Shalom my name Harry and I’m a Messianic Jew and I’ve been contemplating on joining Oriental Orthodoxy since July of this year. Pray for me brethren that The Blessed Holy Trinity guide me in both Spirit and in Truth.
@@marcokite I have and although I have many friends who are EO, I can’t consciously accept the 4th Council of Chalcedon after much prayer and intense biblical study.
God bless you the Oriental Orthodox Church is truly the bride of Christ. I recommend attending liturgies. The Coptic liturgy of St Gregory is very mystical and touching.
As a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I say you are blessed no matter which you choose. I suggest that you read the book "Surprised by Christ" by Fr. James Bernstein, a Jewish man who became an Orthodox priest,
God bless you too my brother and may He reward you also for your efforts and your labor of which the fruits I adore and admire. Blessed fast of Saint Mary 🙏😊❤
Thank you for this amazing video. I have seen so many videos from the Easter orthodox side, but very little from Oriental orthodox. I really liked your simple explanation.
Mate in the fourth anethema it says (paraphrasing) whoever divides the actions between two PERSONS or HYPOSTASES, let them be anathema. It doesn’t say divides the actions between two NATURES. Persons do things, not natures. Natures give the potential to do things, that ls what leo means by actions according to different natures. The human nature gave Christ human potential energies such as dying, being born, pooping. You’re also baselessly asserting that two natures can’t share a hypostasis, because human nature and divine nature are both instatiated by a “person”, surely that person can be the same. Great video by the way
@Ben-w9c6m What you say about Cyril is not true. What I saw is he sometimes uses nature for what we call hypostasis. In that sense we would affirm one nature too. And sometimes uses hypostasis in a more general sense for anything 'real' even if it is not 'particular'. But as far as I know both the EO and Severus etc use hypostasis for the 'particular'. In that regard both deviate from Cyril. Cyril makes one important mistake, which is that he uses the formula "Mia physis tou theou Logou sesarkomene" which has objectively unclear meaning and can be used and has been used by groups you would consider heretic too. But it is not the words that are important but the meaning.
Recently I learned that the difference between EO and OO: EO Dyophisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and two wills. OO Miaphisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and one will. Note that EO said His two natures became one in composition but has two wills. How could once He became one, and has two wills? It does not make sense. Whereas, with OO, once His two natures became one in composition, He has one will. That makes sense.
Hey brother, I really appreciate your video and the love you have for the Coptic Orthodox Church. As someone who was raised Coptic Orthodox but later converted to Catholicism, I completely understand where you’re coming from, and I respect your commitment to the faith. I wanted to share my perspective, not to argue, but because I genuinely care about the truth and the unity of all Christians. First, I have nothing but deep love and admiration for the Coptic Church. It has heroically preserved Christianity in Egypt despite centuries of persecution, standing firm in the face of immense trials. The strength and faith of the Coptic people are truly inspiring. The Church has also upheld strong family values, a deep love for tradition, and a rich sacramental life that has remained much closer to apostolic Christianity than many other Christian communities. The Coptic Church has not abandoned the faith it received, and for that, I have immense respect. However, while it has preserved so much, I came to believe that it does not have the fullness of the faith that Christ intended for His Church. Jesus established one Church, and He built it on Peter, saying, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, a unique authority that was meant to be passed down through his successors. The early Church understood this, as seen in the writings of the Church Fathers, who recognized the primacy of Rome. St. Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180 AD) even said that all churches must be in agreement with the Church of Rome “on account of its preeminent authority.” This historical reality was one of the key reasons I ultimately became Catholic. Another challenge for me was the fact that the Coptic Church broke away from the rest of Christendom after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. If Christ’s Church was meant to be one, how could the true Church be a national church that separated itself from the universal Church? Christ commanded the apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), and the Catholic Church alone fulfills this universal mission in its fullest sense. The Catholic Church has remained united under Peter’s successor, and despite human failures over the centuries, it has continued to teach the same faith that Christ entrusted to the apostles. That being said, my hope and my prayer is for unity. I believe that Christ desires His followers to be one, as He prayed in John 17:21, “that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You.” The divisions in Christianity are painful, and I long for the day when all apostolic Christians-Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts-will once again be united as one body in Christ. I don’t share this to attack but out of love and the desire for all of us to be fully united in the truth. May God bless you, brother, and guide us all in His truth and love. Know that I respect you and your journey, and I pray for unity among all who love Christ. God bless!
Hello my brother. Please allow me to respond to you. It seems like you converted to Catholicism because St. Peter started the Catholic Church? This is true, however, why would Jesus send all his disciples out to all different nations only to tell St. Peter that his church is only the right one, yet the other disciples who proclaimed Jesus in other nations were the wrong one? It just seems weird right? I mean, we as Orthodox (EO and OO) say that St. Mark the Evangelist is the first Pope of our church. Are you saying that St. Mark was wrong in his teaching and St. Peter was right? Similarly, St Thomas went to India and other similar regions. Was St. Thomas wrong in his teaching? I don't understand that argument. Also, you said that the OO Churches broke away from the rest of the Christendom. Why would it be so wrong that the Oriental Churches broke away? Does that mean that they changed their faith? God forbid, this is just a Schism. They broke away to MAINTAIN their faith. I'll give you an example. If the Catholic Pope or someone very high in rank in the Catholic Church introduced a new teaching/doctrine that was not in line to the True Faith, there would be a schism. Now the true Catholic Church would break away from the ones who have the wrong teaching that was just introduced. Does that mean that the True Catholic Church would be a heretical church because they 'broke away'? I am not sure about your argument there. Another thing is that the Council of Ephesus said clearly that Christ has 1 composite nature composed of 2 natures. It was very clear. Please read the Council of Chalcedon. It is the complete opposite. And yet, the Eastern and Catholic Churches accept both the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon even though they have different Christology. I encourage you to research and find the truth in Christology and Dogma of the church instead of joining a church just because you believe that St. Peter is the only one that started the church. By the way, I know I sounded harsh but it is just passionate and I do get a little frustrated when people always say that since we 'broke away', it means we are not the true church anymore. Please pray for me.
@@PantocratorFollower God bless you, brother. BTW, I still consider myself to be Coptic Orthodox in communion with the See of Rome (the Catholic Church), for all it's worth (being Catholic does not make you less Orthodox btw-long story). Also, with all my respect, please watch Trent Horn, Michael Lofton, and Eric Ybarra; these issues have been discussed by Catholic apologists ages ago, and the answers are very simple. (And thanks so much for praying for me!!!! God bless). Now, regarding your concerns: 1. The Primacy of St. Peter - What It Actually Means A lot of Orthodox polemics misrepresent what Catholics believe about Peter. The Catholic Church does not teach that Peter replaced the other apostles or ruled over them as an absolute monarch. His role was one of unity, guidance, and final authority in disputes, but all the apostles retained their authority as bishops. Scriptural Basis for Peter’s Unique Role • Matthew 16:18-19 - Jesus says: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” • The “keys” are a reference to Isaiah 22:22, where the steward of the King of Israel (not the king himself) is given authority to govern in the king’s name. • The Greek word for rock (πέτρα - petra) is different from “small stone” (λίθος - lithos). Jesus is making Peter the visible foundation of the Church. • Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus tells Peter: “Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat. But I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, strengthen your brethren.” • Peter’s role is to strengthen the other apostles, not replace them. • John 21:15-17 - Jesus commands Peter: “Feed my lambs… Tend my sheep… Feed my sheep.” • Peter is entrusted with the whole flock, which includes the apostles themselves. Church Fathers on Peter’s Role Many Eastern and Oriental Fathers affirm Peter’s primacy: • St. Athanasius (d. 373 AD, Coptic Church): “Peter, the blessed, the chosen, the first among the disciples, who alone received a revelation not from man but from the Father.” (In Defense of the Nicene Definition, 2:37) • St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 AD, Coptic Church): “Peter, the leader of the holy apostles… the foundation of the Church.” (Letter to Nestorius, 3) • St. John Chrysostom (d. 407 AD, Greek Orthodox Church): “Peter himself was set over the apostles.” (Homilies on John, 88.1) • St. Augustine (d. 430 AD, Latin Church): “If the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself?” (Letter 53) The early Church understood Peter’s primacy, not as supreme domination, but as a visible sign of unity and final authority when disputes arose-which brings me to my next point. 2. The Oriental Orthodox Schism and the Authority of the Church The biggest problem with the argument that the Oriental Orthodox Church “broke away to preserve the true faith” is this: who decides which councils are valid? If every church can decide for itself, then we have no way of knowing which interpretation of Christology is correct. Church Councils and the Development of Doctrine • The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) affirmed that Christ is one divine person. • The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) clarified that He has two natures in one person, without confusion, change, division, or separation. • St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom the Coptic Church follows, actually used language that aligns with Chalcedon: “We must neither separate the natures of Christ nor confound them.” (Letter to John of Antioch, 433 AD) Even modern discussions between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Church (like the 1994 Christological Agreement between Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III) affirm that we believe the same thing about Christ, but with different terminology. So the question is, if the schism was based on misunderstandings, why remain separate? The Catholic Church recognizes Oriental Orthodoxy as a true apostolic church, but unity with Peter’s successor is necessary for full communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 838) teaches: “The Eastern Churches possess true sacraments, above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood, and the Eucharist.” So the Catholic Church does not deny the validity of Oriental Orthodoxy-but it also doesn’t see it as an independent, parallel Church. It is only through unity with Rome that Oriental Orthodoxy retains its apostolic legitimacy. 3. Why We Need an Infallible Authority The biggest problem with rejecting Rome’s authority is that it leaves us with no way to determine doctrinal truth definitively. Church Fathers on the Need for Rome’s Authority • St. Irenaeus (d. 202 AD, Greek Orthodox Church): “It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its preeminent authority.” (Against Heresies 3.3.2) • St. Maximus the Confessor (d. 662 AD, Eastern Orthodox Church): “All the ends of the earth look to the See of Peter and recognize in it the rule of faith.” (Opuscula Theologica et Polemica) • St. Augustine (d. 430 AD, Latin Church): “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” (Sermon 131:10) The Orthodox churches accept the first three councils, but on what authority do they reject later ones? Who decides which councils are valid? If Christ founded one Church, shouldn’t there be one final authority? 4. The Church Evolves, But the Faith Does Not Change A common mistake people make is thinking that Chalcedon introduced a new doctrine. But the Church has always believed that Christ is one person in two natures-the Council just clarified the language. Even Oriental Orthodoxy developed doctrine over time: • The Theotokos doctrine wasn’t clearly defined until Ephesus (431 AD). • The Miaphysite formula was refined after St. Cyril’s death. • The Coptic Orthodox Church’s liturgy evolved over centuries. If progress in doctrine exists even in Oriental Orthodoxy, why reject the legitimate development of doctrine through ecumenical councils? Final Thought: The Catholic Church Seeks Unity, Not Replacement Brother, the Catholic Church does not want to “replace” the Oriental Orthodox Church. It wants to restore the unity that once existed. That’s why Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III signed the 1994 agreement-because the division is unnecessary. They share the same sacraments, the same apostolic faith, and the same love for Christ. But unity with the successor of Peter is essential because Christ built His Church on that foundation. What I finally realized is that the Catholic Church is not just one of many apostolic churches-it is THE Church, the rock on which all other churches stand (all of them being valid, of course). In other words, we are both right, but only through being Catholic that can be. Read more from Catholic sources; it took me 2 years to finally decide to be in communion with the See of St. Peter in Rome. It was not an easy decision. God bless, and hopefully these schisms will end soon. Take care.
