“It is possible to find a middle word that between two views will signify both. But a middle view between two opposite views concerning the same thing is impossible... There is no room for compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”-St. Mark of Ephesus †
This is absolutely astonishing! All the talk and common understanding I've ever seen about the non-chalcedonian position has been rational debate, or linguistic misunderstanding, or just differences of perception. This is the first time I've ever heard about the intervention of St Euphemia, and the whole focus of the issue being about humility and obedience, both to the Church and in these critical instances, God Himself and His Saints. It is astounding we even have arguments now, it is so clear.
@@Joshua_Burdono thank you for your concern but the chalcedonian Orthodox Churcy is the Holy Apostolic Catholic church. My wife was ethnically attached to the oriental church so it was difficult for her to leave but I was not so it wasn't so difficult when I began to research the schism and contemporary saints.
"On a personal level, we should assist anyone and everyone. On an ecclesiastical level we cannot and must not budge one iota from the faith once delivered, for the sake of their salvation and the love of them and the love of the Fathers and our own salvation. It's just not an option." 🔥🔥🔥
If I was the devil, I'd look at this chat and be very pleased that I got brothers arguing with hatred while in reality they agree on how to live their lives.
If they’re in one hypostasis why does Chalcedon repeatedly state he is two natures after the union. It appears that they subsist outside of the hypostasis and each substance functions as in accordance with its own will, operation, and intellect. That’s two sons
There is One hypostasis. But they repeatedly state that, because its referring most likely towards the 'hypostatic union'. If a nature is distinctive from another, then it must have a will of it's own. However, since it's in the One Person(Christ) we understand that Christs human nature eternally submits to the Father, as did Adam willingly did before the fall, and Christ Divine nature sharing the Will of Father. There is no contradiction, nor disunity within the willing of the two natures. Unity is found not in singularity. Unity is found in distinction as the Trinity doctrine makes clear without contradiction. Unity in distinction. "Hypostatic Union"
@@Kaileb984 the Trinity is numerically distinct in hypostasis but not in essence. The way they’re united is difference than how humanity and divinity are united in the incarnation of Christ. If the natures are united the same way the hypostases of the Trinity are united, you admit a fourth being added into the godhead, since you view the humanity of Christ as the introduction of another hypostasis, the same way the Son is a different hypostasis from the Father.
@@yousefsalib7609 I wasn't saying the Trinity is distinct via essence. The hypostases or persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished by their hypostatic properties. However, there is only One hypostasis(Son), but that does not necessary restrict himself from having a second nature, because them two natures with distinct wills, as Humanity that came from the theotokos and Divinity which is originate from the unbegotten God the Father. Therefore, if Christ because a human nature is not Divine; Christ grew up exactly like a human, lived with our limitations(willingly) and died with pains we would feel too. Every human being has a separate will that e.g Saints Willingly submits to God Will. Christ in the nature of humanity, which is glorified through the resurrection, sitting on the right hand of the Father. Because, him the New Adam was obedient eternally to Him(The Father), and thus led by example through the will of humanity. 2 Natures=two wills, and in One Person. God is infinite, and thus can contain anything. Furthermore, I would say Christ's humanity coming from the Pure Mother of God, could only do goodness, because the One person with two wills that direct their focus towards the Father by its very Natures. Don't cause the factor of resulting in two persons, because Christ Divinity while shared with the other two is not completely just that, likewise is the two natures of Christ in the One person the same. Like the Uncreated Activities of God are all loving, all Merciful and all powerful etc etc, but they are not just all that one or two specific thing. But all at once, and yet distinct from one another in their functions. Yet they work together without disunity from the Will directing it. "2 saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” - Luke 22:42. Here, the humanity of Christ is shown, and the eternal submission to the Divine Will is invoked. There is a distinct between the Wills being spoken. "not My will"(humanity) & "Your Will"(Divine), Christ divine nature shares this divine nature already with the Father, and so Christ is speaking from His Humanity in its will. Furthermore, after these events He is killed upon the Cross. Third day went into heaven to glorify the Universal Humanity He possessed like exactly everyone else.
@@Kaileb984if Christ is two fold in every way besides hypostasis which for you means name, then there’s two individual substances creating a tetrad. You’ve admitted there’s two different operations, one that matches the rest of the godhead, the other of a mere man, that’s two persons.
"The Eucharistic mystery unites the alpha and the omega, every nation and every race, every Catholic and Orthodox. Let them quarrel in Rome and Alexandria all they want, but the Eucharist will unite them still. They are one in Christ, despite their theological differences. I heard lately that there's talks of 'reconciliation'; well, let them reconcile all they want. Christ has already cast His net upon them; each group has already eaten the Eucharist. And even if the human will rejects union, and purposely sets up thousands of barriers to it, Christ has already made them one." - Fr. Matthew the Poor
A bit ironic to quote a schismatic speaking of unity. There is no such thing as unity despite theological differences. Unity/Oneness in the one Christ requires one faith. If there are two faiths then one party is not in the one Christ (Eph 4:4-5). I hope one day you realize that schismatics who insult multiple patriarchs and the very spirit of the Church, should not be quoted.
@@nanak4856bruh Christ is god not a scholar who is neck deep in semantics and philosophy. Christ came down and died for our sins not because we are perfect but because we fell. Christ does not love people based on heresies but based on their personal relationship with him. To divide Christ based on meta physics into a bunch of terms and axioms in itself is the biggest sin
There is no Eucharist outside the Orthodox Church. This Church, this specific Communion, is the One Body. That's not me saying, or Fr Peter Heers, or "PHDs in Theology", is what this Church believe, that's what their saints (both of old and modern times) teach, is not a matter of academic dispute, most of those saints are uneducated man anyway, is not a matter of human barriers.
It is incredibly frustrating when non chalcedonians will things like "we do believe in the essence energies distinction, and theosis, etc, etc." these things are only possible when you have the the entire deposit of faith which includes Christ's 2 natures described at chalcedon.
Orientals do have a form of theosis, it’s just called deification. Remember St. Athanasios was a “Coptic” patriarch of Alexandria. They don’t think much of the energies/essence distinction because their theological development mainly stopped with Chalcedon. Not because they’re deficient, but because starting Chalcedon they have been consistently persecuted. First by Byzantine, then by the Muslims to this day. It’s hard to contemplate theology when you’re trying to keep your faith while avoiding getting killed. By the way, by Oriental Orthodox I mean the churches in communion with the Coptic church (not the Nestorians or any others not in communion with them)
@@TruthSeekerEverywhere 1. Coptic Church is a parallel structure that was created in the 5 century. 2. Athanasius the Great never had a title “Coptic patriarch”, he was called “Pope of Alexandria”. 3. Don't make yourself so innocent. The Monophysite population also persecuted the Orthodox. 4. The concept of Theosis is understood in Monophysitism not as a sanctification of human nature, but in their own way
@@orthoslavie Saint Athanasius was a Copt. Theosis is only possible within the oriental Orthodox worldview, since in your view there was no union between Gods own humanity and divinity, he never made his humanity one with it.
