I am an Armenian that grew up in the Armenian apostolic church but recently moved to a new state where there is only an Eastern Orthodox Church near me. I was shocked to learn that we were not in communion and was also struggling to understand what the difference was between the churches. This video was really helpful to me! I would love to know more about what happened at the council of Chalcedon. As a young adult your faith and lifestyle is inspiring to me ❤️
Thank you so much for sharing! And thank you for your kind words! Yes, Eastern Orthodox churches don’t give us communion until we officially renounce Monophysitism. At least, that was the case in Russia. So, first, we had to admit that we are Monophysites, which we are not, and then renounce it. And only then we are anointed again and we can take part in the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Or you can go to Ethiopian orthodox tewahdo church or Eritrean orthodox tewahdo church . ❤✝️ Today in Ethiopia, we commemorate the day when Saint Helena discovered the True Cross. It is a holly day
@@holasonawhat's so bad about renouncing it!? It's literally questioning the entire trinity and bringing in to the question the whole purpose of God's creation.. By the way I was not born Christian.. I was raised with Taoist philosophy and come to find the Lord around 2019 and have had many difficulties with Protestantism untill I discovered Orthodoxy a little over a year ago. Plus there's a church father quote that goes something like, don't be so concerned with being right that you divide yourselves up into pieces. What is the reason for schismaticising one's self from the church, where's the inherent reason for it, I see no reason to take the side of schismatics, they havnt raised a single point to explain why they thought schismaticising themselves was the best decision.. why is two natures wrong? Without saying this person said this or that, just give me your definition of why two natures united in one "person" but still with two distinct natures none the less, is somehow wrong and worth dividing the body of christ over. I have learned why Nestorius was later condemned after his continued intrigue into the human nature more. Nestorius was basically just the opposite of what the Orientals are doing.. embracing one nature more than the other.. when we have to acknowledge there are distinctively two natures.. what is so wrong about that? What am I getting wrong here?
I agree with you, that is all that really matters, and what the first three Ecumenical Councils accepted. After that, in my personal opinion, the churches started to overthink everything and try to over explain things. There has to be a space in our faith for Mystery. Not every aspect of our faith has to be put under the microscope. Much love!
@@Olgaleigh Well said about the mystery. But the problem began when all faith began to be shoved into one formula. Do you speak Russian? Monophysites confess one nature in "Christ" and the Church of Christ confesses Christ in two natures. This is the main difference. When Christ walked on the waters on the Sea of Galilee, He walked on His feet as a man, but the elements obeyed Him as God. In the Lord Jesus Christ there are both two natures and two natural wills. And the human natural will is completely obedient to the Deity, as Christ showed us during the prayer in Gethsemane.
The solution is not to divide jesus christ into two natures. He is god and human . God. Died for me . If you divide him and in to two you can't say that
@@eve3363 Helena, later known as Flavia Julia Helena Augusta, mother of Constantine the Great, was credited after her death with having discovered the fragments of the Cross and the tomb in which Jesus was buried at Golgotha. . en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
@@eve3363 Helena ranks as an important figure in the history of Christianity. In her final years, she made a religious tour of Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem, during which she discovered the True Cross. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
This is one of the most helpful narrations on the history of this topic I have seen. Despite attending seminary classes, this was one of my favorite summaries to watch on this very confusing topic! Your research and love of the subject really shows. Thanks for your effort in making this video. You have a gift!
May the LORD and GOD bless thee and keep thee, and may HIS face shine upon you and be gracious to you, And may the LORD lift up His countenance upon thee and grant you His peace! …. That peace which this broken and shattered world cannot give! Please please come to Our LORD GOD and Savior CHRIST JESUS/YESHUA HAMASHIACH = JESUS the Anointed ONE! my भाई
Leady, Wow! I admire your voice and honesty about the past. "This man has much bigger ambitions." 15:43 You have no idea how lovely this term is, because I believe Antochia and Alxaderia School can come together if Leo does not interfere.
God bless you sister! Thank you for sharing information about our communion! Would love to have a discussion with you further on the schisms that occurred and the distinction conceptually speaking between our different christologies ✝🙏
Thank you for sharing this video. I am always interested in learning more about this topic and about the Church. I found this video to be helpful and enjoy your other videos as well.
This is so good. Thank you for this. You managed to say so much in so little time. This is extremely complicated thing. EO and RC always accuses OO as monophysites and most of them does not even know what they are saying. Truly councils of Ephesus and council of Chalcedon are opposite in theology. Its also kind of hypocrisy that EO has st Cyril and Leo both as their saints. They try to say that st Cyril was teaching two natures even that he did not.