@@TheHumilityChannel Your comment is full of inconsistencies. You say that we are both right but only with the Catholic faith. You kept saying things like that in different ways. I know you are trying to be nice but I need you to be blunt. Because the truth is, the Catholic Church is the one that added doctrine to the faith. They added the filioque, purgatory, and the infallibly of the pope. All of that is just plain wrong. You can't tell me that you accept both but at the same time following Catholic doctrine is right. You're contradicting yourself my brother. With all love and respect, you never answered my question. You said St Peter was not to replace the other apostles, but then in another sentence you say he has the final authority. Which one is it? Because how can he have authority when the other disciples went to other nations preaching the Word? Like I said, St Mark began evangelizing in Egypt and he is our first Pope. By denying the truth of the Oriental church, you are denying the faith of St Mark. I know St Peter had the correct faith. I just believe that the Catholic faith changed doctrine over time. I suggest you look into the added faith that I listed above. Just because St Peter is their successor, doesn't mean they didn't change overtime. And you are wrong about the Council of Chalcedon. I suggest you watch Daniel Kakish and the Lions Den. And I know Trent. I've seen many of his videos and he's very knowledgeable. If he has a video about Christology I'll be open to watching it. But you can't accept both the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. They are opposites. Please I encourage you to do some research. I am not attacking you I am just telling you that unfortunately you are misinformed. God bless
@@PantocratorFollower Brother, St. Mark never told us to break away from the Church Jesus founded on Peter and isolate ourselves in the the Islamic world. You obviously never read my reply at all. God bless you, but I'm really tired today after a long day at work. May God help us all be one. I have to go now. (Read my responses again, and please listen to the Catholic POV: It will take some time till you understand. All love.) Good night now.
@@TheHumilityChannel Again, we broke away to maintain our faith, not to change it. Just because someone breaks away, doesn't mean they changed anything. I can sit here and say that the Catholics broke away. It's all just words that you put to imply something incorrectly. Please do your research my friend and don't try to change anyone cause you are completely wrong and a heretic. Sorry for being blunt but I will pray for you.
It is more likely Orientals to unite with Catholics rather than Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy drifted too far away from the Apostolic Church traditions.
Eastern Orthodox here. I converted when I was 22 and I'm 55 now. You will be at home in both Orthodox families. I used to go to Bible study at the Coptic Church down the street and the Coptics are so nice.
@@Josedrivadeneira It’s explicitly affirmed : Capitula of the Fifth Ecumenical Council 8 If anyone uses the expression of two natures, confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression the one nature made flesh of God the Word, and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery. 9 If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence (φύσιν ἤγουν οὐσίαν) of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.
i actually agree with Miaphysitism more than Diaphysitism bc it makes more sense and im Eastern Orthodox. but i have an issue with Oriental Orthodox because u guys broke away from the fullness of the church. i hold to the 7 ecumenical councils which i believe is the completion to the doctrinal issues being refuted and all we need as authoritative minus the extra councils in the Catholic Church. another thing is Eastern Orthodox feels more universal than Oriental Orthodox. i love Coptic and Ethiopian churches the most in OO but i dnt see u guys as a universal church. I believe both OO and EO are the true church but needs to come in unity. we would be a much stronger church if we were one again. i love both traditions but i prefer EO bc it feels like the fullness of the church so i wont be leaving it even tho i agree with Miaphysitism. but anyways i still see u guys and brethren. and i believe God can still save those who genuinely seek to be obedient to him outside of his church because hes not bound to the church or sacraments. i love Orientals as much as i love EO and Catholics.
Interesting. I see OO more universal especially in Africa. Greek Orthodox (Africa is canonically under Alexandria) seems only for Greeks. They poorly evangelize and their parishes are located in awkward places. Meanwhile the Coptic Orthodox church here is the most well known Orthodox church
@@jdavid121 from what ik is St Cyril taught miaphysitism and the council of Ephesus was a miaphysite council. Pope Leo held to Dyophysitism and he wanted to use that term so that people didn’t confuse miaphysitism for monophysitism. what i dnt understand is that both mia and dyo sounds the same with different language. both St Cyril and Pope Leo are venerated as saints in the EO church so i dnt understand why we cannot unite with OO. i dnt see the OO as heretics bc they hold to St Cyrils view of the natures of Christ which i agree with. but i also agree with Pope Leos view too. i will never condemn the OO plus my gf is Ethiopian and i plan to marry her soon. i love both churches and consider them both Orthodox. but my opinion doesn’t matter. but i pray for us to become one church again someday.
Brother, thank you and bless you for making this video. May we never boast, instead, may the Lord shine His Face on us and bring wisdom to those who try to hold our blessings from us. If people would go to a Coptic Orthodox church, especially during the Divine Liturgy of St Gregory the Theologian, such beauty. Wednesday is the martyrdom of St Mercurius abu-Seifein and may all Christian prayers be heard.
Was going to a EO church. Been a christian for a little year. But woah studying the councils really made me consider the orientals. Please pray for me everyone♥️🙏
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are clearly Chalcedonian as well as all the Cappadocian Fathers constantly referencing 2 Willis 2 natures 2 operations. Gregory’s 2 letter to cledonius for example. And within his 5 theological Orations.
they want to make it a simple decision because they think their interpretations are the only way to interpret things like Tome of Leo and Cyrils letters etc.
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are no where near the thought of Chalcedonian in two natures formula. He repeatedly uses the word miaphysis in both letters, and even defends attacks specifically directed at miaphysitism. Miaphysitism has always recognized analytical observation of the two natures in thought alone, but Chalcedonianism concretely divides the two natures. There is a big difference.
Anathema 4 of Ephesus has a very specific wording that could make it compatible with Chalcedon: “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, THOUGHT OF SEPARATELY FROM THE WORD OF GOD (emphasis), and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” Chalcedonians would say that, even though they may ascribe certain of Christ’s actions as flowing more from one of his natures than another, that no action is SEPARATED from his divine nature (or vice versa). It’s because they view Christ’s natures as intimately bound together, yet clearly distinct (in contrast to non-Chalcedonians).
