphysitism before reuniting with the catholic church.
I dont know what you mean by historical accounts and ecclesiastical documents.
Some of my family is malankara catholic and i do know they were syrian orthodox/indian orthodox before Moran Geevarghese mar ivanios re united to the catholic church and asked the pope to consecrate another chruch under rome (syro malankara catholic church)
On the Sinod of Chalcedon God made a miracle that clarified that the confession of the Orthodox is correct and the Monophysites are wrong. We cannot ignore what the Holy Spirit told us.
Perhaps the church should make an orthodox liturgy based on their historical rites, but transformed by correct theology. Just a thought. Great video, very informative
St. Nektarios already did as his missionary work under the Patriarch of Alexandria.
ROCOR at Jordanville will celebrate it on St. Nektarios' and St. Mark's feast day.
@@acekoala457where can I read more on this?
@@acekoala457I would like to know more about this as well.
@@acekoala457I’d like to know more about this as well.
@@ryrocks9487
Just look up "Liturgy of St. Mark Jordanville" and they have an article.
Ex Catholic converted to orthodoxy after A LOT of study. Chose the Coptic Orthodox Church.
I can strongly say it’s the same faith and same christology.
If you study the council of Chalcedon you’ll see: one side wanted to keep the original Cyrillian formula “μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη”
Literally “one (Mia in Greek means one, in a union sense) nature of God the Logos incarnate”.
Both oriental and Eastern Orthodox accept the Cyrillian formula as the best and most original christological formula.
It doesn’t negate the two natures of Christ, as Eutyches did, nor it separates them like Nestorious did.
The two natures are united without change, alteration nor mingling.
EO tended to underline the distinction, OO tended to underline the union. But the christology is the same.
OO didn’t want to change from Cyril’s formula and thus they were punished for it. EO didn’t want to change it either, but, because of the great heresies and debates wanted to make it more specific. OO didn’t see any reason to add anything to what Cyril left us.
The truth is that Chalcedon was a great mess, politically, ecclesiastically and linguistically.
The faith is the same, the christology is the same. Dyoschorus was beaten by the Greeks because he defended the cyriallian formula that the Greeks themselves accepted!
Would tou review the joint commission statements?
David already has: th-cam.com/play/PL3QQ7jHr1GrTO3WLauMBQ6kbTEphu2rHg.html
Now I understand you arguing about Christology and Energy/Essence distinction differences, maybe even Theosis even tho that's a stretch.
But your other arguments are plain wrong and not even worth discussing, respectfully, like Iconography (literally no difference), and Cousin Marriage (not even an OO doctrine, was something that happened in certain regions of the COC, and was already condemned in local synods of said church).
Not to mention the Armenian unleavened bread and the "judaizer" tendencies of the ETOC, these are literally their traditions ever since their churches existed. Why did no church father from Rome, Constantinople or Antioch before 451AD spoke against them as heresies? Or are we just nitpicking what we believe are heresies to make it inconveniently harder for both EO and OO churches to unite?
I never said we disagree on Iconography? "judaizer" tendencies on circumsncsion? So you are are admitting that they exist. "spoke against them as heresies?" there was? some times that don't know everything that was going on? "it inconveniently harder" I only briefly mentioned these in the video? the MAIN disputes are on Christology, One side needs to admit they are wrong! and we should discuss these issues, David has debates them... God bless!
What will you do if you find out that you are wrong?
Wrong on what? If I am corrected. I will follow the truth! Christ is the Truth! God bless!
The Christological agreements between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox are as follows:
" The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of “one nature of the incarnate Logos” (mia fusij tou qeou Logou
sesarkwmenh), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox
are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is
“in thought alone” (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of
Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene.
These are divine mysteries, my friend. It seems from my experience that even most Orthodox realize that Oriental miaphysitism isn't necessarily, blatantly false - if everyone portrays each other with integrity. False accusations of false doctrine are rampant in this topic. Miaphysites and Monophysites are _not_ the same.
You are unnecessary creating enemies, of your true allies.