Wow best explanation very well said god bless my true brothers and sisters from the oriental Orthodox Church from what I understood we the orientals never moved away from the original teachings
It doesn't matter if it's a Chalcedonian or not discussing this, what almost always gets left out is that when Cyril says "nature" he means "hypostasis", and when Leo says "nature" he means "ousia", because Leo is taking the Cappadocian language of the Trinity and applying it to Christ, so that the articulation of these categories is consistent.
Thank you for your comment. That is the only explanation I have heard the Eastern Orthodox Church has for these inconsistencies, but wouldn’t two people from the same church, from similar upbringing and education and the same era share the same understanding of the “nature”? This is just my conclusion, but there is more evidence that the understanding of the word “nature” of the two theologians was not the point of the argument.
@holasona I do think the division is likely real between the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, but I do think that getting hung up on the one or two natures articulation loses conceptually what the real differences might be. I think the philosophical categories really did take time to work out, so I think getting hung up on articulations, rather than focusing on substantive distinctions can be a distraction. For example, before the Cappadocians, my understanding is that the distinction between ousia and hypostasis was much less clear, which is likely partially why Basil has an entire letter to Gregory of Nyssa defining these terms. Augustine, being a Latin speaker who didn't love Greek, still struggled in his day to differentiate what the Cappadocians meant by ousia and hypostasis, because to him they both just meant the same thing: substance.
Like our saint Gregorius Bar Hebraeus said "... I became convinced that these disputes between the various Christian churches were not a matter of factual weight, but of words and formulations. Because all of them confess that Christ our Lord is fully God and fully a man, without fusion, mixture or ambiguity of natures... This is how i gained the insight that all Christian communities with their different christological positions stand on a common ground, without any differences between themselves." So we all believe in the natures of Christ. I hope that we can be united with our eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters soon🙏🏻☦️
That's only an opinion of someone who hasn't actually read the acts of the council of Chalcedon. They literally condemned the mia physis formula and the 12 anathemas of St Cyril. If you reject those anathemas you're just not even Christian tbh
Thank you for your clear explanation of this tragic, ancient split in the One Church that Jesus founded. I thought your explanation was very clear. I think the solution to this dilemma can be found in St. Cyril's use of the one word "nature" in 2 different ways --- he said, if I understand you correctly, that there were 2 natures before Incarnation and one nature thereafter, but without the confusion of the original two natures. The Council of Chalcedon used a different word for St. Cyril's second use of "nature" -- the statement was then, there are two natures in Christ, and one unique "hypostasis" after the Incarnation, so that there is One Son, etc. and 2 distinct natures, fully human and fully divine, without confusion and without separation, without one nature overwhelming the other. That this separation has continued for so many centuries is a wound to the heart of the Church.
Great analysis!..You tried your best not to be subjective but fairly objective. Anyways, their difference was all political among the church fathers back then.
She literally says in the video that it's not "only" political and is in fact doctrinal.. you clearly didn't listen. She said she used to think it was only political..
5:30 is a point that doesnt refute the Chalcedonian position at all!! Hes refuting Nestorius's claims As i have said! Distinction and division are two totally different words!
thank you so much for explaining this ❤ I have met some hostile eastern christians that try hard to label me as monophysite. at a certain point, it seemed as if they wanted it to be true more than the reality lol. I didnt even know what it meant, I just knew they were wrong from the church services ive attended. breaking down this history is so valuable. thank you for this! to me it seems as nestorians back tracked from their roots and tried to plagiarize miaphysite theology, then leading smear campaigns against them. funny how their new converts make the same mistakes. I remember there is a video of a pastor asking an audience on the natures of Christ. when asked on a purely intuitive level, almost the entire room sided with Miaphysite theology. he happily entertained it before correcting them but I found it amusing & innocent to watch as an Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Christian. BTW Tewahedo literally means oneness of God for our Miaphysite theology. coincidentally its technically the same term as the islamic tawheed/ making oneness of God... aka monotheism.
Thank you so much for sharing! Your experience is so interesting! I also encountered many people who tried to label me as a Monophysite. I will make as many videos as I needed to show that Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysite.