We should also take into consideration the 433 formula of reunion accepted by St. Cyril and the Council of Chalcedon: “We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself. For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity to his humanity.”
this is from a forum: My question seems to be along the line of why the separative language of the Tome of Leo is deemed heretical, when you can separate the actions - not viewing each nature as separate, individual actors - but as referring to the properties of each nature alone, And doesn't the mere fact that we are referring to two natures already signify that there are, in fact, two natures in Christ? When I read the Tome of Leo, I understand how it can be understood in a heretical way. The most famous (infamous) line from the Tome seems to be the following: "The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man." I can see how this can be problematic: this can be viewed in such a way that each nature is kind of "stuck in" Jesus, separate from one another, with each nature performing separate actions individually, as if the Person was not the one who was performing the actions, but rather the Natures were, which leads to an inevitable conclusion of Nestorianism. If this was the only way the Tome could be interpreted - then yes. Chalcedon should be discarded, it's against what Saint Cyril himself preached. However, I question whether this is the only end all be all interpretation of the Tome, not only in light of how the Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians view the Tome, but even how Pope Leo himself views the Tome. We have several of his sermons, and one of these Sermons - Sermon 54 - Pope Leo actually quotes the Tome. He says: "But because the design of that mystery which was ordained for our restoration before the eternal ages, was not to be carried out without human weakness and without Divine power , both form does that which is proper to it in common with the other, the Word, that is, performing that which is the Word's and the flesh that which is of the flesh. One of them gleams bright with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. The one departs not from equality with the Father's glory, the other leaves not the nature of our race." However, IMMEDIATELY before he even says this, he says the following: "In all things, therefore, dearly-beloved, which pertain to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith maintains and demands that we acknowledge the two Natures to have met in our Redeemer, and while their properties remained, such a union of both Natures to have been effected that, from the time when, as the cause of mankind required, in the blessed Virgin's womb, the Word became flesh, we may not think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as man without that which is God. Each Nature does indeed express its real existence by actions that distinguish it, but neither separates itself from connection with the other. Nothing is wanting there on either side; in the majesty the humility is complete, in the humility the majesty is complete: and the unity does not introduce confusion, nor does the distinctiveness destroy the unity. The one is passible, the other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the glory. He is present at once in weakness and in power; at once capable of death and the vanquisher of it. Therefore, God took on Him whole Manhood, and so blended the two Natures together by means of His mercy and power, that each Nature was present in the other, and neither passed out of its own properties into the other."
Just found out i'm 16% Armenian/possibly Georgian. Had no idea. Thinking about joining an Armenian Apostilic Church. Was already dead-set on Orthodoxy anyways.
Out of curiosity, why does the Oriental communion (Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, St Thomas, Ethiopian, or others im missing) churches don't have a proselytizing or evangelist culture? Armenians and Copts could open up hundreds or thousands of youtube channels refuting islam for turkish, kurdish, Persian or arab speaking muslim audiences, but Oriental Orthodox rarely have refute Islam channels? Aka the religion that surrounds Ethiopia, Armenia and the rest of the sea of islam covering the Oriental Orthodox, While protestant apologists are cranking out refutation TH-cam channels against islam at on mass. This isn't meant to be a hostile ask but a truly curios one
Its because islam needs a politicalaction than refutation. Its basically a political organisation disguised as a theological organization. We are working in politics against islam
I think it is because we struggle with persecution to this day. The predominant countries that are Oriental Orthodox still experience persecution. Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, and we already know about the recent news in Syria just being destroyed. It is very sad. But recently, as Coptic Orthodox, we are starting to evangelize here in the US so I hope it grows. Please pray for us.
@PantocratorFollower here in the US you'd be preaching to Christians lol. Not to Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims. Copts starting to evangelize in America would be ineffective at spreading Christianity. Only Christian sect changing and retention.
@@PantocratorFollower lol Rome also persecuted Christians but Rome converted. The Oriental Orthodox Miaphysites need to balls up to persecution and preach anyway.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 it depends on who was the one doing the persecuting. Islam was so powerful back then and they went with full force literally taking over 10 plus countries. Why do you think Islam spread so fast? They literally bomb anything and everything they see in their way just to convert people. And they still do it today. I don't hear of any persecution happening in Rome right now. But Christians in the Middle East are always opressed.
Not to comment on the other claims around EO or OO or others. But Sola Scriptura doesn't dismiss the authority of councils, we simply do not raise them to the level of infallible. Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, Methodist all have binding confessional documents that hold the ancient ecumenical councils as binding.
This issue seems more of a political issue than a deep theological rift between us E.O. and the Orientals. I have had great interactions with Coptics and have been praying for the safety of these people for many years. Good people in my opinion.
I am EO and one if my favorite books is McGuckin's St Cyril and the Christological Controversy. Made me a fan boy of Cyril. What book would you suggest that treats the historical context as well as the content of Chalcedon in a similar fashion from an OO perspective?
St. Leo didn’t divide the sayings and actions as to two persons or hypostases. Leo affirms only one person and hypostasis of Christ, and that all sayings and actions are attributed to the one person. Leo does not fall under the fourth anathema. He is simply following the 433 formula of reunion (accepted by St. Cyril) in dividing the sayings, not the natures.
It is extremely dangerous to base off a conversion based on an apparition. If such were the rule by which we determine which is true and which is not, why not go Roman Catholic or even some weird protestant sect? Keep a spiritual soberness in discerning such an important matter especially as an EO catechumen. You have a priest and a community, ask them your concerns!
By what means can you justify the apparition is “accepted in the Orthodox Church” and is true? If you believe in it that’s another discussion. But you can not say the apparition of Zeitun is part of the (Eastern) Orthodox phronema, or our spirituality, if it were, it would be in our Synaxarion, it is not.
And neither have our Saints commented on it nor encouraged devotion to an apparition outside the Church. So saying it is “accepted” in our Church is just not true.
@@ericli8413 How stupid and ridiculous are you? The apparition if Zeitoun was not "a private Vision or revelation" BUT AN OFFICIAL APPEARANCE AND WAS WITNESSED BY THOUSENDS OF PEOPLE: ORTHODOX, ORIENTAL, CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS, MUSLIMS, JEWS, ATHEISTS....numerous healings and miracles gave appeared.
You don’t need to join a church, the church is the building!! Jesus said make disciples. The kingdom of heaven is within you! We are only to love god with all of our hearts and love each other as he loves us. His righteousness is in us and increases as we seek him he only wants a relationship!!! ❤🙏
Got to get a better conclusion to the videos and sum it up, every time it ends I think TH-cam fucked up and there is more of the video. I'm EO but the content is great, just need to wrap it up correctly
it is funny though that the orientals, like the eastern orthodox have ceased functioning in terms of their inability to convoke an ecumenical council. the orientals also failed to submit to the mind of the church on the definition of doctrine and proclamation of dogma by an ecumenical council. the church as the body of christ is living, is growing, and fulfilling its mission. just as the favor or God remained on the rightful ruler of the throne of david even when the kingdom was divided between northern israel and southern israel after the death of solomon, who is prospering? who among the churches is fulfilling prophecy of filling the earth through baptism in the name of the one true God in the blessed trinity?
Isn't it as simple as OO denying the holy spirit at work during each of the councils after chalcedon? EO claims those are ultimately governed by the holy spirit, to not fully accept them is to stray from the ultimate truth. I tend to trust the councils rather than a breakoff group. I do think OO preserve a lot of true tradition though of course.
Let say if Holy spirit worked through both 4th and 5th, why the decree of one contradict the other? le me give u one example:- 4th council Announced Ibas of Edessa and his predecessor (Three chapters) as 'Orthodox' while 5th Council denounced, and make the three chapters as 'hetetic' and condemned them. (God forbid) Does holy spirit change his mind?
@Cozmc_Myth The early church had no denominations, but ones who divided split off. Ofc you think there are denominations because you're a protestant. And no, all councils in which are considered ecumenical are infallible, as all patriarchal sees at the time accepted Chalcedon.
im coming back to this video again and i now see the difference between miaphysitism and dyophysitism and after doing some research i can see that Chalcedon does contradict Ephesus. i dnt understand why the Eastern Orthodox venerates St Cyril as a saint when his whole Christology condemns Chalcedons. the 12 anathemas is evidence of that. also i dnt like how the EO lie and say the Orientals believe in monophysitism when they dont. the Orthobros really annoy me tbh but anyways im happy to be seeking the Oriental Church. i really loves the Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian churches so much.
This is all due to misunderstanding some philosophical concepts and making word concept fallacies. Those are arguments have been refuted for centuries.
Okay quite frankly, it kind of just seems like the argument is that Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong because it disagrees with Saint Cyril of Alexrandria's opinion? From what yoi said it is the opinion of Saint Cyril but not that it is canon that you can't talk about the nature of Christ in that way. Maybe according to Saint Cyril saying that maybe Christ eating is coming from the human nature is nestorian, but it is at least to my knowledge not condemned as a heresy in of itself in the previous council.
St. Cyril of Alexandria accepted this type of language explicitly after in the council of Ephesus in the Formula of Reunion in 433. That's why your pseudosaints like Severus reject st. Cyril's nuances and teachings
4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.