I was reading about the Indian Malankara church. Apparently sometime in their history they adopted the Hindu caste system. 🤦♂
Pray for them!
we were Nestorians at the time, but we came to the truth of Oriental Orthodoxy and denounced caste system (only a few people held on to it).
@@alannt7St Thomas chrsitians were never nestorian we were under the church of the east and after the schsim of 1552 St Thomas christians were under the Chaldean Catholic Church
Oriental orthodoxy came much later in the 1600s when Gregorios Qbdal Jaleel a syrian orthodox Bishop came to kerala and then Baselius Shakerullah Qasabgi replaced its original chaldean catholic liturgy to west syriac miasphytism
St thomas christians did not discrimate others based on caste as all christians were all one caste (syrian christian)
St Thomas coverted higher caste hindus like brahmins and some jews but after we became christian we were all 1 caste and lost our privileges as brahmins.
Thoughts on Norse Paganism? I think it's really cool because I love the Marvel movies.
LOL
I prefer greek paganism, I'm more of a percy jackson fan
@@anonymoususer9303Isn't that the guy that directed Lord Of The Rings? I'm more of a Harry Potter geek🤓🧙♂️
Was the Christology of St Cyril accepted in all Christendom before Chalcedon? If so, why change it? Did the Tome of Leo have Nestorian implications?
Lmao yes. He asserted that each form does what is proper to it. This is nestorian. Furthermore, they accepted three chapters of heresy written by Theodoret, Ibas, and Theodore of Mospuestia, all known nestorians and the contents of which were written AGAINST Cyril’s 12 chapters that were accepted in Ephesus. Leo went as far as to reinstate the former Theodoret.
Furthermore, Leo’s Tome says “Each nature is the agent of what is proper to it , working in fellowship with the other: the Word doing what is appropriate to the Word and the flesh what is appropriate to the flesh. THE ONE SHINES FORTH IN THE MIRACLES; THE OTHER SUBMITS TO THE INJURIES”
There are more displays of Leo’s blatant Nestorianism in his sermons and even an explicit repudiation of St. Cyril’s formulation of “one physis of the Word of God made flesh”in his letter to Paschasinus.
The oriental Orthodox Churches strayed from the original Christianity the least
You are not orthodox, we "oriental" are the true orthodoxy . Read your father books like kirlos
I will pray for you.. Listen to what we said in the video!
This is so petty oh my gosh. So many Christians currently reject the real presence, the liturgy, and even delve into Nestorianism. You’re gonna get mad about this? Just go to Athos if you’re this pissed about something this petty.
The churches got together on several occasions in the last 60 years, and some of the lost knowledge clerics in the world agree that this is merely 2 ways to say the same thing. Insisting that there is a difference when the greatest orthodox minds disagree is striving for division
Yes agree
W like always
Babe wake up, new Kyle video
What do you think of this?
Kallistos Ware, a Greek Eastern Orthodox bishop, expressed this doctrine as follows:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
We KNOW the Grace/Salvation outside is IN the Church!! th-cam.com/video/bA3FqkGzrjk/w-d-xo.html yes, the quotes are correct
But we want people to join the VISIBLE Church? WE CANOT validate beliefs we KNOW are false?? We know God is just but he also established a Church.. if people are aware of the truth = they should join. God bless!
@@OrthodoxKyle I wrestle with this because of God's justice. I understand the hesitancy to say that this statement is true as it could be stretched to lead people to believe that heresy is okay. But in terms of awareness of the truth, would it count as awareness of the truth if the people aware of the truth are unaware that it is the truth? Or would that just be a matter of God knowing the hearts of men?
Also is there a hierarchy of sacraments importance in the Church? If participating in them is necessary for, and not just supplemental in, salvation how much participation does it take?
For context I was raised Pentecostal and after my "struggle with God" phase I think I want to be Orthodox or Catholic so I am trying to learn as much about them as possible.