@holasona To avoid being confused with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Imho that makes the entire experience less connecting with humanity as a whole, as if his two natures are always perfectly united rather than him actively uniting them on his mission while demonstrating to us with his accession to heaven.. One needs to put on the table Jesus's human intellect ---- Jesus’s divine intellect does not change. However, his human intellect, because he’s also fully man, he has a human intellect. His human intellect is created, it’s subject to time. And so it does change over time because that’s what time is, is a measure of change. And so Jesus’s human intellect does change over time. And we see this in the New Testament. Jimmy Akin: Saint Luke, for example, talks about how, as he grew up, Jesus grew in wisdom. And so he learned more things. I think it’s helpful to look at the passage in the catechism that talks about Christ’s soul and his human knowledge www.catholic.com/audio/caf/does-god-change-his-mind I find it most convincing to believe Mary's intercession is a large part of this story and thus showcased. However there is more to this conversation. www.catholic.com/qa/wedding-of-cana-what-if-the-wine-had-run-out I think the chosen actually does a good bit of justice to this scene, in that we also know by Mary asking for intercession, that by Mary setting things in motion, she is Condemning her son to death. She was told from the start that her son would die, and so her asking Jesus to start, sets that in motion. I think there's a lot to be said for this about self sacrifice for humanity. She was willing to suffer so that humanity could be redeemed in the end, just as Christ. So by Jesus saying his hour has not come, he gives Mary a choice, and Mary chooses obedience, sacrifice and suffering...for God, his will be done. She is the Queen of Heaven. Here is a great podcast by an Orthodox priest about it: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/the_queen_stood_at_thy_right_hand
It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
I would like to have seen the practical outworking of the two views in contrast with one another... The whole matter of nature vs person vis a vis hypostasis seems to be the crux of the matter, for the nature is seen to change via discipling in persons from two natures to the transformation of the Human nature into the new nature of the human in the age to come, at least in part... So the question then becomes one of which praxis is better equipped to enable this transformation... Great discussion - Thank-you!
@@whiteraven3753 as someone who grew up Protestant and went to a Baptist College I can tell you this has serious practical implications. Because of the two natures formula we would literally have debated on if Jesus could have sinned in his humanity, that's a very common debate among Protestant seminarians
@@kightsun I ran into that debate, and imply discarded it out of hand... Embracing the Mystery of the Faith of Christ avoids having to give human thought friendly accountings... The Gospel is clear: "Be ye repenting, for the Kingdom of Heaven its at hand (here and now)..." Initiation into this Mystery is by Baptism... There is no substitute for repentance... On the other Gand God "Will have mercy on whom I WILL to have Mercy... " And the Mercy of God entering the dust that we are is a great Mystery...
As a convert to Oriental Orthodoxy I can confidently say the problem is no body actually reads the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Session 10 literally condemned the 12 anathemas of St Cyril and the tome condemned a direct quote of Cyril's as "the height of impiety and stupidity." The OO are the only historically Orthodox group of Christians
Hi Sona. What an amazing video! I see you have done some good work here! And it is absolutely essential that Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox talk nicely with each other without insults. There's more that unites us than divides. I myself am Eastern Orthodox. I see one thing that I would argue about in your video. I think you do not present correctly the meaning of the word "hypostasis", at least how we, Chalcedonians, understand it. It is not "substance", but a synonym of "person". Hypostasis and person are interchangeable terms. At least after the Cappadocian Fathers. The word substance (lat. substantia), even though it has the same etymology, has a different meaning, which is similar to "physis"- nature. Us, Chalcedonians, we use the words "substance" or "essence" (ουσία), as well as φύσις for "nature", and the words hypostasis (υπόστασις) and (more reluctantly, because it came from the Latin theology, as it literally means a "mask" in theatre) persona (πρόσωπον) for "person". Nature is something that is common, e.g. all of people share the same human nature. But the human nature of every single one of us found its unique expression in our own person. Therefore nature is something that is common, whereas person (hypostasis) is something that is unique, unrepeatable. Every person is unique. And Jesus Christ's person is the one of the Son of God, the Second person of the Holy Trinity. His two natures are united in His Divine Person (Hypostasis) of the Son of God. They are united in His person "unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably", according to the Chalcedonian όρος (definition). You aren't right in saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is the continuation of the Antiochian theological tradition. We share love for both, Alexandrian and Antiochian schools, balancing both extreme views into an equilibrated and in my opinion the only correct view of the Incarnate Logos. I would also appreciate if you talked about monothelitism and monoenergism. I am curious which side you are on.
Thank you for your comment and you kind words! Theodore of Mopsuestia - an Antiochene School theologian who was born after Cappadocian Fathers and after the First Council of Constantinople - taught that in Christ there are two natures, human and divine, and two corresponding hypostases which co-existed. He meant it as "subject", "essence", not "person", right? Or did he mean "two persons"?
@@holasona Theodore of Mopsuestia was a heretic, a Nestorian. That’s what they believed: they divided Christ into two separate hypostases (persons): Divine and human. We, Eastern Orthodox, believe in one hypostasis (person) of Christ. We say that the human nature is assumed into the hypostasis (person) of the Divine Logos and that He is one person, being truly God and truly man at once. The two natures (φύσεις) are united in one hypostasis without any confusion and didn’t suffer any changes after the union, but at the same time they can’t be divided nor separated from each other. That’s the true meaning of the Chalcedonian Christology. And we are totally faithful to Ephesus as well! We condemn Nestorianism! That’s me doing my best to explain our position. Still, your video was very insightful. I just hope you take my comment into consideration. God bless!