Hi. Can you do a video on veneration, Icons, relics, and how that relates to Exodus 20:4 and Revelation 22:8-9? Also, why do they have relics? Like what are the purposes of the bones of previous people? I visited an Orthodox Church, and there was a lot of bowing and kissing of icons and relics. And I didn’t see much of that towards God, unless I missed it. Some of the words were hard to hear, even though it was in English. It was a Vespers service. I’m trying to learn more. Please and thank you
The relics of Elisha raised someone from the dead. It's in scripture. I encourage you to read it. We are not doing something unbiblical if that is what you are alluding to.
@ no. I wasn’t implying anything. I would have directly said so if I was. I just want to learn. But if someone asks me, and thinks I’m being unbiblical, I want to be able to coherently speak about what faith im practicing; defend the faith - 1 Peter 3:15. The reason I mentioned those verses is because that’s what people have brought up to try and say that some of the orthodox practices are not biblical. Also, I’m aware of Elijah’s bones. But people weren’t bowing to or kissing them. And I’ve never heard of anyone in the Bible keeping saint bones and distributing them to different churches/parishes. I’m just trying to learn at this point. I’m new and have only been to one vesper service, but I didn’t understand anything that was going on. It’s very different from Protestant churches. Side note. I did learn the following day after I did this comment, that the Vesper was more geared towards the saints. And the liturgy service the following day was more geared towards God. At least that’s what someone told me at the church. The vesper was a preparation for the liturgy the following day, which i thought was pretty cool. I was still a little lost about practices and some of the prayers, because the prayers and chants were hard to understand at times. But I’ll get there.
@@Zerael071 unless it's specifically says somewhere that it is wrong to bow down or keep relics, then I don't find anything wrong with it. Side note, bowing down does not always mean worship. When you bow down to God that is worship, but when we kiss or bow down to an icon or relics it is just a form of honor and venerating them
@ yeah. I’ve heard about that. I agree. It’s just hard to talk to people that are “it has to be in the Bible” types. I just left my first Coptic Orthodox Liturgy service. I enjoyed it. Well thank you for the information you’ve shared. I think I’m going to find me a book that teaches the traditions, prayers, and everything. So that I can better know what’s going on while attending the services. God bless =)
Answer me this question: Is the majority decision of the Church infallibly guided by God? If the answer is "no," then the entire basis for Christianity goes out the window and we might as well all be totally anarchic theologically. If the answer is yes, then Oriental Orthodoxy was refuted infallibly by an ecumenical council, and is therefore wrong.
Why did you reject the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II and call it a robber council? Actually, your chalcedonian ancestors overturned much of what happened at Ephesus II and then realized they were wrong a hundred years later at your gathering called Constantinople II. Does the church believe in contradiction? You seem to be telling us so.
@MinaDKSBMSB Because the historical circumstances make it apparent that it *was* an illegitimate council. It was never accepted by the laity or even the leadership, which is why they reconvened immediately to overturn it. No such excuse can be claimed by the Orientals at Chalcedon: it was accepted by the vast majority of bishops. Once again, if the majority decision of the church can be wrong, as Coptics claim, then all previous ecumenical councils could be wrong.
@@EpistemicAnthony actually the proof is against what you just stated. Ephesus II was ecumenically accepted, and was put into law by St. Emperor Theodosius. You only find objection in those who opposed the dogma of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I, especially those Nestorians who were rightfully deposed at the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II. What you are actually choosing to do is follow the narrative of the Nestorian Leo of Rome.
Im a Lutheran il hear u out. but you mis understand what sola scriptura atually means it doesnt mean me and my bible alone, it means lets say the councils are subservant under the word of God, therefore i know Christ has 2 natures because the bible says he became man to die for our sins, i know Jesus is God because we oviously know why John chapter 1 cant be more clear than that and the old testament profoesies about the messiaih being mixed with God dwelling with his people. but anyways thats what sola scriptura is, we love church history we teach and listen to St Augustine, St thomas Aquinais our theology is largely build on him rather than Martin Luther. The lutheran reformation was to reform the western catholic church, but we got kicked out, yet the catholic church accepts all the things we screamed about in the 15th.
@@Arcadian1821because the west is a apostasy. Not because the religion allows it. (Coming from the reform. I'm not Lutheran) You won't find this in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s until the 90s up to today. You don't throw centuries of a denomination away do to decades of REGIONAL deterioration. The Reform and Lutheran traditions in the West, Doesn't affect the Latin American, Asian, or African reformed and Lutherans. Let me check the Irish articles of 1568, the Savoy declaration, the Westminster confession of faith, larger catechism of Westminster, 39 articles, And ah yes, non of them affirm lgbtq stuff or female ordination or abortion or any of that.
So ur logic in short “ the church has explanations for this but it’s confusing therefore we are right” exactly like a Muslim on the trinity you argue, no wonder you have so many similarities since you signed with the Islamic empire instead of the Byzantine empire traitors, no wonder ur so similar.
Interesting that all the Orientals grew in population because of the Islamic empires did not want the Christian’s in Islamic lands to be united with the Roman Empire so they promoted these schismatics orthodox bishops. Exception is Ethiopia who just joined the Orientals due to proximity.
@@cervantescisneros712 when they were anathematised there were as much if not more Eastern Orthodox in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and so on but because we signed with the Byzantine empire which has fallen we weren’t favourited and they signed with the Islamic empire and it’s a fact it’s not about promotion it’s what happened
Quick correction. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the only thing that is authoritative is Scripture. It means the only infallible authority is Scripture. Magesterial Protestants still have “the church” act as a normative authority, just with the knowledge that it can be fallible.
That doesn’t really make an authority but an interpretive reflection of scripture, and by that the magisterium isn’t concrete, nor can it bind by the Spirit
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you endure the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3). Sounds like 2 Timothy 4:3 within the protestant communion, yes? That the people will break off from the sound doctrine established by Spirit seeking their opinions in others including teachers? Also, doctrine is dogma, the both are synonymous. Whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5).
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you suffer the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3). Also, whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5). They are synonymous words
I'll admit it's hard for me to refute Oriental Orthodox claims...
Why?
Didnt expect to see you here bro, God bless
Why?
It is hard if you are honest or maybe impossible
@@gabrielgabriel5177 How?
Shalom my name Harry and I’m a Messianic Jew and I’ve been contemplating on joining Oriental Orthodoxy since July of this year. Pray for me brethren that The Blessed Holy Trinity guide me in both Spirit and in Truth.
May the Blessed Trinity indeed guide and bless you. Look into Eastern Orthodoxy too - I KNOW it all gets involved though. ☦
@@marcokite I have and although I have many friends who are EO, I can’t consciously accept the 4th Council of Chalcedon after much prayer and intense biblical study.
Yes come to the truth Faith . Read or adudio book the fifty spiritual homilies of st macarius
God bless you the Oriental Orthodox Church is truly the bride of Christ. I recommend attending liturgies. The Coptic liturgy of St Gregory is very mystical and touching.
As a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I say you are blessed no matter which you choose. I suggest that you read the book "Surprised by Christ" by Fr. James Bernstein, a Jewish man who became an Orthodox priest,
Im a convert to the Coptic Church myself. I love this video. Gonna share with all my OO brothers. Keep up the good work
I'm glad you found your way to the true church! Thank you for sharing, I appreciate that. Will do! Many more videos on the way
Yaaayyy! We have one more OO apologist! God bless you brother! May God reward you for your work in showing people the truth!!! ❤🙏✝
God bless you too my brother and may He reward you also for your efforts and your labor of which the fruits I adore and admire. Blessed fast of Saint Mary 🙏😊❤
@@andrewbehery Why they cant light the holy fire at Jerusalem try and failed .Must take it from the eastern orthodox
May the Lord increase this service
Thank you for this amazing video. I have seen so many videos from the Easter orthodox side, but very little from Oriental orthodox. I really liked your simple explanation.
Mate in the fourth anethema it says (paraphrasing) whoever divides the actions between two PERSONS or HYPOSTASES, let them be anathema. It doesn’t say divides the actions between two NATURES. Persons do things, not natures. Natures give the potential to do things, that ls what leo means by actions according to different natures. The human nature gave Christ human potential energies such as dying, being born, pooping.
You’re also baselessly asserting that two natures can’t share a hypostasis, because human nature and divine nature are both instatiated by a “person”, surely that person can be the same.
Great video by the way
The term two natures in one hypostasis originates from the Nestorian Theodoret who EO call blessed. St Cyril identifies the natures as hypostases
@Ben-w9c6m What you say about Cyril is not true. What I saw is he sometimes uses nature for what we call hypostasis. In that sense we would affirm one nature too.
And sometimes uses hypostasis in a more general sense for anything 'real' even if it is not 'particular'. But as far as I know both the EO and Severus etc use hypostasis for the 'particular'. In that regard both deviate from Cyril.
Cyril makes one important mistake, which is that he uses the formula "Mia physis tou theou Logou sesarkomene" which has objectively unclear meaning and can be used and has been used by groups you would consider heretic too.
But it is not the words that are important but the meaning.
Recently I learned that the difference between EO and OO:
EO Dyophisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and two wills.
OO Miaphisite (two nature - Human and Devine) and one will.