I usually don't like to respond to video's, but after seeing what is being said, it very much looks like this priest really doesn't have a clue on what he's talking about. First of all, the oriental orthodox do not believe in monophysitism, but miaphysitism. Those are completely different from each other and the oriental orthodox reject the monophysite heresy. Second, the suggestion that oriental orthodox are not connected to patristic theology is false. St. Cyril is one of the greatest saints within the coptic orthodox Church and St. Ephrem the Syrian is perhaps the greatest saint in the Syriac orthodox church. The way this priest is talking reminds me of Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye?"
Thank you Father. I agree it’s all heresies not just the obvious heresies outside of the Church but the not so obvious ones unfortunately inside the Church! One example is the nationalistic pride in the Orthodox Church. 🙏🏼
Many peoplr in the Levant region: Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine and Jordan are Greek Orthodox and Love ❤️ 😍 💖 Greece and the Greek and Byzantine culture due to their cultural heritage 😊
I have thought about the miracle of St Euphemia and it's the fact they went to her tomb because they were continuously debating for a supposed prolonged period but the Council of Chalcedon happened in a matter of a few weeks, whereas other councils have taken longer than 30 days to even a few months. Why was it at this council that they decided for a miracle/answer from a martyr?
Maybe because the solution to Monophysitism was so subtle that there was genuine apprehension of how to go about it, and yet the issue was threatening the coherence of the Empire. I'm just guessing.
Because it’s a made up story and later legend. Not mentioned at ALL in any of the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon. Historical revision to show that Chalcedon and EO is correct.
@@meghalo05 *sigh* Yes, yes, and historical revision to show the significance of the saints so non-conformists can shut up about correlating the saints with 'necromancy.'
@@fadikhoory5350 If you’re speaking of the certain mentions of her in the acts, it is because the council was held in the St. Euphemia Church in Chalcedon, and St. Euphemia is the notable martyr from the region. So you’d see it be commonly and vaguely deemed that, by her grace, the decision of the council would be protected, and done in the name of her faith. The ‘miracle’ is the fabrication of a 10th century Constantinopolitan synaxarium. It isn’t mentioned in Constantinople 2, and it isn’t mentioned in contemporary letters in defense or celebration of the council (e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus’ letter to John of Aegea, Anatolius’ letter to Pope Leo). the latter from which actually contradicting this piece of hagiography, because it reads that the Chalcedonian confession of faith (the only document that was actually present) was proclaimed and written unanimously and ‘without gainsaying’. There is no unsettled arguing and non-consensus between St. Dioscorus’ document and the Chalcedonian document that prompts the supposed appearance of Euphemia. There wouldn’t even be a document of St. Dioscorus for the clergy to argue about either, as his deposition by chalcedon would have already been prior to this session
Oriental Orthodox claim complete compliance with the Theology of St. Cyril, I think largely through following Severus as they were even referred to as Severians, but they have taken St. Cyril’s theology to a place St. Cyril never went. So to claim to be following St. Cyril is false they have lead, in a manner of speaking, St. Cyril to a place he never went. St. Cyril reposed in the Body of Christ and obedient to the enduring consensus that Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit and that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou calls the resounding voices of the many. Severus died outside it.
As Orthodox, we can simply be good natured towards Coptics because before Chalcedon it was not yet defined or considered by many in the Church up to that point in history what the two natures of Christ actually meant. Of course, as Orthodox we now use the definition that Christ was fully God and fully Man, and if he wasn't also fully a man, then we're not fully saved. Similarly, I thought this on my own so correct me if I'm error to think this way... in answer to the thought, "why didn't Christ just make Himself a body from dust like He did Adam?" Well, if He did it that way, in a similar way to Christ being fully Man (and God) he needed to have our fallen flesh provided from the Theotokos, so it could be redeemed. Thank God we are fully redeemed! I'm a layman, so run this by a priest before quoting me.
The Oriental Orthodox/ Coptic Orthodox are NOT monophysites! They are Miaphysites. Don’t be fooled, the Greek Orthodox call the Coptic church and other Oriental Orthodox churches “monophysites” as an insult. This priest knows exactly what Miaphytism is and knows the coptics adhere to that ideology and masks his words as if they’re kind, but he is insulting the church. Also, I find it interesting that he does not bring up why the oriental and the eastern orthodox split is because the way the eastern orthodox church describes the nature of Christ is similar to the way Nestorious described the natures and that’s why the Oriental Orthodox Church rejected the council of chalcedon.
@ It’s funny to me when they say things like “we would love for the Monophysites to return to the church” as if they’re being kind. They’re trying to invalidate the Oriental Orthodox and they never bring up the reason for the split because it would deconstruct their false claims against the Oriental Orthodox.
I’m Ethiopian (Oriental) Orthodox. I appreciate your view Father. I completely agree that we must never change our dogmas simply for the sake of unity. However, I believe there is still a misunderstanding by many EO. We are not monophysites and believe that that is heretical. The OO church also absolutely embraces patristic theology and rejects Protestant innovation, just like the EO. Coptic Orthodox Answers has an amazing podcast episode on TH-cam I believe called the Oriental Orthodox Church, a response to Fr. John Mahfouz, that provides clear cut info about our views. Thank you again for your insight Father.
@@bemnetsileshi8614 they know the Oriental Orthodox Church doesn’t follow Monophysitism. They make this claim to discredit or invalidate the Oriental Orthodox Church.
The Theological Significance to correct Christology in Orthodoxy is the essence/energy distinction which is critical to Hesychia and the Orthodox concept of Theosis which is central associated with Orthodox concept of Salvation and the authority of the Church as in are Ecumenical Councils fallible which is emphatic no in Eastern Orthodoxy. This is the issue in condensed format the real Theological issue. The approach we agree but are just saying different things would imply we agree on the rest of the iceberg including essence/energy distinction, Hesychia/Mystical Theology, and Theosis Theology so it is a fundamental distinction and there can't be one Church with fundamental distinctions. Oneness is important for taking the Eucharist which is actually the central unsaid thing here.
Father forgive me. I am a Copt and many of the things you mention that are issues of the OO Church can be exactly applied to the EO Church, things like miracles associated with who is in the right, lack of humility, some local churches veering off patristic theology and expressing some theological errors, etc. There are very good examples that can show EOs are just as guilty as OOs in all these points you make. With that said, you also seem to forget that the fathers time and again have allowed certain issues, even theological, to be vaguely expressed for economia. People you met have left the OO church due to certain circumstances. I wonder then maybe I should consult with those EOs who became OO because of how spiritually bereft their EO churches were. Or maybe I should become Catholic because of the amount of EOs that “realized” the lack of humility their own church had and the amount of humility and miracles the Catholics have. Your arguments lack any substance and is filled with the same pride you accuse Dioscorus of. And as for obedience, that’s such an overly simplistic way of looking at it. One could say the same of Athanasius, Cyril, Maximus the Confessor for their “lack of obedience.” The foundation of anyone who joins the other church for the reasons you provide are very weak and if people truly did research their faith would falter, as probably yours might as well. May you be well Father.