In St Cyrils terminology the hypostasis and prosopon are two different things. Hypostasis can be also not living subject of that nature. For example there is nature of table. Every table is hypostasis of that nature. Prosopon is found only withing living hypostasis. There fore there is one common human nature and every human being is hypostasis of that nature and has his own prosopon. Hypostasis is not exactly same as prosopon. And if natures talked and acted in Jesus Chist as Leo said that means that he actually had two hypostasis and two persons since natures do not talk nor act. More important that this philosophy is the faith of the fathers. Councils of Ephesus were mya physite councils. Chalcedon was dyophysite. St Cyril was myaphysite. Leo of Rome was diophysote. So how can chalcedonians have them both as saints. They are clearly twistimg the theology of Ephesus and st Cyril.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 Well in our tradition hypostasis and person are the same and are taught as such at our seminaries. You can open any Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church to see for yourself. That is why when we say “hypostasis”, we mean “person” and vice versa. Both natures can act separately, since will or energy are attributes of nature, not of person. Christ had to assume the complete human nature, both body and soul, with its will and action. Otherwise His salvation of our human nature isn’t complete. As St. Gregory the Theologian said: what is unassumed, is not saved. The purpose of his salvific work in Incarnation is our theosis, like St. Athanasius the Alexandrian who said: God became man so that man could become god. P.S. St. Cyril of Alexandria is a saint in the EO and is regarded very highly. However, we don’t base our theology only or mostly on one holy Father, but on all of them together. No holy Father is infallible, even St. Cyril.
St. Dioscoros and the bishops with him didn't invent the Miaphysite Christology, they were taught by St. Cyril. Miaphysitism isn't just the Christology of St. Cyril, but also the Cappadocian fathers and other saints believed and taught it. The irony is that some fanatics especially in Eastern Orthodox venerate these fathers, accept the council of Ephesus and yet consider us as heretics.
Thank you for your comment! Yes, you are correct, the teaching was not invented by St. Cyril. It has been the teaching of the church since the first Coincil of Nicaea.
diaphysite: 2 natures, 1 person. if i do not remember wrong i read monophysites claimed the physical nature disappeared absorbsed by the divine nature and morphed into a different type of hybrid as if Christ had no bodily nature anymore; miaphysite as far as i've heard somehow claimed a similar idea that the bodily nature was enveloped by the divine and dissapeared; nestorianism was the idea that Christ is not God but a different person, according to what was written by Nestorius he taught Christ was not the Son of God so not from the Holy Trinity but someone else and only a human (2 different persons, not just 2 natures, not God incarnate through Mary), he did not consider the Messiah to be God Himself and claimed that virgin Mary was not mother of God and non-chalcedonians were upset and tried as much as they could to reject the idea of Christ obtaining a human nature
I have no boldness to call anyone a heretic, and I lack the wisdom and understanding to deliberate on this matter, but I must defer to holy elders such as St Paisios of Mt Athos, who is no mere fanatic. To be sure, those present at Chalcedon had no easy time solving the disagreement, which is why they went to the relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia. If you don't know about the miracle that took place, please go read about it.
@@david6ravy know your true value and preciousness even if people would not acknowledge. be careful. wishing you the best, peace, health, wellbeing, blessings and all good. btw, nice beard.
Instead of trying to score points, can we focus on helping each other find salvation? Too often, everyone speaks but no one listens, and sometimes it feels intentional. Does it really matter if you're "factually correct" if you lack compassion for your brothers? Christ didn't die and rise for us to get caught up in divisions or proving who’s right.
While i understand your frustration, hasn’t the history of Christianity since Paul been nothing but arguments over just about every major tenet. Seems to me like this bickering is perfectly in line with the history and nature of the Church, and given that there seems to be one and only one way to the Truth, it isnt going away any time soon.
I see where you're coming from, but it's really important not to overlook how theology matters. It can have a big impact on how we understand salvation. Different beliefs about theology can change how we think about what it means to be saved and how we connect with God. So, theology isn't just something to debate; it actually affects how we live our faith and view salvation.
Thank you for your comment! I think that's our duty to help each other - not only Orthodox Christians, but all Christians - find salvation. It is also our duty to speak the truth about who we are, and not let others define who we are.
What’s your take on the narrative that the word nature was used in a different way by chalceadon and going forward as opposed to how the word was traditionally used by the nicean churches ?
I didn’t find evidence that it was used differently before and after Chalcedon. At least, not in the resources I trust. There might be confusion in the old texts with the word “hypostasis” whether it means person or substance. But “nature” seem to always mean the same thing. If you have a trustworthy source with a different evidence, let me know.