Note that EO said His two natures became one in composition but has two wills. How could once He became one, and has two wills? It does not make sense. Whereas, with OO, once His two natures became one in composition, He has one will. That makes sense.
Thanks for this! Helps an Anglican like me who isn’t caught up on the reading.
Hey brother, I really appreciate your video and the love you have for the Coptic Orthodox Church. As someone who was raised Coptic Orthodox but later converted to Catholicism, I completely understand where you’re coming from, and I respect your commitment to the faith. I wanted to share my perspective, not to argue, but because I genuinely care about the truth and the unity of all Christians.
First, I have nothing but deep love and admiration for the Coptic Church. It has heroically preserved Christianity in Egypt despite centuries of persecution, standing firm in the face of immense trials. The strength and faith of the Coptic people are truly inspiring. The Church has also upheld strong family values, a deep love for tradition, and a rich sacramental life that has remained much closer to apostolic Christianity than many other Christian communities. The Coptic Church has not abandoned the faith it received, and for that, I have immense respect.
However, while it has preserved so much, I came to believe that it does not have the fullness of the faith that Christ intended for His Church. Jesus established one Church, and He built it on Peter, saying, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, a unique authority that was meant to be passed down through his successors. The early Church understood this, as seen in the writings of the Church Fathers, who recognized the primacy of Rome. St. Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180 AD) even said that all churches must be in agreement with the Church of Rome “on account of its preeminent authority.” This historical reality was one of the key reasons I ultimately became Catholic.
Another challenge for me was the fact that the Coptic Church broke away from the rest of Christendom after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. If Christ’s Church was meant to be one, how could the true Church be a national church that separated itself from the universal Church? Christ commanded the apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), and the Catholic Church alone fulfills this universal mission in its fullest sense. The Catholic Church has remained united under Peter’s successor, and despite human failures over the centuries, it has continued to teach the same faith that Christ entrusted to the apostles.
That being said, my hope and my prayer is for unity. I believe that Christ desires His followers to be one, as He prayed in John 17:21, “that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You.” The divisions in Christianity are painful, and I long for the day when all apostolic Christians-Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts-will once again be united as one body in Christ. I don’t share this to attack but out of love and the desire for all of us to be fully united in the truth.
May God bless you, brother, and guide us all in His truth and love. Know that I respect you and your journey, and I pray for unity among all who love Christ. God bless!
Hello my brother. Please allow me to respond to you.
It seems like you converted to Catholicism because St. Peter started the Catholic Church? This is true, however, why would Jesus send all his disciples out to all different nations only to tell St. Peter that his church is only the right one, yet the other disciples who proclaimed Jesus in other nations were the wrong one? It just seems weird right? I mean, we as Orthodox (EO and OO) say that St. Mark the Evangelist is the first Pope of our church. Are you saying that St. Mark was wrong in his teaching and St. Peter was right? Similarly, St Thomas went to India and other similar regions. Was St. Thomas wrong in his teaching? I don't understand that argument.
Also, you said that the OO Churches broke away from the rest of the Christendom. Why would it be so wrong that the Oriental Churches broke away? Does that mean that they changed their faith? God forbid, this is just a Schism. They broke away to MAINTAIN their faith. I'll give you an example. If the Catholic Pope or someone very high in rank in the Catholic Church introduced a new teaching/doctrine that was not in line to the True Faith, there would be a schism. Now the true Catholic Church would break away from the ones who have the wrong teaching that was just introduced. Does that mean that the True Catholic Church would be a heretical church because they 'broke away'? I am not sure about your argument there.
Another thing is that the Council of Ephesus said clearly that Christ has 1 composite nature composed of 2 natures. It was very clear. Please read the Council of Chalcedon. It is the complete opposite. And yet, the Eastern and Catholic Churches accept both the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon even though they have different Christology. I encourage you to research and find the truth in Christology and Dogma of the church instead of joining a church just because you believe that St. Peter is the only one that started the church.
By the way, I know I sounded harsh but it is just passionate and I do get a little frustrated when people always say that since we 'broke away', it means we are not the true church anymore. Please pray for me.
@@PantocratorFollower God bless you, brother. BTW, I still consider myself to be Coptic Orthodox in communion with the See of Rome (the Catholic Church), for all it's worth (being Catholic does not make you less Orthodox btw-long story). Also, with all my respect, please watch Trent Horn, Michael Lofton, and Eric Ybarra; these issues have been discussed by Catholic apologists ages ago, and the answers are very simple.
(And thanks so much for praying for me!!!! God bless).
Now, regarding your concerns:
1. The Primacy of St. Peter - What It Actually Means
A lot of Orthodox polemics misrepresent what Catholics believe about Peter. The Catholic Church does not teach that Peter replaced the other apostles or ruled over them as an absolute monarch. His role was one of unity, guidance, and final authority in disputes, but all the apostles retained their authority as bishops.
Scriptural Basis for Peter’s Unique Role
• Matthew 16:18-19 - Jesus says:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
• The “keys” are a reference to Isaiah 22:22, where the steward of the King of Israel (not the king himself) is given authority to govern in the king’s name.
• The Greek word for rock (πέτρα - petra) is different from “small stone” (λίθος - lithos). Jesus is making Peter the visible foundation of the Church.
• Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus tells Peter:
“Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat. But I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, strengthen your brethren.”
• Peter’s role is to strengthen the other apostles, not replace them.
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus commands Peter:
“Feed my lambs… Tend my sheep… Feed my sheep.”
• Peter is entrusted with the whole flock, which includes the apostles themselves.
Church Fathers on Peter’s Role
Many Eastern and Oriental Fathers affirm Peter’s primacy:
• St. Athanasius (d. 373 AD, Coptic Church):
“Peter, the blessed, the chosen, the first among the disciples, who alone received a revelation not from man but from the Father.” (In Defense of the Nicene Definition, 2:37)
• St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 AD, Coptic Church):
“Peter, the leader of the holy apostles… the foundation of the Church.” (Letter to Nestorius, 3)
• St. John Chrysostom (d. 407 AD, Greek Orthodox Church):
“Peter himself was set over the apostles.” (Homilies on John, 88.1)
• St. Augustine (d. 430 AD, Latin Church):
“If the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself?” (Letter 53)
The early Church understood Peter’s primacy, not as supreme domination, but as a visible sign of unity and final authority when disputes arose-which brings me to my next point.
2. The Oriental Orthodox Schism and the Authority of the Church
The biggest problem with the argument that the Oriental Orthodox Church “broke away to preserve the true faith” is this: who decides which councils are valid? If every church can decide for itself, then we have no way of knowing which interpretation of Christology is correct.
Church Councils and the Development of Doctrine
• The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) affirmed that Christ is one divine person.
• The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) clarified that He has two natures in one person, without confusion, change, division, or separation.
• St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom the Coptic Church follows, actually used language that aligns with Chalcedon:
“We must neither separate the natures of Christ nor confound them.” (Letter to John of Antioch, 433 AD)
Even modern discussions between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Church (like the 1994 Christological Agreement between Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III) affirm that we believe the same thing about Christ, but with different terminology. So the question is, if the schism was based on misunderstandings, why remain separate?
The Catholic Church recognizes Oriental Orthodoxy as a true apostolic church, but unity with Peter’s successor is necessary for full communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 838) teaches:
“The Eastern Churches possess true sacraments, above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood, and the Eucharist.”
So the Catholic Church does not deny the validity of Oriental Orthodoxy-but it also doesn’t see it as an independent, parallel Church. It is only through unity with Rome that Oriental Orthodoxy retains its apostolic legitimacy.
3. Why We Need an Infallible Authority
The biggest problem with rejecting Rome’s authority is that it leaves us with no way to determine doctrinal truth definitively.
Church Fathers on the Need for Rome’s Authority
• St. Irenaeus (d. 202 AD, Greek Orthodox Church):
“It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its preeminent authority.” (Against Heresies 3.3.2)
• St. Maximus the Confessor (d. 662 AD, Eastern Orthodox Church):
“All the ends of the earth look to the See of Peter and recognize in it the rule of faith.” (Opuscula Theologica et Polemica)
• St. Augustine (d. 430 AD, Latin Church):
“Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” (Sermon 131:10)
The Orthodox churches accept the first three councils, but on what authority do they reject later ones? Who decides which councils are valid? If Christ founded one Church, shouldn’t there be one final authority?
4. The Church Evolves, But the Faith Does Not Change
A common mistake people make is thinking that Chalcedon introduced a new doctrine. But the Church has always believed that Christ is one person in two natures-the Council just clarified the language.
Even Oriental Orthodoxy developed doctrine over time:
• The Theotokos doctrine wasn’t clearly defined until Ephesus (431 AD).
• The Miaphysite formula was refined after St. Cyril’s death.
• The Coptic Orthodox Church’s liturgy evolved over centuries.
If progress in doctrine exists even in Oriental Orthodoxy, why reject the legitimate development of doctrine through ecumenical councils?