This guy is confusing, name me one other human born of immaculate conception and you can call Jesus human in nature, otherwise his entire premise is off
These arguments are laughably bad. Sounds like Erhan made up his conclusion and hapazardly worked backward to make items fit. Weak.
how exactly?? adress what he said at the start of the video
@@OrthodoxKyleSee my and other people's comment on uncreated and created.
Is jesus not human? Is he not divine? So neing dyophysitism, how can he be both created and uncreated? You just shot yourself in the foot while trying to dismantle miaphysitism that is clearly OUT OF TWO NATURES.
My brother in Christ, we can agree to disagree on this one. Scholars on both sides have agreed that the Oriental view of the nature of Christ is valid, and the idea simply arose from trying to make Jesus out as one person, whereas in the Dyophysite view, it is less so. However, this has recently been understood to be a misunderstanding between the churches, and soon, I, a Copt, may be able to take communion in a Russian Orthodox Church. your misunderstanding of Miaphysitism only leads to more miscommunication and gives your followers the wrong idea. While I probably wouldn't attend Liturgy in a Dyophysite Church even if I could, we need to be able to come to an understanding referring to our 'differences', which are small when you really look at them. We are not Monophysites, nor should we be referred to as 'Anti-Chalcedonians' simply because we understood the natures of Christ differently, and were then not invited to following Councils. I like your content, but I think that you could have represented your opposition better.
P.S.: While I have your attention, you should really be pronouncing Theotokos with less emphasis on the beginning of each syllable. Hearing you say "TheOhToKos" just fries my brain.
check this out: th-cam.com/play/PL3QQ7jHr1GrTO3WLauMBQ6kbTEphu2rHg.html
God bless
Do the ACE next! Cool video tooo! I loved the stream
ACE Hardware? Debunk them?
@@OrthodoxKyle. ACE might be Assyrian Church of the East? If not, it’s definitely the hardware store.
That would be funny since the group you call Nestorians affirm the same Christological decrees of Chalcedon as you do. 😂
@@OrthodoxKyle Assyrian church of the East 😂
@@kidus_1010 they don't, they believe in Christ's two natures in a way that makes them sound like 2 persons which is similar to what the orientals believe (they don't differentiate between nature and person) but instead separate them instead of making one nature put of them
As to the question posed by this video of how can Christ's "One Nature" be both created and uncreated, which seems like a contradition, the answer is that His Nature is a united nature not a sungle nature it is a MIAphysis. He took his human nature which is created from St. Mary, and hypostatically united it with His Uncreated Divinity. That is what Miaphysites means by Miaphisis.He took His Humanity from Saint Mary and Made it One with His Divinity without change, alteration, confusion, or separation. This confession whiclh is announced in every liturgy clearly means that the duvinity fid not change or mix or get altered in anyway and is cimpletely intact... likewise with the humanity. The uncreatedness of the Divinity and the createdness of the Humanity exist united and unchanged in the "Miaphysis" of Christ.
From that perspective, the Dyophysis of Christ is close to Nestorianism because they are not, as St. Cyril says, in thought alone but are dlistinct to the point of seeming separate in the dyoohysite formula, even though the Easter Orthodox confess they are not separate.
They are SO close to the truth...Please pray for the Nestorians...
Lol
The idea of one nature in Ethiopian Orthodox has deeper meaning than u mentioned. It contains ur idea of two natures, who exist simultaneously but its discription may seem its just one natural. You have to know the language and culture to get the idea. Don't forget the great saints of the oriental Orthodox church.
But sadly the theology is wrong! check out David's other videos. God bless!
@@OrthodoxKyleno it’s not Ephesus taught there is one One incarnate Nature from Two (Fully Divine and Fully Man). There cannot be two natures in reality it’s only in contemplation. Do you believe in 2 natures in reality or one?
Who are the oriental saints you referencing
Severus denies the two natures after hypostatic union
@@therealkingbaldwin so you believe that two natures exist after the union? And that Christ is not One? Or is the two Nature in theoria (contemplation?) you sound Nestorian.
thanks for the vid bro
Will there ever be union between Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Oriental Orthodoxy?
probably not.. but we can pray (one side needs to admit they are wrong) Many Orientals are coming to Orthodoxy!