At Ephesus, St Dioscorus did read the tome and wanted to protect the Pope of Rome from the Council. If he had read it out loud the council would have condemned Leo as well (rightfully so imho)
So you think that Leo’s “Tome” was Orthodox? It definitely states “two natures” in Christ. Quote: “being God that cannot suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of death”. “For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other ; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not cease to be on an equality with His Father's glory, so the flesh does not forego the nature of our race”. There are many more quotes that indicate two natures where one suffers in flesh, the other performs miracles. Oriental Orthodox do not distinguish the suffering being only the trait of one nature and the immortality the trait of the other nature. We say He was a perfect Himan and a perfect God in one nature and with one will. He suffered on the cross, died for our sins and has risen on the third day.
I believe all of the differences have been resolved but so far , communion hasn’t been restored. I hope it comes soon The Armenian people are so hospitable!
Thank you! Deep inside, I really hope so too! For that, we will have to agree to disagree on some aspects of Chrystology. And thank you:) I thinks so too 😊
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Eulogius Some attack the exposition of faith which those from the East have made and ask, "For what reason did the Bishop of Alexandria endure or even praise those who say that there are two natures?" Those who hold the same teachings as Nestorius say that he thinks the same thing too, snatching to their side those who do not understand precision. But it is necessary to say the following to those who are accusing me, namely, that it is not necessary to flee and avoid everything which heretics say, for they confess many of the things which we confess. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and Lord of all, does it follow that we avoid such confessions? Thus also is the case of Nestorius even if he says there are two natures signifying the difference of the flesh and the Word of God, for the nature of the Word is one nature and the nature of his flesh is another, but Nestorius does not any longer confess the union as we do. For we, when asserting their union, confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God. It is possible to say something such as this about any ordinary man, for he is of different natures, both of the body, I say, and of the soul. Both reason and speculation know the difference, but when combined then we get one human physis. Hence knowing the difference of the natures is not cutting the one Christ into two. But since all the bishops from the East think that we, who are orthodox, follow the opinions of Apollinaris and think that a mixture or a confusion took place, for such are the words which they have used, as if the Word of God had changed over into the nature of flesh, and his flesh had turned into the nature of divinity, we have yielded to them, not so far as to divide into two the one Son, far from it, but only to confess that neither a mixture nor a confusion took place, but the flesh was flesh as taken from a woman, and the Word as begotten of the Father was the Word, yet the Christ, Son and Lord, is one according to the saying of John, "The Word was made flesh," and to prepare them to pay heed to the reading of the letter of our blessed father, Athanasius. Because in his time some were contending and saying that God the Word from his own nature fashioned a body for himself, he stoutly insisted to and fro that his body was not consubstantial to the Word. But if it is not consubstantial, then there is one nature and a completely other nature from which two the one and only Son is known to be. And let those accusing me not be ignorant of this, namely, that when there is mention of a union, it does not signify the coming together of one thing, but of either two or more which are also different from each other according to nature. If, then, we speak of a union we are confessing a union of flesh animated with a rational soul and the Word, and those who speak of two natures are thinking thus also. Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his physis is one as the Word made flesh.
Thank you! This is one of the many quotes that confirm what I was saying in the video. We do not deny that Christ is both Man and God, so there are two natures that after incarnation were united in One New Composite Nature without mixture or confusion where Divinity and Humanity are equally present. As St. Cyril says in this letter, "we...confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God."