Final Thought: The Catholic Church Seeks Unity, Not Replacement
Brother, the Catholic Church does not want to “replace” the Oriental Orthodox Church. It wants to restore the unity that once existed. That’s why Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III signed the 1994 agreement-because the division is unnecessary. They share the same sacraments, the same apostolic faith, and the same love for Christ. But unity with the successor of Peter is essential because Christ built His Church on that foundation.
What I finally realized is that the Catholic Church is not just one of many apostolic churches-it is THE Church, the rock on which all other churches stand (all of them being valid, of course).
In other words, we are both right, but only through being Catholic that can be. Read more from Catholic sources; it took me 2 years to finally decide to be in communion with the See of St. Peter in Rome. It was not an easy decision. God bless, and hopefully these schisms will end soon.
Take care.
@@TheHumilityChannel Your comment is full of inconsistencies. You say that we are both right but only with the Catholic faith. You kept saying things like that in different ways. I know you are trying to be nice but I need you to be blunt. Because the truth is, the Catholic Church is the one that added doctrine to the faith. They added the filioque, purgatory, and the infallibly of the pope. All of that is just plain wrong. You can't tell me that you accept both but at the same time following Catholic doctrine is right. You're contradicting yourself my brother. With all love and respect, you never answered my question. You said St Peter was not to replace the other apostles, but then in another sentence you say he has the final authority. Which one is it? Because how can he have authority when the other disciples went to other nations preaching the Word? Like I said, St Mark began evangelizing in Egypt and he is our first Pope. By denying the truth of the Oriental church, you are denying the faith of St Mark. I know St Peter had the correct faith. I just believe that the Catholic faith changed doctrine over time. I suggest you look into the added faith that I listed above. Just because St Peter is their successor, doesn't mean they didn't change overtime. And you are wrong about the Council of Chalcedon. I suggest you watch Daniel Kakish and the Lions Den. And I know Trent. I've seen many of his videos and he's very knowledgeable. If he has a video about Christology I'll be open to watching it. But you can't accept both the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. They are opposites. Please I encourage you to do some research. I am not attacking you I am just telling you that unfortunately you are misinformed. God bless
@@PantocratorFollower Brother, St. Mark never told us to break away from the Church Jesus founded on Peter and isolate ourselves in the the Islamic world. You obviously never read my reply at all. God bless you, but I'm really tired today after a long day at work. May God help us all be one. I have to go now. (Read my responses again, and please listen to the Catholic POV: It will take some time till you understand. All love.) Good night now.
@@TheHumilityChannel Again, we broke away to maintain our faith, not to change it. Just because someone breaks away, doesn't mean they changed anything. I can sit here and say that the Catholics broke away. It's all just words that you put to imply something incorrectly. Please do your research my friend and don't try to change anyone cause you are completely wrong and a heretic. Sorry for being blunt but I will pray for you.
Imagine how awesome it would be to see OO and EO reunite in our lifetimes.
It is more likely Orientals to unite with Catholics rather than Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy drifted too far away from the Apostolic Church traditions.
Currently deciding between EO and OO, I go to an EO church but I’m looking into myaphysitism
Eastern Orthodox here. I converted when I was 22 and I'm 55 now. You will be at home in both Orthodox families. I used to go to Bible study at the Coptic Church down the street and the Coptics are so nice.
May we find unity one day 🙏
EO and RC affirm both dyophysitism and “miaphysitism” at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
@@chiefamongsinners16 No, miaphysitism is condemened in the 8th and 9th canons.
@@Josedrivadeneira It’s explicitly affirmed :
Capitula of the Fifth Ecumenical Council
8
If anyone uses the expression of two natures, confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression the one nature made flesh of God the Word, and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.
9
If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence (φύσιν ἤγουν οὐσίαν) of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.
I'm Coptic Orthodox from Mexico, God bless you brother.
Continue with these videos about our Faith Oriental Orthodox☦️
You are not orthodox
@@alexpanagiotis4706 .si lo soy
@@alexpanagiotis4706 .who are you ?
Hi Andrew 👋 God bless you ❤️ 🙏. My name is Rob from Wales UK and I love the coptic orthodox and it's all I watch and listern to and read.
i actually agree with Miaphysitism more than Diaphysitism bc it makes more sense and im Eastern Orthodox. but i have an issue with Oriental Orthodox because u guys broke away from the fullness of the church. i hold to the 7 ecumenical councils which i believe is the completion to the doctrinal issues being refuted and all we need as authoritative minus the extra councils in the Catholic Church.
another thing is Eastern Orthodox feels more universal than Oriental Orthodox.
i love Coptic and Ethiopian churches the most in OO but i dnt see u guys as a universal church.
I believe both OO and EO are the true church but needs to come in unity. we would be a much stronger church if we were one again.
i love both traditions but i prefer EO bc it feels like the fullness of the church so i wont be leaving it even tho i agree with Miaphysitism.
but anyways i still see u guys and brethren. and i believe God can still save those who genuinely seek to be obedient to him outside of his church because hes not bound to the church or sacraments.
i love Orientals as much as i love EO and Catholics.
Agreed! It's only EO for me - I love the OO brothers and sisters too though. ☦
Interesting. I see OO more universal especially in Africa.
Greek Orthodox (Africa is canonically under Alexandria) seems only for Greeks. They poorly evangelize and their parishes are located in awkward places. Meanwhile the Coptic Orthodox church here is the most well known Orthodox church
EO believe in miaphysitism too, just not the miaphysitism as OO.
Watch the series on Lions Den called Defending Oriental Orthodoxy and watch at least the first 2-3 parts
@@jdavid121 from what ik is St Cyril taught miaphysitism and the council of Ephesus was a miaphysite council. Pope Leo held to Dyophysitism and he wanted to use that term so that people didn’t confuse miaphysitism for monophysitism.
what i dnt understand is that both mia and dyo sounds the same with different language. both St Cyril and Pope Leo are venerated as saints in the EO church so i dnt understand why we cannot unite with OO. i dnt see the OO as heretics bc they hold to St Cyrils view of the natures of Christ which i agree with. but i also agree with Pope Leos view too. i will never condemn the OO plus my gf is Ethiopian and i plan to marry her soon.
i love both churches and consider them both Orthodox.
but my opinion doesn’t matter. but i pray for us to become one church again someday.
Brother, thank you and bless you for making this video. May we never boast, instead, may the Lord shine His Face on us and bring wisdom to those who try to hold our blessings from us. If people would go to a Coptic Orthodox church, especially during the Divine Liturgy of St Gregory the Theologian, such beauty. Wednesday is the martyrdom of St Mercurius abu-Seifein and may all Christian prayers be heard.
Wrestling between EO and OO please pray for me!
Ill pray that you come to Eastern Orthodoxy❤
@TheItalianMan88 please pray I find the truth, no matter if that is OO or EO, we must worship in spirit and truth, thank you my friend!
@@remymargaux1233 your welcome friend!
@@remymargaux1233this is the correct disposition. God bless you.
@@remymargaux1233There are no Icons, the 7th Ecumenical Synods etc....
Was going to a EO church. Been a christian for a little year. But woah studying the councils really made me consider the orientals. Please pray for me everyone♥️🙏
Read oe audio book. Know god knows ur heart and put all ur hope in him . the fifty spiritual homilies of st macarius
The Council of Ephesus affirms the Filioque and papal primacy of jurisdiction.
Based channel. Prayers from a fellow OO brother.
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are clearly Chalcedonian as well as all the Cappadocian Fathers constantly referencing 2 Willis 2 natures 2 operations. Gregory’s 2 letter to cledonius for example. And within his 5 theological Orations.
they want to make it a simple decision because they think their interpretations are the only way to interpret things like Tome of Leo and Cyrils letters etc.
Cyril’s letters to Succensus are no where near the thought of Chalcedonian in two natures formula. He repeatedly uses the word miaphysis in both letters, and even defends attacks specifically directed at miaphysitism. Miaphysitism has always recognized analytical observation of the two natures in thought alone, but Chalcedonianism concretely divides the two natures. There is a big difference.
Anathema 4 of Ephesus has a very specific wording that could make it compatible with Chalcedon:
“If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, THOUGHT OF SEPARATELY FROM THE WORD OF GOD (emphasis), and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.”
Chalcedonians would say that, even though they may ascribe certain of Christ’s actions as flowing more from one of his natures than another, that no action is SEPARATED from his divine nature (or vice versa). It’s because they view Christ’s natures as intimately bound together, yet clearly distinct (in contrast to non-Chalcedonians).
We should also take into consideration the 433 formula of reunion accepted by St. Cyril and the Council of Chalcedon:
“We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself. For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity to his humanity.”
this is from a forum:
My question seems to be along the line of why the separative language of the Tome of Leo is deemed heretical, when you can separate the actions - not viewing each nature as separate, individual actors - but as referring to the properties of each nature alone,
And doesn't the mere fact that we are referring to two natures already signify that there are, in fact, two natures in Christ?
When I read the Tome of Leo, I understand how it can be understood in a heretical way.
The most famous (infamous) line from the Tome seems to be the following:
"The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man."