Sorry to be a bit picky, but 99.9% of non-Chalcedonian aren't Monophysite but Miaphysite. It means they believe that Christ is a 100% God and a 100% human (like we Chalcedonian christian do), but they claim that this combination creates a howl new State/nature specific to Christ and therefore separating Christ in two natures was misunderstood. Monophysite (they disapeared) on the other hand believed that christ is 50% god and 50% human, which therefore is wrong.
@@JosephMarxer The Joining of two natures into a new “hybrid” or “composite” nature makes Christ a creature as something that never before existed. Miaphysite is a created term to distinguish Oriental Orthodox from other Monophysite groups but the one nature idea whether that one nature is Human, Divine or a Composite new created nature is of little importance.
*Well I’ve messed up a bit, Monophysites actually believed that the divine nature overwhelmed the human and therefore no longer was human. Sorry for spreading disinformation and confuse you! 😔 God Bless you ! 🕊
Father, my father, God Rest His Soul, said we are closer to Catholics moreso than OE, because of Chalcedon since they were the first to leave the Church. Is that accurate?
No. Even though they split off sooner, they didn't fall away and change nearly as much as the Papists did. I mean just look and listen. They are different of course, but the fact that even Orthodox have a hard time explaining the differences should tell you a lot. Catholics have changed so much it looks like an entirely alien religion.
Don’t forget the Gnostics. But technically perhaps there were dozens or maybe even hundreds of communities that had fallen into heresy. The point is the Body of Christ after 312 could openly dialogue and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Biblical Principles of enduring consensus reclaim authority and the result was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those who later rejected the consensus denying Biblical Commands to be of one mind and judgement by definition are Schismatic. This includes Severians aka Oriental Orthodox and the Church of Rome that solidified its schism from the Bodymof Christ with the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the fourth crusade.
Well, the Roman Catholics acknowledge our 7 ecumenical councils, where the Orientals only recognize 3. However, what makes most say we are closer to the Orientals than the Roman Catholics is probably Rome's numerous innovations and changes leading up to and after the schism, whereas the Orientals haven't changed a whole lot since their schism. Rome thinks they've had 21 ecumenical councils
Amen, may those who deny the condemnation of Nestorianism at Ephesus 1 put their pride aside and return to the Coptic Orthodox Church 🙏 “But being made one according to nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body... Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be apposition, for this does not suffice for natural oneness. The one and only Christ is not twofold even though he is understood as compounded out of two different elements in an indivisible unity, just as a man is understood as consisting of soul and body and yet is not twofold but rather is one from out of both.” Saint Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius
St. Cyril reposed in unity with the Body of Christ and its enduring consensus that Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Severus died outside of it. Interpretation outside the Body of Christ is the root of every heresy ever uttered.
@@Inquisasist15difference doesn’t imply numerical distinction the same way the body is not numerically distinct from the soul in the composite nature of man, by by they’re coming together they form it.
In his life of Saint Anthony he mentions he was an ethnic Egyptian and communicated with him in his ethnic Egyptian language. He was called the "little brown dwarf" and "Pharaoh" by his opponents. If he was an ethnic Greek they wouldn't have made these accusations against him. Speaking Greek ≠ Greek, the same way speaking English doesn't make you a British person. Also there is no hypostastic union within the Chalcedonian religion, since union in geek means henosis, henosis is properly defined as oneness in accordance to what is being united, and since Ephesus I dogmatized union kata physion and kata hypostasis, the union must be according to nature and hypostasis, which you don't believe since you confess everything is twofold besides the hypostasis which to you just =prosopon. Since Christ never united to his own humanity and made himself one with it, how can we be made one with his divinity through participating in the sacraments? You simply believe you can unite to a human attribute or general humanity, not to God, due to your dualistic Christ.
This is more coptic nonsense. I left that “church” 7 yrs ago and joined myself to the one true Church. Let me tell you they are not the same. Not even similar! The council of Chalcedon has spoken. Stop trying to confuse people with your technical drivel. The coptic church has destroyed the souls of many family members and friends. They are the biggest cartel hiding in plain sight. All they care about is money and self preservation. They don’t know how to guide people to salvation. Wolves in sheep’s clothing!
@ Unless you can find an answer for the claims of the comment you should keep yourself from terming this ‘coptic nonsense’. What you call technical drivel the chalcedonians also use for metaphysics (including the council of chalcedon in what you believe would be divinely inspired usage) and for exegesis. I don’t know what has happened for you to show such impertinence toward the Church because what you said does not at all describe the church as I’ve known and lived in, His Church has not failed me and I hope not to fail Him. Also, from a historical perspective, I would have had a totally opposite perspective than you (including conduct against us, and persecution of us via imperial power, as reported by our scholars, secular scholars, and EO scholars). Regardless, I ask you to reconsider and discern with your whole heart and your spirit. I apologize and give you my sympathy if you have felt wronged in the Church. God bless you always habibi
"Get saved" is a Protestant term. Who will be saved in the end is God's judgment, not ours. We only know the one path He left us which is in the one Church (Holy Orthodox Catholic Church).
Why do you guys insist that orientals are Monophysites? How about we have dialogue on our beliefs. We were taught that the Eastern Orthodox Church were nestorians but that is equally untrue as us being Monophysites.
There is a prophecy in our books that there will be one last council and it will be held in Alexandria, where those from Roman side and the Coptic side would at the end agree to pray the divine lutergy and then the HOLYSPIRIT will land on the EUCHRIST of one of them and then unity will come after then. I believe we might be near to that, after the Great War and the comming of the two kings who are chosen by ALLMIGHTY GOD one in Rome ( Europe ) and one in Ethiopia. Synksarium of FIKTOR and the book of Isabel .
Go have an argument with a clergy on the other side and leave the lay people away from silly arguments that happened 1600 years ago which have brought ruin to all. No one truly cares about these issues and the majority of people that attend church on both sides have no clue that this even exists and is not the reason why they attend their respective churches. I have attended both Greek and Coptic churches and I felt at home in both whether you or another clergy on the other side approves or not. Secondly whenever this talk arises about this split no one talks about any geopolitical factors that were happening at the time. Can't politics play into this matter? I mean look at the churches in Ukraine and the clear power struggle between Moscow and Constantinople where is the theological differences there? If you truly want unity, then this is definitely not the way to approach it.
If you try to shove your beliefs, no matter how right they are, down someone's throat, you're being uncharitable. A shepherd doesn't drag his sheep through the mud and make them go where he wants them to, the shepherd guides with a kind hand, he leads but doesnt force.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
@@mct1157 Notice how He DIDN'T say "Go forth and ridicule and annoy people and beat My gospel into their heads, and condemn all those who lack understanding of My teaching to hell, no matter the state of their heart." Yes the Orientals and the Copts are in error but they're good people, and they have a profound love for the Lord, and it is God's duty to give to them clarity and understanding. It is our duty to guide them on the path, but to do so lovingly and as brothers, and to not force or annoy them, because that will only steepen divides.