@chiefamongsinners16 What are you trying to prove with this ? That the Chalcedonians are justified in using two natures expressions? And what do you mean by Dyophysitism ? Because Nestorius' teaching is Dyophysitism, The bishops from the East taught Dyophysitism and Chalcedonians also teachs Dyophysitism.but are they all the same ? no they are not. St.Cyril would accept only the bishops of the East Christology because he thought although they say two natures.they are only saying that to imply the distinctions between the two natures. And He goes further to say that they do confess one son,one nature, This following passage is from the same letter you quoted. "(5) Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his physis is one as the Word made flesh. The bishops from the East confess these doctrines, even though they are somewhat obscure concerning the expression.6 For since they confess that the only begotten Word begotten of God the Father was himself also begotten of a woman according to flesh, that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, that his person is one, and that there are not two sons, or two christs, but one, how do they agree with the teachings of Nestorius? " St.Cyril says here although they are somewhat obscure in their Expressions, they confess the Doctrine of One Son, and his Physis is one as he is made flesh. Now what about Chalcedonians are they in align with St.Cyril or even with bishops of the East ? Many have claimed Cyril would not have considered Chalcedon heretical Council because of two natures expressions. But these who have such understanding, are failing to understand or are ignorant of the fact, that the bishops in Chalcedon did not just Confessed two Natures after the union, but they view the one nature and of two natures expressions as heretical. However this is from St.Cyril, "We will not imagine, like some of the more primitive heretics, that the Word of God took from his own (that is, his divine) nature and' fashioned himself a body, but follow at every point the inspired Scriptures in insisting that he took it from the holy Virgin. In this way, when we have the idea of the elements of the one and unique Son and Lord Jesus Christ, we speak of two natures being united; but after the union, the duality has been abolished and we believe the Son's nature to be one, since he is one Son, yet become man and incarnate. Cyril of Alexandria letter to Acacius bishop of meltine. And here is from the Bishops of Chalcedon, "The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said, “I accept ‘from two natures’, but I do not accept ‘two’.”43 But the most holy Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without confusion, change or separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour.44 So whom do you follow - the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?’ 27. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe as Leo does. Those who object are Eutychianists. Leo’s teaching was orthodox.’" The Council of Chalcedon session V. What did St.Cyril just say above here, "we speak of two natures being united; but after the union, the duality has been abolished and we believe the Son's nature to be one" But these who said these words are Eutychians according to the Bishops in Chalcedon.therefore St.Cyril is also Eutychian. What about Leo? "know that they are utterly to be detested who according to the impiety and madness of Eutyches have dared to assert that in our Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, who undertook the renewal of human salvation in himself, there are not two natures, that is, of perfect Godhead and perfect manhood, and who think they can deceive our attentiveness when they say they believe the one nature of the Word to be incarnate. For although the Word of God has indeed one nature in the Godhead of the Father and of himself and of the Holy Spirit, yet when he assumed the reality of our flesh our nature also was united to that unchangeable substance; for one could not speak of incarnation, unless flesh were assumed by the Word" POPE LEO TO BISHOP PASCHASINUS According to Leo the only way you can confess perfect Divinity and Perfect flesh in Our Lord is, if you say two Natures. And when you say One Nature in Christ it only apply to the nature he shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit.or before his incarnation. Where does Cyril's teaching stand in Leo's mind then ? And How do the bishops in Chalcedon shouted Leo and Cyril have taught the same ? Such words exposed the ignorance and delusion of these bishops. What about Leo? Was he ignorant of Cyril's teaching or was he against it ? If he was against it then he is heretic. if he was ignorant then that puts the whole Council of Chalcedon to shame, because some ignorant Pope is dealing with Dogmatic issues, while still being ignorant on Dogma. What about his Christology ? "And there is no deceit in this union, in that both are with each other, both the lowliness of the man and the greatness of the Godhead; for just as God does not undergo change through compassion, so the man is not consumed by the greatness of divine dignity. For each form performs what is proper to it in communion with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles, while the other has succumbed to outrages." Tome of Leo. The lowlines of the man and the greatness the of Godhead ? The man is not Consumed by the greatness of the divine dignity ? Which man is Leo talking about ? ah the man who is with the Word. So the man and the Word are not the same.although Leo says they are the same, but how do you say the man is not Consumed by the divine dignity when that man is the divine himself ? After you divided them like that, there is no point calling Christ one and same even if it is for million times.infact Nestorius is not tired of calling Christ one and the same many times, after he already divided him. Leo says again each form performs what is proper to it ? Does the flesh acts by itself ? Well this is not inconsistent with his christology, but this Christology does not seem to align with the Chalcedonians who tried to tell us that there is only one Hypostasis and person.that the flesh does not exist outside the Divinity or the Word. And if that's the case, it is heretical to say the flesh acts this or that. It is the person of Christ who does the action.now when he does humanly actions, it is not the flesh acting by itself, but the divine person acting through it.otherwise who do we say God hungered,thirst,cried or dead ? In no way are we saying you can not describe some actions in Christ as humanly.what we are saying is you can not say the the flesh did that or the divinity did that. That would mean there are two persons acting. The preferred way of speaking about this according to the fathers is Christ did or say that in his flesh or in his divine. Not the divine did that and the flesh did this. Conclusion St.Cyril does not seems to object two natures expressions if it is used in a correct way as he said how the Oriental bishops would use it. But as we have seen the bishops in Chalcedon not only did they confess extreme Dyophysitism, but they Condemned many of St.Cyril's phrases and terminologies.i ma sure if St.Cyril received this from the Oriental Bishops he would not have Considered them Orthodox. Now that is the problem with Chalcedon and Chalcedonians.they went extreme on the two natures which seems to be mixed between Nestorius's and the Orientals teachings.and they Condemned St.Cyrils Terminologies as Nestorians would do. If you have solution for that, we would yes your Dyophysitism is something St.Cyril would not have problem with. And quick note it seems those who were bringing accusations against the Oriental bishops to St.Cyril were right.because at Chalcedon we saw how they treated the One Nature Christology. Which would have grieved St.Cyril very greatly.