@@OrthodoxKyleactually the opposite. Oriental Orthodox population are increasing while EO is decreasing overall. Not to mention I’ve met many EO who converted to OO myself
@@OrthodoxKyle Oriental Orthodoxy is the closest you can get to the truth. Once you realize that Chalcedon goes entirely against Ephesus you find that OO is the way to go. Also we will never forget the fact that Nestorius accepted Chalcedon and Leo the heretic
God bless Kyle and all his work 🙏
thanks!
Brother I have been a fan of yours for quite a while now, but this video was just beyond awful. You seem to have a very loose understanding of Oriental Orthodoxy, which is fine; But what I take issue with, is how you approached this video very combatively and painted a very inaccurate picture of Oriental Orthodoxy. I am Coptic and will always be Coptic Orthodox. Still, I regularly attend Paraklesis at a nearby Greek Orthodox Church, I pray for unity between our 'Orthodox' churches but videos like this do no service to either church tbh. Luckily from what I understand, recent ecumenical proceedings have been very promising. As always God bless ☦
You are welcome to reject Monophysite heresies, profess true faith by accepting all 7 Ecumenical Councils, we will Baptize you and you will become member of the Lord's Eastern orthodox Church. That is the only way to unite. Tomorrow we read anathemas over all heretics including Monophysites and sadly, as per your own admission, you will be included.
He took created human nature from the Theotokos and made it one with His Divinity without mingling, confusion, change, alteration or separation. This is from the Liturgy of St. Basil that the Miaphysites pray. Clearly then the "ousia" or "essence" or what the chalcedonians understand as "nature" was not changed altered or become composite which is the same as what the Eastern Orthodox believe.
Miaphysite Christology is fully Orthodox.
What the chalcedonian eastern Orthodox think of when they say "nature" or physis is really "Essence" or Ousia. The Miaphysites do not belive in a MiaOusia, which is really what the Eastern Orthodox seem to misunderstand. Miaphysis to the Oriental Orthodox really just means that Christ is One Hypostasis, One Person, One Centre of Actvity One Concrete Entity, who is completely God and Completely Man.
It might help the Eastern Orthodox to think of the Oriental Orthodox almost as they espouse 2 essences in the One Hypostasis of Christ who us fully consubstantial with the Father and fully Consubstantial with us.
Miaphysitism is the Original Orthodox Christolgical definition as outlined in the third Ecumenical council.
You’re being kinda radical here
The important thing is the belief in one God
Proud to be Armenian apostolic Christian
Check out David's other videos on the issue! God bless!
Armenians are some of the strongest faithfuls out there. From 300 AD you guys have been faithful. Bless you and Bless your people in their struggle rn.
TRUTH: th-cam.com/video/0931iJGI1YI/w-d-xo.html
One God like Muslim?
Please articulate
@@bond3161 ofc there is only one God
Your understanding in this matter is lacking. It is a wise thing to examine both sides of the story (unbiased) before making conclusions. There was so much more going on before and after the forth council. Language was certainly an issue, specifically the comprehension or application of certain terminologies in use by either side. The ‘Orientals’ could not agree to certain terminologies proposed by ‘the Chalcedonians’, due to their (Orientals) previous encounters with heretics such as Nestorius, Arius or Sabellius (who used some of the ‘phrasings in question’),which ultimately led them (Nestor etc.) astray into a heretical belief. It was (arguably) the Orientals, who maintained the Athanathian, Cyrilian, Basilian theological understanding of these matters, which was the guide line in the orthodox faith regarding the matter surrounding the 4th council.
Bad politics fueled by Rome and Constantinople played the biggest part in what led to the split. For those who would like to get a better/deeper understanding of what occurred in and around the 4th council, I would recommend to read (for starters) ‘The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined by Fr. Samuel’. And for those who are content with believing that the ‘Easterners’ are the ‘bees knees’ … I am not sure if anything will persuade, and may the good Lord have mercy on us all.