@@mct1157 You do not understand how God works. Nobody converts anybody, the change of heart that occurs when someone converts to the Orthodox faith, or turns to Christ in any respect, comes from God and God alone. It is Christ who changes hearts, not men. Ezekiel 36:26
Its very sad to come across yet a another misinformed EO priest, the sad thing is that he uses his platform in social media to throw accusations. I invite you to publicly dialogue with one of the many well informed Copts, who can help you understand the reason why we are fixated on the Theology of our father St Cyril and those before him, and reject the innovation of Chalcedon 451, which needed to be revisited in II Constantinople 553.. just go read Canon 8 of that council. Let's stop this silly attack on the Copts, a very powerful, theologically sound church, a church that is faithful to her Redeemer with countless saints and a wonderful youth ministry. I almost sense a spirit of jealousy there. There is no time to waste. Work work work for the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven, grounded in Truth and humility. The Byzantinian church has massacred thousands of Copts in the past (is that Orthodox?), but we don't talk about this everywhere we are ready to forgive... we have forgiven. We signed and agreement between our leaders and yours in 1990 to end this stupidity, only arrogance that hinders the work of God.
@ because Oriental Church diminishes humanity in Christ. For example some of you say that Christ’s body was “luminescent”, “transparent” and “lightweight” (so will ours after resurrection). Only an example
@ there no Miaphysites. There are moderate and radical Monophysites. If you keep to Cyril’s formula then call yourself Miasesarkomenephysite (Miaincarnatephysite)
The ironic fact that YOU are so arrogant.😂😂 How dare you preach about humility? And it seems to me you follow Mohammad not our lord Jesus Christ! No any difference between you and any radical Muslims here in Egypt!!! Be humble and speak with love before making some “Takfeer” or judgement on coptic orthodox please
@ unfortunately, he is a big liar, disrespectful man and a very bad image not only for the Eastern also for all the Christians First of all Coptic orthodox are not out of the church and how are you to judge!! Coptic church is the mother of martyrs (you have to educate yourself) If you wanna know what a people believe look at their worship, look at their liturgical texts. Don’t tell us what we believe ask and listen. And you will never find anything about Monophysite heresy. And if you have the humility and confidence in your own faith you will not be afraid of looking at the other and discover what they are believing. Instead wasting your time listening to this liar and am not exaggerating if I said that he looks like any radical Muslim Finally, it is very scary when people claim orthodoxy yet the basics of Christianity are not shown !!!
@ unfortunately, he is a liar, disrespectful man and a very bad image of Easterns and all Christians. First of all, Coptic orthodox are not out of the church and this is so silly and one of many lies that he is always repeating. Coptic church is mother of the martyrs , so behave and educate yourself. If you wanna know what a people believe look at their worship or look at their liturgical texts but don’t tell us what we believe. Ask and listen. And you will never find anything about Monophysite heresy. And if you have the humility and confidence in your own faith you will not be afraid of looking at the other and discover what they are believing, instead of wasting your time listening to this hateful nonsense speech. I am not exaggerating if I said that he looks like Muslims in their arrogance and hateful speech. And I find it very scary when people claim orthodoxy yet the basics of Christianity are not shown which are honesty, respect and love.
As an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church.(EOTC) follower, my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church was divorced from the Holy Mother Church while conceived within the wombs of the Catholic church until it separated from its second mother through the unholy birth(The Great Schism). BTW, the EOTC is critically examining some 'unOrthodox' or Catholic leaning dogmatic practices within the Coptic church. So, EOTC are not to be merged with Coptic Orthodoxy by default. I Pray for all' Orthodoxies',who have not yet done so, to return to the Holy Mother Church that has always been maintained since our LORD Jesus Christ Founded her in Ceasaria despite the Chalcedony hickups. This is the Truth that may wound some conscious as arrogance or pride..
That's not how it was at all. The churches that would form the Miaphysite communion (renamed 'Oriental Orthodox' in 1965; which Ethiopians and Copts are in communion with one another, btw) separated from the rest of the Church in protest. Then in AD 1054 the singular church of Rome that was teaching heresy was let go from the rest of the Church thus forming the Roman Catholic communion with the Unia it created later on. So we are in the Mother Church that many left including your community.
The one leaving the many is and can only be described as the schismatic. Scripture commands that we be of one mind and judgement and to accomplish that through the Biblical principle of enduring consensus that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou calls the resounding voices of the many and that Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Period!
It is people like you who spread division rather than unity and who are you to tell there will not be unity, it speaks the opposite of humility and for the sake of clickbait your video’s picture is tarnishing others, it is beneficial if you talk about love and orthodoxy
The monophysite/ miaphysite controversy really isn't a major hurdle to unity. I would say most EO laypeople that I know of would consider the Oriental Orthodox to be our brothers and sisters. I would guess that most clergy are sympathetic to cause as well. The real problem is that since Chalcedon each side has had their own councils and synods and there are saints that have been canonized from each side that are unpalatable to the other side. These problems are serious hurdles to full unity.
You do not understand what you talking about. Monophysite theology is gnostic theology. Catholics and Protestants are closer to us. (Wrote without aggression)
This is not true. For a time people accept the lie that the Monophysite groups were Orthodox, and this is changing. There is awareness of the truth once again.
@orthoslavie monophysitism was rejected at chalcedon. No one today that I am aware of believes in in. You are correct that there is a connection between gnosticisn and monophysitism. However, I do not know of any oriental orthodox who has described their faith as being monophysite. If you know of a counter example then I stand corrected. Of course, that really wasn't the point of my comments which were about the gulf that has been created by the two sides over the centuries. If the hierarchs of one of their churches decided tomorrow that there were two natures it still would not result in full unity.
“It is possible to find a middle word that between two views will signify both. But a middle view between two opposite views concerning the same thing is impossible... There is no room for compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”-St. Mark of Ephesus †
As a Russian-Armenian I pray the Armenian Apostolic church joins the Eastern Orthodox Church.
They probably have the least to correct, which includes using azymos for communion.
@@LadyMaria and for them to repent about lying about the Holy Fire
@@proxile_ Oh they did that too?
@@proxile_what did we “lie” about inform me
Brother it will never happen. Our Church will not submit to Chalcedon.
This is absolutely astonishing! All the talk and common understanding I've ever seen about the non-chalcedonian position has been rational debate, or linguistic misunderstanding, or just differences of perception. This is the first time I've ever heard about the intervention of St Euphemia, and the whole focus of the issue being about humility and obedience, both to the Church and in these critical instances, God Himself and His Saints. It is astounding we even have arguments now, it is so clear.
My wife and I are both converts from the oriental church
Glory to God
We love you and are so had your Orthodox Catholic now
I was a judaizer and a protestant so I'm very blessed to have found the truth
Come back to the true church
@@Joshua_Burdono thank you for your concern but the chalcedonian Orthodox Churcy is the Holy Apostolic Catholic church. My wife was ethnically attached to the oriental church so it was difficult for her to leave but I was not so it wasn't so difficult when I began to research the schism and contemporary saints.
Me too. Formerly coptic.
"On a personal level, we should assist anyone and everyone. On an ecclesiastical level we cannot and must not budge one iota from the faith once delivered, for the sake of their salvation and the love of them and the love of the Fathers and our own salvation. It's just not an option."