@@merhawifirzun3477 The Chalcedonians did not confess “extreme Dyophysitism” (Nestorianism). The theology of Chalcedon is consistent with Ephesus and the Fathers. Chalcedon received and accepted the letters of St. Cyril against Nestorius, the 12 chapters, and all decrees of the First Council of Ephesus. St. Cyril confessed two united natures in one Son, just as Pope Leo and Chalcedon do. What is condemned at Chalcedon is one nature of Godhead and manhood made by mixture and confusion. When St. Cyril speaks of the one physis of the Son/Hypostasis, he means by this one hypostasis, the Son/Word Himself. Chalcedon does not proclaim two persons, a man and the Word. The council proclaims one hypostasis of the Word made flesh. St. Cyril would certainly have considered the council and it’s definition Orthodox. He yielded to the authority of the Chair of St. Peter with Pope St. Celestine during the Nestorian controversy, he would have done the same at Chalcedon. If Cyril had any questions or concerns, he would have requested clarification from the Pope rather than rebel against the Church of Christ and run off into schism. And virtually all OO objections and concerns relating to Chalcedon were addressed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
@@merhawifirzun3477 Fifth Ecumenical Council Chapter 7 If anyone using the expression, in two natures, does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema. Chapter 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.
As a Tamizh Tantra Samana ethnicity we lean more towards miaphysite and more so to say God CAN live within you and your body is the Temple ...theosis is the fundamental philosophy of Asian(Aaseevagam)religions .... Aaseevagam colour concept Black - Virgin Womb *Blue - Sexual excitement* *Green - Mental development* Red - Sacrificial temperament Golden yellow - Value orientation White - Character Fulfilment Water transparency - Cosmic Union This is bringing back the Serpent (Kundalini)to the man from the woman from the Tree to the Christ and then to God
Very big strawman of what eastern orthodox believe in that last section. also I like how did didn’t mention that ephesus 2 restored eutyches back as bishop after he was disposed. Also you didn’t mention that dioscoros monks killed a St flavian at that same council.
Hi! I am talking about Eutyches and his teaching during the Second Council or Ephesus and the Coincil of Chalcedon in my next video that will come out it next week. He was a very controversial figure and, according to the many sources I went through, several times changed his beliefs throughout his life. And I will mention the controversy around Flavian’s death in my third video on this topic. The fact that I didn’t mention these events doesn’t mean I am hiding them, the video was just already way too long.
Ephesus II restored Eutychus because he gave an Orthodox confession. Prior to this at Constantinople 448 he stated that Christ is consubstantial with St. Mary, but indeed hesitated to state he was consubstantial with us. Also his confession of faith to Leo of Rome written after Conatantinople 448 is orthodox and is available for all to read. Flavian was not killed at Ephesus II contrary to unfortunate myth. He wrote a letter several months after Ephesus II to Leo still in existence. He states that at Ephesus II, the soldiers of the Emperor restrained him. It is believed by some that Pulcheria had Flavian killed in order to facilitate the power grab by Anatolous that would bolster Constantinople's see. Pulcheria was the Empress who broke her vow of virginity and also had Chrysaphius killed after the death of her brother.
Ephesus II restored Eutyches upon a confession of faith and repentance, and he changed his beliefs quite a lot of times. Furthermore, your own council of Chalcedon contradicts you on who killed Flavian. And scholars now lean toward a conspiracy that it might be Anastasius in collaboration with Leo who murdered Flavian. In Chalcedon, your own Father claims Dioscorus killed him, others of them claim St Barsouma killed him, others say his monks killed him, and others say the parabolas killed him. So who killed him? This is all your own incoherent accusations.
@@Miaphysite3 Oh so eutychies can change his view and repent but you can't say the same thing about Ibas? Also who killed him is not the point who was killed by those who sided with discoros that is a fact.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I think we should reunite with Orientals.. however, saying that the 3rd & 4th councils fully contradict? Just doesn't make sense. And indirectly makes it seem like EO are Nestorians.. we are not Nestorius believed in two Persons in Christ. We believe one person two naturez. And I accept u all are miaphysite not monophysite those who say u all are wrong for sureee. We fully agree that Jesus was always fully man & fully God. Just cauee he hungered & was transfigured did not make Him less God or less man at any point he was always since the incarnation both. Anyways I pray we do reunite even if it comes in times of trouble. May the Lord God be with you and your family!
brother its rare to see an honest E.O like you that doesn't misrepresent us god bless you. i do agree the 3rd and 4th councils fully contradict and what is funny is the 5th council goes and contradicts the 4th council as well proving more and more Chalcedon was not a holy council. i hope our churches find a way to find communion with each other.