I can see how this can be problematic: this can be viewed in such a way that each nature is kind of "stuck in" Jesus, separate from one another, with each nature performing separate actions individually, as if the Person was not the one who was performing the actions, but rather the Natures were, which leads to an inevitable conclusion of Nestorianism.
If this was the only way the Tome could be interpreted - then yes. Chalcedon should be discarded, it's against what Saint Cyril himself preached.
However, I question whether this is the only end all be all interpretation of the Tome, not only in light of how the Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians view the Tome, but even how Pope Leo himself views the Tome.
We have several of his sermons, and one of these Sermons - Sermon 54 - Pope Leo actually quotes the Tome. He says:
"But because the design of that mystery which was ordained for our restoration before the eternal ages, was not to be carried out without human weakness and without Divine power , both form does that which is proper to it in common with the other, the Word, that is, performing that which is the Word's and the flesh that which is of the flesh. One of them gleams bright with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. The one departs not from equality with the Father's glory, the other leaves not the nature of our race."
However, IMMEDIATELY before he even says this, he says the following:
"In all things, therefore, dearly-beloved, which pertain to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith maintains and demands that we acknowledge the two Natures to have met in our Redeemer, and while their properties remained, such a union of both Natures to have been effected that, from the time when, as the cause of mankind required, in the blessed Virgin's womb, the Word became flesh, we may not think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as man without that which is God. Each Nature does indeed express its real existence by actions that distinguish it, but neither separates itself from connection with the other. Nothing is wanting there on either side; in the majesty the humility is complete, in the humility the majesty is complete: and the unity does not introduce confusion, nor does the distinctiveness destroy the unity. The one is passible, the other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the glory. He is present at once in weakness and in power; at once capable of death and the vanquisher of it. Therefore, God took on Him whole Manhood, and so blended the two Natures together by means of His mercy and power, that each Nature was present in the other, and neither passed out of its own properties into the other."
Just found out i'm 16% Armenian/possibly Georgian. Had no idea. Thinking about joining an Armenian Apostilic Church. Was already dead-set on Orthodoxy anyways.
Out of curiosity, why does the Oriental communion (Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, St Thomas, Ethiopian, or others im missing) churches don't have a proselytizing or evangelist culture?
Armenians and Copts could open up hundreds or thousands of youtube channels refuting islam for turkish, kurdish, Persian or arab speaking muslim audiences, but Oriental Orthodox rarely have refute Islam channels? Aka the religion that surrounds Ethiopia, Armenia and the rest of the sea of islam covering the Oriental Orthodox,
While protestant apologists are cranking out refutation TH-cam channels against islam at on mass.
This isn't meant to be a hostile ask but a truly curios one
Its because islam needs a politicalaction than refutation. Its basically a political organisation disguised as a theological organization. We are working in politics against islam
I think it is because we struggle with persecution to this day. The predominant countries that are Oriental Orthodox still experience persecution. Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, and we already know about the recent news in Syria just being destroyed. It is very sad. But recently, as Coptic Orthodox, we are starting to evangelize here in the US so I hope it grows. Please pray for us.
@PantocratorFollower here in the US you'd be preaching to Christians lol. Not to Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims.
Copts starting to evangelize in America would be ineffective at spreading Christianity.
Only Christian sect changing and retention.
@@PantocratorFollower lol Rome also persecuted Christians but Rome converted. The Oriental Orthodox Miaphysites need to balls up to persecution and preach anyway.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 it depends on who was the one doing the persecuting. Islam was so powerful back then and they went with full force literally taking over 10 plus countries. Why do you think Islam spread so fast? They literally bomb anything and everything they see in their way just to convert people. And they still do it today. I don't hear of any persecution happening in Rome right now. But Christians in the Middle East are always opressed.
I myself became coptic yet i tell you the only way is through christ, yet everyone has different ways and journeys to christ
Not to comment on the other claims around EO or OO or others. But Sola Scriptura doesn't dismiss the authority of councils, we simply do not raise them to the level of infallible. Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, Methodist all have binding confessional documents that hold the ancient ecumenical councils as binding.
This issue seems more of a political issue than a deep theological rift between us E.O. and the Orientals. I have had great interactions with Coptics and have been praying for the safety of these people for many years. Good people in my opinion.
I am EO and one if my favorite books is McGuckin's St Cyril and the Christological Controversy. Made me a fan boy of Cyril. What book would you suggest that treats the historical context as well as the content of Chalcedon in a similar fashion from an OO perspective?
''The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined''
Book by V. C. Samuel
Online Available
Bro you have to fix the hoarse sound in your voice. It's not because you have Covid, I see it in almost every video.
Syriac Orthodox believer here.. Glad to see someone standing up for the ancient beliefs... The schismatics dominate the discourse on TH-cam..
Im from the reformed tradition. Am I technically a schismatic to you even though the reformed never broke off from the Oriental Orthodox? Lol 😂.
St. Leo didn’t divide the sayings and actions as to two persons or hypostases. Leo affirms only one person and hypostasis of Christ, and that all sayings and actions are attributed to the one person. Leo does not fall under the fourth anathema. He is simply following the 433 formula of reunion (accepted by St. Cyril) in dividing the sayings, not the natures.
There’s a coptic church right by my house, the only reason we don’t attend is that we’d be the only non-Egyptians there.
Just found out about your channel. Love seeing your content brother. We will promote you on The Lion's Den.
Our lady of zeitoun has me very interested in OO I am an EO catechumen but please pray for me
It is extremely dangerous to base off a conversion based on an apparition. If such were the rule by which we determine which is true and which is not, why not go Roman Catholic or even some weird protestant sect? Keep a spiritual soberness in discerning such an important matter especially as an EO catechumen. You have a priest and a community, ask them your concerns!
@@ericli8413The apparition is true and also accepted in the Orthodox Church.
That does not mean that the Coptic Church is true.
By what means can you justify the apparition is “accepted in the Orthodox Church” and is true? If you believe in it that’s another discussion. But you can not say the apparition of Zeitun is part of the (Eastern) Orthodox phronema, or our spirituality, if it were, it would be in our Synaxarion, it is not.
And neither have our Saints commented on it nor encouraged devotion to an apparition outside the Church. So saying it is “accepted” in our Church is just not true.
@@ericli8413 How stupid and ridiculous are you? The apparition if Zeitoun was not "a private Vision or revelation" BUT AN OFFICIAL APPEARANCE AND WAS WITNESSED BY THOUSENDS OF PEOPLE: ORTHODOX, ORIENTAL, CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS, MUSLIMS, JEWS, ATHEISTS....numerous healings and miracles gave appeared.
God bless. From Ethiopia❤☦️
You don’t need to join a church, the church is the building!! Jesus said make disciples. The kingdom of heaven is within you! We are only to love god with all of our hearts and love each other as he loves us. His righteousness is in us and increases as we seek him he only wants a relationship!!! ❤🙏
Got to get a better conclusion to the videos and sum it up, every time it ends I think TH-cam fucked up and there is more of the video. I'm EO but the content is great, just need to wrap it up correctly
it is funny though that the orientals, like the eastern orthodox have ceased functioning in terms of their inability to convoke an ecumenical council. the orientals also failed to submit to the mind of the church on the definition of doctrine and proclamation of dogma by an ecumenical council.
the church as the body of christ is living, is growing, and fulfilling its mission. just as the favor or God remained on the rightful ruler of the throne of david even when the kingdom was divided between northern israel and southern israel after the death of solomon, who is prospering? who among the churches is fulfilling prophecy of filling the earth through baptism in the name of the one true God in the blessed trinity?
Isn't it as simple as OO denying the holy spirit at work during each of the councils after chalcedon?
EO claims those are ultimately governed by the holy spirit, to not fully accept them is to stray from the ultimate truth.
I tend to trust the councils rather than a breakoff group.
I do think OO preserve a lot of true tradition though of course.
Let say if Holy spirit worked through both 4th and 5th, why the decree of one contradict the other?
le me give u one example:-
4th council Announced Ibas of Edessa and his predecessor (Three chapters) as 'Orthodox' while 5th Council denounced, and make the three chapters as 'hetetic' and condemned them.
(God forbid) Does holy spirit change his mind?
What gave Chalcedon the rite to call the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II a “robber” council?
Council of Chalcedon denied. Holy Spirit denied. That simple
That is truuu
Are you saying that not a single council had any mistakes? If I remember correctly, every early church denomination split up at some point.
@Cozmc_Myth The early church had no denominations, but ones who divided split off.
Ofc you think there are denominations because you're a protestant. And no, all councils in which are considered ecumenical are infallible, as all patriarchal sees at the time accepted Chalcedon.
Brother you contracted the cofefe virus xD
im coming back to this video again and i now see the difference between miaphysitism and dyophysitism and after doing some research i can see that Chalcedon does contradict Ephesus.
i dnt understand why the Eastern Orthodox venerates St Cyril as a saint when his whole Christology condemns Chalcedons.
the 12 anathemas is evidence of that.
also i dnt like how the EO lie and say the Orientals believe in monophysitism when they dont.
the Orthobros really annoy me tbh
but anyways im happy to be seeking the Oriental Church. i really loves the Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian churches so much.