🔥🔥🔥
If I was the devil, I'd look at this chat and be very pleased that I got brothers arguing with hatred while in reality they agree on how to live their lives.
Christ has 2 nature in one hypostasis, amen ☦️
If they’re in one hypostasis why does Chalcedon repeatedly state he is two natures after the union. It appears that they subsist outside of the hypostasis and each substance functions as in accordance with its own will, operation, and intellect. That’s two sons
There is One hypostasis. But they repeatedly state that, because its referring most likely towards the 'hypostatic union'. If a nature is distinctive from another, then it must have a will of it's own. However, since it's in the One Person(Christ) we understand that Christs human nature eternally submits to the Father, as did Adam willingly did before the fall, and Christ Divine nature sharing the Will of Father. There is no contradiction, nor disunity within the willing of the two natures.
Unity is found not in singularity. Unity is found in distinction as the Trinity doctrine makes clear without contradiction. Unity in distinction.
"Hypostatic Union"
@@Kaileb984 the Trinity is numerically distinct in hypostasis but not in essence. The way they’re united is difference than how humanity and divinity are united in the incarnation of Christ. If the natures are united the same way the hypostases of the Trinity are united, you admit a fourth being added into the godhead, since you view the humanity of Christ as the introduction of another hypostasis, the same way the Son is a different hypostasis from the Father.
@@yousefsalib7609 I wasn't saying the Trinity is distinct via essence. The hypostases or persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished by their hypostatic properties.
However, there is only One hypostasis(Son), but that does not necessary restrict himself from having a second nature, because them two natures with distinct wills, as Humanity that came from the theotokos and Divinity which is originate from the unbegotten God the Father. Therefore, if Christ because a human nature is not Divine; Christ grew up exactly like a human, lived with our limitations(willingly) and died with pains we would feel too. Every human being has a separate will that e.g Saints Willingly submits to God Will.
Christ in the nature of humanity, which is glorified through the resurrection, sitting on the right hand of the Father. Because, him the New Adam was obedient eternally to Him(The Father), and thus led by example through the will of humanity.
2 Natures=two wills, and in One Person. God is infinite, and thus can contain anything. Furthermore, I would say Christ's humanity coming from the Pure Mother of God, could only do goodness, because the One person with two wills that direct their focus towards the Father by its very Natures. Don't cause the factor of resulting in two persons, because Christ Divinity while shared with the other two is not completely just that, likewise is the two natures of Christ in the One person the same.
Like the Uncreated Activities of God are all loving, all Merciful and all powerful etc etc, but they are not just all that one or two specific thing. But all at once, and yet distinct from one another in their functions. Yet they work together without disunity from the Will directing it.
"2 saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” - Luke 22:42.
Here, the humanity of Christ is shown, and the eternal submission to the Divine Will is invoked. There is a distinct between the Wills being spoken. "not My will"(humanity) & "Your Will"(Divine), Christ divine nature shares this divine nature already with the Father, and so Christ is speaking from His Humanity in its will. Furthermore, after these events He is killed upon the Cross. Third day went into heaven to glorify the Universal Humanity He possessed like exactly everyone else.
@@Kaileb984if Christ is two fold in every way besides hypostasis which for you means name, then there’s two individual substances creating a tetrad. You’ve admitted there’s two different operations, one that matches the rest of the godhead, the other of a mere man, that’s two persons.
As far as I understand, the OO are actually Miaphysites not Monophysites. That's what they say on Coptic Orthodox Answers anyways.
"The Eucharistic mystery unites the alpha and the omega, every nation and every race, every Catholic and Orthodox. Let them quarrel in Rome and Alexandria all they want, but the Eucharist will unite them still. They are one in Christ, despite their theological differences. I heard lately that there's talks of 'reconciliation'; well, let them reconcile all they want. Christ has already cast His net upon them; each group has already eaten the Eucharist. And even if the human will rejects union, and purposely sets up thousands of barriers to it, Christ has already made them one."
- Fr. Matthew the Poor
@@AsItWas00 fr Matthew is in hell
A bit ironic to quote a schismatic speaking of unity. There is no such thing as unity despite theological differences. Unity/Oneness in the one Christ requires one faith. If there are two faiths then one party is not in the one Christ (Eph 4:4-5). I hope one day you realize that schismatics who insult multiple patriarchs and the very spirit of the Church, should not be quoted.
@@nanak4856bruh Christ is god not a scholar who is neck deep in semantics and philosophy. Christ came down and died for our sins not because we are perfect but because we fell. Christ does not love people based on heresies but based on their personal relationship with him. To divide Christ based on meta physics into a bunch of terms and axioms in itself is the biggest sin
There is no Eucharist outside the Orthodox Church. This Church, this specific Communion, is the One Body. That's not me saying, or Fr Peter Heers, or "PHDs in Theology", is what this Church believe, that's what their saints (both of old and modern times) teach, is not a matter of academic dispute, most of those saints are uneducated man anyway, is not a matter of human barriers.
Same people who believe that Christ is made up of mere general substances & got cooked by Saint Severus
It is incredibly frustrating when non chalcedonians will things like "we do believe in the essence energies distinction, and theosis, etc, etc." these things are only possible when you have the the entire deposit of faith which includes Christ's 2 natures described at chalcedon.
Orientals do have a form of theosis, it’s just called deification. Remember St. Athanasios was a “Coptic” patriarch of Alexandria.
They don’t think much of the energies/essence distinction because their theological development mainly stopped with Chalcedon. Not because they’re deficient, but because starting Chalcedon they have been consistently persecuted. First by Byzantine, then by the Muslims to this day. It’s hard to contemplate theology when you’re trying to keep your faith while avoiding getting killed.
By the way, by Oriental Orthodox I mean the churches in communion with the Coptic church (not the Nestorians or any others not in communion with them)
@@TruthSeekerEverywhere 1. Coptic Church is a parallel structure that was created in the 5 century.
2. Athanasius the Great never had a title “Coptic patriarch”, he was called “Pope of Alexandria”.
3. Don't make yourself so innocent. The Monophysite population also persecuted the Orthodox.
4. The concept of Theosis is understood in Monophysitism not as a sanctification of human nature, but in their own way
@@orthoslavie Saint Athanasius was a Copt. Theosis is only possible within the oriental Orthodox worldview, since in your view there was no union between Gods own humanity and divinity, he never made his humanity one with it.
@@yousefsalib7609 Saint Athanasius was a Greek, certainly from Greek speaking community
@@yousefsalib7609 Christ had humanity, that’s enough for Theosis. Oriental explanation unlike Hypoststic union is sophistry.
All Orthodox ❤❤❤❤
I usually don't like to respond to video's, but after seeing what is being said, it very much looks like this priest really doesn't have a clue on what he's talking about. First of all, the oriental orthodox do not believe in monophysitism, but miaphysitism. Those are completely different from each other and the oriental orthodox reject the monophysite heresy. Second, the suggestion that oriental orthodox are not connected to patristic theology is false. St. Cyril is one of the greatest saints within the coptic orthodox Church and St. Ephrem the Syrian is perhaps the greatest saint in the Syriac orthodox church. The way this priest is talking reminds me of Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye?"