Where does st Cyril use the terminology of "In" two natures "after" the incarnation? Lmk 🙏
He does it very clearly in his 2nd letter to Succensus. “the Only Begotten Son of God, in so far as he is understood to be, and actually is, God, did not himself suffer [bodily things] IN his own nature, but suffered rather IN his earthly nature.”
@@Luis-kn4pmyou need to deny your senses to say that, read the full letter. Letter 2 to Succensus is explicitly Miaphysite.
> 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__****. They have forgotten, **however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level** which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why **__the two are no longer two__**, but through both of them **the one living creature is rendered complete**.
St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus
And when you read his other passage, speak no more of the two separate natures after the union
This noy only acknowledges two union, but further than that, at a deeper level, insists theres a union, not to emphasize the two natures anymore. Dont you think this is a deeper mature understanding than just two simple natures separately?
One thing that really makes me wonder is does this affect our salvation?
Can you make a video on the Assyrian Church of the East
Eventually! God bless!
@@OrthodoxKyle thank you, you have been a great help through my faith journey and finding the truth
Thanks God I Am an Ortiental Orthodox and proud of that ❤
Pride is the sin that had brought down even the fallen angels...
@@johnnyd2383 dont falsify me please if ypu can hear listen in a good manner fallen angels do not thanl GOD of falling but Let me say Again Thanks God am proud Oriental Orthodox Chrstian😍
@@Elijah21548 Lesson number 2: Have you ever heard saying - What the fool is proud of, smart one is ashamed of.?
Please guys watch the Oriental Orthodoxy series by Sam Shammoun on TH-cam. Then decide after hearing what Miaphysitism is from a Miaphysite. This video is by no means the accurate representation of Miaphysitism nor Dyophysitism. It's just overly simplified statements.
9:56 - 12:09 dude this debate is potentially very productive and instructive, and I do think it is not only important but crucial. But in the end, when we talk about Christianity, we are talking about several different religions, cause it's too complicated to define how much of the tradition is autoritative. Most Christians, specially western, Protestant, Pentecostal Christians (I would also say Baptists and Anabaptists, but I don't know them enough to do so) are not vocated to do Philosophy and enter so deep of a debate. But I should mention that our attachment to Sola Scriptura gives us some different interpretations on that issue. Say, when Jesus said "not my, but thy will be done" he was reffering to the crucifixion or to the calice of the Wrath of God?😊
Oriental Orthodoxy is the only other broken off group I believe could possibly reunite back with Eastern Orthodoxy. I must say I do think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Roman Catholicism is too far gone at this point.
I don’t think it’s a misunderstanding at all. I used to believe that when I was new to EO, especially because I had OO friends. Now, I know it’s down to different Christology.
It is more than a misunderstanding!! I don't see a REAL reunion with Rome possible. Eastern or Orientals would need to admit ONE of them was wrong, and admit their saints from 400s-now cannot be sure if they are Saints. It takes humility to admit you are wrong. I pray, but for now, we need to keep bringing everyone to the true Church!
St. Dioscorus excommunicated all who signed the document at Chalcedon
@@williamacheampong1720 He’s a heretic, not a Saint.
@@williamacheampong1720 iirc one Church, the Armenians I think, rejected either Augustine or John Chrysostom and later accepter him
Fun fact: You know what Eastern Orthodox are called in Oriental Orthodoxy? Roman Orthodox. They also won't let you commune because you're Nestorian.
Coptic monks are some of the holiest men on planet Earth. The monks of the desert can easily go head to head with the holiness of Athos any day of the week.
Lol, we’re not Nestorian. Nestorius is a condemned heretic. I think OO are low IQ.
Except that Athos EO is not holy
@@Christian_Conservative
I disagree, though they come off as arrogant at times.
@@GabrielWithoutWings aren’t you an atheist?
@@GabrielWithoutWings-- How are all-night vigils and constant praying "arrogant?"