This is all due to misunderstanding some philosophical concepts and making word concept fallacies. Those are arguments have been refuted for centuries.
God bless
Okay quite frankly, it kind of just seems like the argument is that Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong because it disagrees with Saint Cyril of Alexrandria's opinion? From what yoi said it is the opinion of Saint Cyril but not that it is canon that you can't talk about the nature of Christ in that way. Maybe according to Saint Cyril saying that maybe Christ eating is coming from the human nature is nestorian, but it is at least to my knowledge not condemned as a heresy in of itself in the previous council.
St. Cyril of Alexandria accepted this type of language explicitly after in the council of Ephesus in the Formula of Reunion in 433. That's why your pseudosaints like Severus reject st. Cyril's nuances and teachings
4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.
Is this a correct translation of Cyril's writings or is it not?
@@ContinentalphilosophyrulesYes. And Pope St. Leo does not fall under this anathema.
Hi. Can you do a video on veneration, Icons, relics, and how that relates to Exodus 20:4 and Revelation 22:8-9? Also, why do they have relics? Like what are the purposes of the bones of previous people?
I visited an Orthodox Church, and there was a lot of bowing and kissing of icons and relics. And I didn’t see much of that towards God, unless I missed it. Some of the words were hard to hear, even though it was in English. It was a Vespers service. I’m trying to learn more. Please and thank you
The relics of Elisha raised someone from the dead. It's in scripture. I encourage you to read it. We are not doing something unbiblical if that is what you are alluding to.
@ no. I wasn’t implying anything. I would have directly said so if I was. I just want to learn. But if someone asks me, and thinks I’m being unbiblical, I want to be able to coherently speak about what faith im practicing; defend the faith - 1 Peter 3:15.
The reason I mentioned those verses is because that’s what people have brought up to try and say that some of the orthodox practices are not biblical. Also, I’m aware of Elijah’s bones. But people weren’t bowing to or kissing them. And I’ve never heard of anyone in the Bible keeping saint bones and distributing them to different churches/parishes. I’m just trying to learn at this point. I’m new and have only been to one vesper service, but I didn’t understand anything that was going on. It’s very different from Protestant churches.
Side note. I did learn the following day after I did this comment, that the Vesper was more geared towards the saints. And the liturgy service the following day was more geared towards God. At least that’s what someone told me at the church. The vesper was a preparation for the liturgy the following day, which i thought was pretty cool. I was still a little lost about practices and some of the prayers, because the prayers and chants were hard to understand at times. But I’ll get there.
@@Zerael071 unless it's specifically says somewhere that it is wrong to bow down or keep relics, then I don't find anything wrong with it. Side note, bowing down does not always mean worship. When you bow down to God that is worship, but when we kiss or bow down to an icon or relics it is just a form of honor and venerating them
@ yeah. I’ve heard about that. I agree. It’s just hard to talk to people that are “it has to be in the Bible” types. I just left my first Coptic Orthodox Liturgy service. I enjoyed it.
Well thank you for the information you’ve shared. I think I’m going to find me a book that teaches the traditions, prayers, and everything. So that I can better know what’s going on while attending the services. God bless =)
can someone explain the formula of reunion to me please?
Answer me this question: Is the majority decision of the Church infallibly guided by God?
If the answer is "no," then the entire basis for Christianity goes out the window and we might as well all be totally anarchic theologically.
If the answer is yes, then Oriental Orthodoxy was refuted infallibly by an ecumenical council, and is therefore wrong.
Why did you reject the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II and call it a robber council? Actually, your chalcedonian ancestors overturned much of what happened at Ephesus II and then realized they were wrong a hundred years later at your gathering called Constantinople II. Does the church believe in contradiction? You seem to be telling us so.
@MinaDKSBMSB Because the historical circumstances make it apparent that it *was* an illegitimate council. It was never accepted by the laity or even the leadership, which is why they reconvened immediately to overturn it. No such excuse can be claimed by the Orientals at Chalcedon: it was accepted by the vast majority of bishops.
Once again, if the majority decision of the church can be wrong, as Coptics claim, then all previous ecumenical councils could be wrong.
@@EpistemicAnthony actually the proof is against what you just stated. Ephesus II was ecumenically accepted, and was put into law by St. Emperor Theodosius. You only find objection in those who opposed the dogma of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I, especially those Nestorians who were rightfully deposed at the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II. What you are actually choosing to do is follow the narrative of the Nestorian Leo of Rome.
The vocal fry is too much
Love from Ethiopia
Im a Lutheran il hear u out. but you mis understand what sola scriptura atually means it doesnt mean me and my bible alone, it means lets say the councils are subservant under the word of God, therefore i know Christ has 2 natures because the bible says he became man to die for our sins, i know Jesus is God because we oviously know why John chapter 1 cant be more clear than that and the old testament profoesies about the messiaih being mixed with God dwelling with his people. but anyways thats what sola scriptura is, we love church history we teach and listen to St Augustine, St thomas Aquinais our theology is largely build on him rather than Martin Luther. The lutheran reformation was to reform the western catholic church, but we got kicked out, yet the catholic church accepts all the things we screamed about in the 15th.
Why does your religion have gay and lesbian priests?
@@Arcadian1821because the west is a apostasy. Not because the religion allows it. (Coming from the reform. I'm not Lutheran)
You won't find this in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s until the 90s up to today.
You don't throw centuries of a denomination away do to decades of REGIONAL deterioration.
The Reform and Lutheran traditions in the West,
Doesn't affect the Latin American, Asian, or African reformed and Lutherans.
Let me check the Irish articles of 1568, the Savoy declaration, the Westminster confession of faith, larger catechism of Westminster, 39 articles,
And ah yes, non of them affirm lgbtq stuff or female ordination or abortion or any of that.
You should have waited until you were fully recovered from the cold before speaking out about this. 🙄
Thank you brother
So ur logic in short “ the church has explanations for this but it’s confusing therefore we are right” exactly like a Muslim on the trinity you argue, no wonder you have so many similarities since you signed with the Islamic empire instead of the Byzantine empire traitors, no wonder ur so similar.
Interesting that all the Orientals grew in population because of the Islamic empires did not want the Christian’s in Islamic lands to be united with the Roman Empire so they promoted these schismatics orthodox bishops. Exception is Ethiopia who just joined the Orientals due to proximity.
@@cervantescisneros712 when they were anathematised there were as much if not more Eastern Orthodox in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and so on but because we signed with the Byzantine empire which has fallen we weren’t favourited and they signed with the Islamic empire and it’s a fact it’s not about promotion it’s what happened
Quick correction. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the only thing that is authoritative is Scripture. It means the only infallible authority is Scripture. Magesterial Protestants still have “the church” act as a normative authority, just with the knowledge that it can be fallible.
That doesn’t really make an authority but an interpretive reflection of scripture, and by that the magisterium isn’t concrete, nor can it bind by the Spirit
@@jdavid121 it is an authority, it also can be binding, just not infallibly. Just like how not all doctrine is infallible dogma.
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you endure the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3).
Sounds like 2 Timothy 4:3 within the protestant communion, yes? That the people will break off from the sound doctrine established by Spirit seeking their opinions in others including teachers?
Also, doctrine is dogma, the both are synonymous. Whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5).
@@WaterMelon-Cat If something is binded, it is by the Spirit (truth and absolute and divinely established). If not infallible then not binded, and if binding is not infallible it means the magisterium is a fleshly authority and decision-maker, and by reason can not grounded or authoritative but interpretive (Jn 6:63, Eph 1:17). (how could it be grounded when, for instance, the Scots Confession damns symbolic eucharist believers and the churches professing transubstantiation? This is essentially everyone outside of the Reformed communion. Considering the drastic differences, a constantly changing faith is not exclusive to the low-church, does this sound like a truly normative authority if you suffer the same degree of change as churches absent of a magisterium?) Regardless, a magisterium without foundation and revelation of the Spirit can not work, and should not be in effect (1 Cor 2:13-14, Philippians 3:3).
Also, whats dogma is doctrine and doctrine of the Church is sound because of the Spirit, so its dogmatic.. because the Church is the pillar of the Spirit, and of its truth (1 Tim 3:5). They are synonymous words
@@WaterMelon-Cat my comments are being deleted, do you have something I can speak to you on ?
Chlamydia? Get well soon
easter ortodox are the true ortodox sooo...apostolic
you are making us look bad, please stop
Of course we are!
@@aurashene8422 Our church also has apostolic succession, our Pope is the legitimate successor of Saint Mark.
@@RicardoRazootbf churches can lose apostolic secession. Rome has.
@@MrTerkoizzz . Really no , The Pope Francis is the Successor of Pater
Delusional
No point in commenting
I’m from Israel and I love Copts
You don't have the holy fire on pascha.
Faith is not proved by miracles
@@andrewternet8370 oh yes it is. So how's the sexual abuse scandal going on in the Coptic church?
@@chaseyung1037 idk man, never heard of it
That's a parlor trick 😂