Amen Father!
Thank you Father. I agree it’s all heresies not just the obvious heresies outside of the Church but the not so obvious ones unfortunately inside the Church! One example is the nationalistic pride in the Orthodox Church.
🙏🏼
Many peoplr in the Levant region: Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine and Jordan are Greek Orthodox and Love ❤️ 😍 💖 Greece and the Greek and Byzantine culture due to their cultural heritage 😊
I have thought about the miracle of St Euphemia and it's the fact they went to her tomb because they were continuously debating for a supposed prolonged period but the Council of Chalcedon happened in a matter of a few weeks, whereas other councils have taken longer than 30 days to even a few months. Why was it at this council that they decided for a miracle/answer from a martyr?
Maybe because the solution to Monophysitism was so subtle that there was genuine apprehension of how to go about it, and yet the issue was threatening the coherence of the Empire. I'm just guessing.
Because it’s a made up story and later legend. Not mentioned at ALL in any of the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon. Historical revision to show that Chalcedon and EO is correct.
@@meghalo05 *sigh* Yes, yes, and historical revision to show the significance of the saints so non-conformists can shut up about correlating the saints with 'necromancy.'
@@fadikhoory5350 If you’re speaking of the certain mentions of her in the acts, it is because the council was held in the St. Euphemia Church in Chalcedon, and St. Euphemia is the notable martyr from the region. So you’d see it be commonly and vaguely deemed that, by her grace, the decision of the council would be protected, and done in the name of her faith. The ‘miracle’ is the fabrication of a 10th century Constantinopolitan synaxarium. It isn’t mentioned in Constantinople 2, and it isn’t mentioned in contemporary letters in defense or celebration of the council (e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus’ letter to John of Aegea, Anatolius’ letter to Pope Leo). the latter from which actually contradicting this piece of hagiography, because it reads that the Chalcedonian confession of faith (the only document that was actually present) was proclaimed and written unanimously and ‘without gainsaying’. There is no unsettled arguing and non-consensus between St. Dioscorus’ document and the Chalcedonian document that prompts the supposed appearance of Euphemia. There wouldn’t even be a document of St. Dioscorus for the clergy to argue about either, as his deposition by chalcedon would have already been prior to this session
Oriental Orthodox claim complete compliance with the Theology of St. Cyril, I think largely through following Severus as they were even referred to as Severians, but they have taken St. Cyril’s theology to a place St. Cyril never went. So to claim to be following St. Cyril is false they have lead, in a manner of speaking, St. Cyril to a place he never went. St. Cyril reposed in the Body of Christ and obedient to the enduring consensus that Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit and that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou calls the resounding voices of the many. Severus died outside it.
Cyril of Alexandria confessed in his letters to Severus of Antioch that Christ is in one nature.
As Orthodox, we can simply be good natured towards Coptics because before Chalcedon it was not yet defined or considered by many in the Church up to that point in history what the two natures of Christ actually meant. Of course, as Orthodox we now use the definition that Christ was fully God and fully Man, and if he wasn't also fully a man, then we're not fully saved. Similarly, I thought this on my own so correct me if I'm error to think this way... in answer to the thought, "why didn't Christ just make Himself a body from dust like He did Adam?" Well, if He did it that way, in a similar way to Christ being fully Man (and God) he needed to have our fallen flesh provided from the Theotokos, so it could be redeemed. Thank God we are fully redeemed! I'm a layman, so run this by a priest before quoting me.
The Oriental Orthodox/ Coptic Orthodox are NOT monophysites! They are Miaphysites. Don’t be fooled, the Greek Orthodox call the Coptic church and other Oriental Orthodox churches “monophysites” as an insult. This priest knows exactly what Miaphytism is and knows the coptics adhere to that ideology and masks his words as if they’re kind, but he is insulting the church. Also, I find it interesting that he does not bring up why the oriental and the eastern orthodox split is because the way the eastern orthodox church describes the nature of Christ is similar to the way Nestorious described the natures and that’s why the Oriental Orthodox Church rejected the council of chalcedon.
Well said
@ It’s funny to me when they say things like “we would love for the Monophysites to return to the church” as if they’re being kind. They’re trying to invalidate the Oriental Orthodox and they never bring up the reason for the split because it would deconstruct their false claims against the Oriental Orthodox.
St Cyril, St Severus and St Dioscorus pray for us!!!
Amen
Amen, Saint Cyril pray for us!
we only know Cyril as a Saint, not the rest.
@ if you venerated St Cyril you would follow his Christology
@ yes we did, 2 natures one hypostasis. Monophysism is a heresy.
Humility is indeed the way. The conversion of the Chalcedonians to Orthodoxy is to be left in God's hands 🤲
I’m Ethiopian (Oriental) Orthodox. I appreciate your view Father. I completely agree that we must never change our dogmas simply for the sake of unity. However, I believe there is still a misunderstanding by many EO. We are not monophysites and believe that that is heretical. The OO church also absolutely embraces patristic theology and rejects Protestant innovation, just like the EO. Coptic Orthodox Answers has an amazing podcast episode on TH-cam I believe called the Oriental Orthodox Church, a response to Fr. John Mahfouz, that provides clear cut info about our views. Thank you again for your insight Father.
@@bemnetsileshi8614 they know the Oriental Orthodox Church doesn’t follow Monophysitism. They make this claim to discredit or invalidate the Oriental Orthodox Church.
The Theological Significance to correct Christology in Orthodoxy is the essence/energy distinction which is critical to Hesychia and the Orthodox concept of Theosis which is central associated with Orthodox concept of Salvation and the authority of the Church as in are Ecumenical Councils fallible which is emphatic no in Eastern Orthodoxy. This is the issue in condensed format the real Theological issue. The approach we agree but are just saying different things would imply we agree on the rest of the iceberg including essence/energy distinction, Hesychia/Mystical Theology, and Theosis Theology so it is a fundamental distinction and there can't be one Church with fundamental distinctions. Oneness is important for taking the Eucharist which is actually the central unsaid thing here.
Well said, Father.
Father forgive me. I am a Copt and many of the things you mention that are issues of the OO Church can be exactly applied to the EO Church, things like miracles associated with who is in the right, lack of humility, some local churches veering off patristic theology and expressing some theological errors, etc. There are very good examples that can show EOs are just as guilty as OOs in all these points you make.
With that said, you also seem to forget that the fathers time and again have allowed certain issues, even theological, to be vaguely expressed for economia.
People you met have left the OO church due to certain circumstances. I wonder then maybe I should consult with those EOs who became OO because of how spiritually bereft their EO churches were. Or maybe I should become Catholic because of the amount of EOs that “realized” the lack of humility their own church had and the amount of humility and miracles the Catholics have.
Your arguments lack any substance and is filled with the same pride you accuse Dioscorus of.
And as for obedience, that’s such an overly simplistic way of looking at it. One could say the same of Athanasius, Cyril, Maximus the Confessor for their “lack of obedience.”
The foundation of anyone who joins the other church for the reasons you provide are very weak and if people truly did research their faith would falter, as probably yours might as well.
May you be well Father.
Brilliant an answer that is grounded in the Spirit of Truth & humility
Sorry to be a bit picky, but 99.9% of non-Chalcedonian aren't Monophysite but Miaphysite. It means they believe that Christ is a 100% God and a 100% human (like we Chalcedonian christian do), but they claim that this combination creates a howl new State/nature specific to Christ and therefore separating Christ in two natures was misunderstood. Monophysite (they disapeared) on the other hand believed that christ is 50% god and 50% human, which therefore is wrong.
And that new nature of Christ created a third THING which also is wrong therefore mia or mono is irrelevant and both are wrong.
@@JosephMarxer The Joining of two natures into a new “hybrid” or “composite” nature makes Christ a creature as something that never before existed. Miaphysite is a created term to distinguish Oriental Orthodox from other Monophysite groups but the one nature idea whether that one nature is Human, Divine or a Composite new created nature is of little importance.
*Well I’ve messed up a bit, Monophysites actually believed that the divine nature overwhelmed the human and therefore no longer was human. Sorry for spreading disinformation and confuse you! 😔
God Bless you ! 🕊
Father, my father, God Rest His Soul, said we are closer to Catholics moreso than OE, because of Chalcedon since they were the first to leave the Church. Is that accurate?
Weren't Nestorians the first?
@Orthosaur7532 you might be right actually I think it was Judaizers, Aryans, nestoraians, orientals.
No. Even though they split off sooner, they didn't fall away and change nearly as much as the Papists did. I mean just look and listen. They are different of course, but the fact that even Orthodox have a hard time explaining the differences should tell you a lot. Catholics have changed so much it looks like an entirely alien religion.
Don’t forget the Gnostics. But technically perhaps there were dozens or maybe even hundreds of communities that had fallen into heresy. The point is the Body of Christ after 312 could openly dialogue and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Biblical Principles of enduring consensus reclaim authority and the result was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those who later rejected the consensus denying Biblical Commands to be of one mind and judgement by definition are Schismatic. This includes Severians aka Oriental Orthodox and the Church of Rome that solidified its schism from the Bodymof Christ with the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the fourth crusade.
Well, the Roman Catholics acknowledge our 7 ecumenical councils, where the Orientals only recognize 3. However, what makes most say we are closer to the Orientals than the Roman Catholics is probably Rome's numerous innovations and changes leading up to and after the schism, whereas the Orientals haven't changed a whole lot since their schism. Rome thinks they've had 21 ecumenical councils
☦️
Amen, may those who deny the condemnation of Nestorianism at Ephesus 1 put their pride aside and return to the Coptic Orthodox Church 🙏
“But being made one according to nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body... Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be apposition, for this does not suffice for natural oneness. The one and only Christ is not twofold even though he is understood as compounded out of two different elements in an indivisible unity, just as a man is understood as consisting of soul and body and yet is not twofold but rather is one from out of both.”
Saint Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius
You guys are pathetic honestly lol
Okay? The Coptics were still in the Holy Orthodox Church at the time.
St. Cyril reposed in unity with the Body of Christ and its enduring consensus that Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Severus died outside of it. Interpretation outside the Body of Christ is the root of every heresy ever uttered.
St. Cyril also says the flesh of the Word is of different nature than the Word born from the Father...
@@Inquisasist15difference doesn’t imply numerical distinction the same way the body is not numerically distinct from the soul in the composite nature of man, by by they’re coming together they form it.
In his life of Saint Anthony he mentions he was an ethnic Egyptian and communicated with him in his ethnic Egyptian language. He was called the "little brown dwarf" and "Pharaoh" by his opponents. If he was an ethnic Greek they wouldn't have made these accusations against him. Speaking Greek ≠ Greek, the same way speaking English doesn't make you a British person. Also there is no hypostastic union within the Chalcedonian religion, since union in geek means henosis, henosis is properly defined as oneness in accordance to what is being united, and since Ephesus I dogmatized union kata physion and kata hypostasis, the union must be according to nature and hypostasis, which you don't believe since you confess everything is twofold besides the hypostasis which to you just =prosopon. Since Christ never united to his own humanity and made himself one with it, how can we be made one with his divinity through participating in the sacraments? You simply believe you can unite to a human attribute or general humanity, not to God, due to your dualistic Christ.
This is more coptic nonsense. I left that “church” 7 yrs ago and joined myself to the one true Church. Let me tell you they are not the same. Not even similar! The council of Chalcedon has spoken. Stop trying to confuse people with your technical drivel. The coptic church has destroyed the souls of many family members and friends. They are the biggest cartel hiding in plain sight. All they care about is money and self preservation. They don’t know how to guide people to salvation. Wolves in sheep’s clothing!
@ Unless you can find an answer for the claims of the comment you should keep yourself from terming this ‘coptic nonsense’. What you call technical drivel the chalcedonians also use for metaphysics (including the council of chalcedon in what you believe would be divinely inspired usage) and for exegesis. I don’t know what has happened for you to show such impertinence toward the Church because what you said does not at all describe the church as I’ve known and lived in, His Church has not failed me and I hope not to fail Him. Also, from a historical perspective, I would have had a totally opposite perspective than you (including conduct against us, and persecution of us via imperial power, as reported by our scholars, secular scholars, and EO scholars). Regardless, I ask you to reconsider and discern with your whole heart and your spirit. I apologize and give you my sympathy if you have felt wronged in the Church. God bless you always habibi
Can Coptic Christians get saved according to traditional Eastern Orthodoxy teaching or is it also very much a rarity?
Did you not watch the video?
We should each be most concerned with our own salvation first.
We cannot judge what God will do with others.
"Get saved" is a Protestant term. Who will be saved in the end is God's judgment, not ours. We only know the one path He left us which is in the one Church (Holy Orthodox Catholic Church).
Why do you guys insist that orientals are Monophysites? How about we have dialogue on our beliefs. We were taught that the Eastern Orthodox Church were nestorians but that is equally untrue as us being Monophysites.
Very pity to hear monophysite from you
How am I so early 😳
We are Monophysite but Miaphysite
There is a prophecy in our books that there will be one last council and it will be held in Alexandria, where those from Roman side and the Coptic side would at the end agree to pray the divine lutergy and then the HOLYSPIRIT will land on the EUCHRIST of one of them and then unity will come after then. I believe we might be near to that, after the Great War and the comming of the two kings who are chosen by ALLMIGHTY GOD one in Rome ( Europe ) and one in Ethiopia. Synksarium of FIKTOR and the book of Isabel .
Go have an argument with a clergy on the other side and leave the lay people away from silly arguments that happened 1600 years ago which have brought ruin to all. No one truly cares about these issues and the majority of people that attend church on both sides have no clue that this even exists and is not the reason why they attend their respective churches. I have attended both Greek and Coptic churches and I felt at home in both whether you or another clergy on the other side approves or not. Secondly whenever this talk arises about this split no one talks about any geopolitical factors that were happening at the time. Can't politics play into this matter? I mean look at the churches in Ukraine and the clear power struggle between Moscow and Constantinople where is the theological differences there? If you truly want unity, then this is definitely not the way to approach it.
Leave it to God?
Are we not His hands and feet?
If you try to shove your beliefs, no matter how right they are, down someone's throat, you're being uncharitable. A shepherd doesn't drag his sheep through the mud and make them go where he wants them to, the shepherd guides with a kind hand, he leads but doesnt force.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
@@mct1157 Notice how He DIDN'T say "Go forth and ridicule and annoy people and beat My gospel into their heads, and condemn all those who lack understanding of My teaching to hell, no matter the state of their heart." Yes the Orientals and the Copts are in error but they're good people, and they have a profound love for the Lord, and it is God's duty to give to them clarity and understanding. It is our duty to guide them on the path, but to do so lovingly and as brothers, and to not force or annoy them, because that will only steepen divides.
@nonameaccount7773 Great, so you do have a duty to guide them on the path, and not just 'leaving it up to God.'
@@mct1157 You do not understand how God works. Nobody converts anybody, the change of heart that occurs when someone converts to the Orthodox faith, or turns to Christ in any respect, comes from God and God alone. It is Christ who changes hearts, not men. Ezekiel 36:26
Its very sad to come across yet a another misinformed EO priest, the sad thing is that he uses his platform in social media to throw accusations.
I invite you to publicly dialogue with one of the many well informed Copts, who can help you understand the reason why we are fixated on the Theology of our father St Cyril and those before him, and reject the innovation of Chalcedon 451, which needed to be revisited in II Constantinople 553.. just go read Canon 8 of that council.
Let's stop this silly attack on the Copts, a very powerful, theologically sound church, a church that is faithful to her Redeemer with countless saints and a wonderful youth ministry.
I almost sense a spirit of jealousy there.
There is no time to waste. Work work work for the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven, grounded in Truth and humility.
The Byzantinian church has massacred thousands of Copts in the past (is that Orthodox?), but we don't talk about this everywhere we are ready to forgive... we have forgiven. We signed and agreement between our leaders and yours in 1990 to end this stupidity, only arrogance that hinders the work of God.
get ahold of David Erhan
@justinm165 he is another misinformed time waster, who thrives on popularity rather than Truth.
Monophysites are the furthest from us. Catholics and Protestants (majority) are not gnostic unlike Monophysites
How is the Oriental Orthodox Church gnostic? Also we are miaphysite, not monophysite.
@ because Oriental Church diminishes humanity in Christ. For example some of you say that Christ’s body was “luminescent”, “transparent” and “lightweight” (so will ours after resurrection). Only an example
@ there no Miaphysites. There are moderate and radical Monophysites. If you keep to Cyril’s formula then call yourself Miasesarkomenephysite (Miaincarnatephysite)
Debate Agen
The ironic fact that YOU are so arrogant.😂😂
How dare you preach about humility?
And it seems to me you follow Mohammad not our lord Jesus Christ! No any difference between you and any radical Muslims here in Egypt!!!
Be humble and speak with love before making some “Takfeer” or judgement on coptic orthodox please
It would not be humble of him to lie and tell those outside the Church that they are fine.
@ unfortunately, he is a big liar, disrespectful man and a very bad image not only for the Eastern also for all the Christians
First of all Coptic orthodox are not out of the church and how are you to judge!! Coptic church is the mother of martyrs (you have to educate yourself)
If you wanna know what a people believe look at their worship, look at their liturgical texts. Don’t tell us what we believe ask and listen. And you will never find anything about Monophysite heresy. And if you have the humility and confidence in your own faith you will not be afraid of looking at the other and discover what they are believing. Instead wasting your time listening to this liar and am not exaggerating if I said that he looks like any radical Muslim
Finally, it is very scary when people claim orthodoxy yet the basics of Christianity are not shown !!!
@ unfortunately, he is a liar, disrespectful man and a very bad image of Easterns and all Christians.
First of all, Coptic orthodox are not out of the church and this is so silly and one of many lies that he is always repeating. Coptic church is mother of the martyrs , so behave and educate yourself.
If you wanna know what a people believe look at their worship or look at their liturgical texts but don’t tell us what we believe. Ask and listen. And you will never find anything about Monophysite heresy.
And if you have the humility and confidence in your own faith you will not be afraid of looking at the other and discover what they are believing, instead of wasting your time listening to this hateful nonsense speech.
I am not exaggerating if I said that he looks like Muslims in their arrogance and hateful speech.
And I find it very scary when people claim orthodoxy yet the basics of Christianity are not shown which are honesty, respect and love.
Talks about humility
… proceeds with “We have arrived. We are the true church. We know better” 🤷🏻♂️
So humility means negating the truth?
@@eeaotly which truth?
As an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church.(EOTC) follower, my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church was divorced from the Holy Mother Church while conceived within the wombs of the Catholic church until it separated from its second mother through the unholy birth(The Great Schism). BTW, the EOTC is critically examining some 'unOrthodox' or Catholic leaning dogmatic practices within the Coptic church. So, EOTC are not to be merged with Coptic Orthodoxy by default. I Pray for all' Orthodoxies',who have not yet done so, to return to the Holy Mother Church that has always been maintained since our LORD Jesus Christ Founded her in Ceasaria despite the Chalcedony hickups.
This is the Truth that may wound some conscious as arrogance or pride..
That's not how it was at all. The churches that would form the Miaphysite communion (renamed 'Oriental Orthodox' in 1965; which Ethiopians and Copts are in communion with one another, btw) separated from the rest of the Church in protest.
Then in AD 1054 the singular church of Rome that was teaching heresy was let go from the rest of the Church thus forming the Roman Catholic communion with the Unia it created later on.
So we are in the Mother Church that many left including your community.
The one leaving the many is and can only be described as the schismatic. Scripture commands that we be of one mind and judgement and to accomplish that through the Biblical principle of enduring consensus that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou calls the resounding voices of the many and that Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Period!
It is people like you who spread division rather than unity and who are you to tell there will not be unity, it speaks the opposite of humility and for the sake of clickbait your video’s picture is tarnishing others, it is beneficial if you talk about love and orthodoxy
The monophysite/ miaphysite controversy really isn't a major hurdle to unity. I would say most EO laypeople that I know of would consider the Oriental Orthodox to be our brothers and sisters. I would guess that most clergy are sympathetic to cause as well. The real problem is that since Chalcedon each side has had their own councils and synods and there are saints that have been canonized from each side that are unpalatable to the other side. These problems are serious hurdles to full unity.
You do not understand what you talking about. Monophysite theology is gnostic theology. Catholics and Protestants are closer to us.
(Wrote without aggression)
This is not true. For a time people accept the lie that the Monophysite groups were Orthodox, and this is changing. There is awareness of the truth once again.
@orthoslavie monophysitism was rejected at chalcedon. No one today that I am aware of believes in in. You are correct that there is a connection between gnosticisn and monophysitism. However, I do not know of any oriental orthodox who has described their faith as being monophysite. If you know of a counter example then I stand corrected. Of course, that really wasn't the point of my comments which were about the gulf that has been created by the two sides over the centuries. If the hierarchs of one of their churches decided tomorrow that there were two natures it still would not result in full unity.