@@DoomkingBalerdroch yes i hope our churches unite as well and ur right it's sad. Tho i disagree with ur understanding of the councils I pray you are united to Christ. It's about sanctification & transfiguration not councils itself
@@jordanmessengerforchrist it's okay if we disagree😁 you are right at the end of the day it's about our salvation. that's why I belive atleast we the e.o and o.o need to stop debating and instead have conversations non stop for our lord's church to unite 1 day 🙏
Thank you for sharing! I definitely don’t believe that EO are Nestorians, but I believe that Nestorianism ruined the relationships between the three ecumenical sees of Roman Empire. Thank you for acknowledging that we are not Monophysites, followers of Eutyches. It is also my biggest dream to see both Orthodox Churches reunited!
Dyophysitism (/daɪˈɒfɪsaɪtɪzəm/; from Greek δύο dyo, "two" and φύσις physis, "nature") is the Christological position that Jesus Christ is one person of one substance and one hypostasis, with two distinct, inseparable natures, divine and human.
Too many exclusivistic ecclesiologies going down. I follow Jesus and am happy to worship Him and pray to Him wherever and preach Him to whoever. All Trinitarians are Church. Enough of the divisions and mutually excluding councils.
Thanks you for your comment. St. Cyril speaks about one nature after the incarnation. As does St. Basil, St. Athanasius and many of the teachers of the church before Chalcedon.
One problem at 8:27: half of what was said is correct, viz., one Person, but neither St. Cyril nor the Council said anything about one (united) nature of Christ after His incarnation. Rather, all throughout the Acts is mentioned the unity of the two natures. This one united nature business is foreign to the Ecumenical Council.
@@MinaDKSBMSB No they don't please quote them. Anathema 3 does not say "one united nature" it uses the same language from Cyril's letter to Nestorius from the Council's Acts. "πρὸς ἕνωσον φυσικήν" does not mean "one united nature" but rather "towards a natural uniting" of the two natures. φυσικήν is an adjective, not a noun.
@@Kepha3 so what of it is in the adjective form here? What's your point? Are you just going to give me different ways of saying "one according to nature" and pretend like it doesn't say what it does?
Perhaps, you may take offence in the following, and I am by no means an expert on this, but miaphysitism, after being scrutinized, either goes to monophysitis(one nature, thus one will and energy), or diaphysitism(two preserved natures with their proper will and energy, thus two wills and two energies). The Coptic Church, in my view, stubbornly refuse to declare herself being faulty on the terminology. When pressed, you'd deny that Christ has one nature, which is a fusion of the Divine essence and human essence(for it would be an essential union, and not hypostatic). And will confess that the natures are preserved and are two. From which wpuld follow two wills and two energies. Yet, refuse to commit to the diaphysite formula. What doesn't make sense is maintaining "single nature(MIAphysitism)", but then say it isn't "one nature(MONOphysitism)", but also reject "two natures(DIAphysitism)".
You stated, when pressed, you'd deny that Christ has one nature, which is a fusion of the Divine essence and human essence (for it would be an essential union, and not hypostatic)….. Such is the recurrent propensity to distort our beliefs by the EO, you guys love to propagate falsehood. We consistently affirm that our Miaphysite Christology is based on St. Cyril's formula “One Composite Nature of God the Word Incarnate," a principle devoid of any connotations of mingling, merger or anything of that kind. Despite our clear articulation of this stance, your persistently slander and insinuate that we advocate for the mingling of natures or in your words "fusion of natures." Who granted you the authority to misrepresent our beliefs or dictate our confessions, imposing words upon us that we have not uttered? It is imperative for the EO to avoid deceitfulness, adopt humility, and refrain from interjecting unwarranted commentary on our Christology - Learn from the approach adopted by Catholics, be humble. The EO’s reputation precedes them, characterized by a tendency to engage in aggressive confrontations with the Catholics and, since 2017, with the OO Church. Despite enduring 6 years of unwarranted criticism, the OO community eventually reached a breaking point and initiated efforts to defend our beliefs. For instance, The Lion’s Den brothers effectively presented the OO perspective across a 10-part series on Sam Shamoun’s platform. In a spirit of fairness, Sam extended invitations to individuals like Fr. John Mahfouz, Fr. Zechariah Lynch, Fr. Michael, and David Erhan of the EO-who are known for their critical views of Oriental Orthodoxy-to engage in dialogue and defend their Christological positions. Regrettably, these individuals have failed to participate in this discourse, with over 10 months having passed without any substantive engagement -none of them showed up. If you desire a dialogue, the initial step would be to refrain from dictating our beliefs to us, sir.
For Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters:- ✝In our adherence to the concept of the One Composite Nature of the Incarnate Word, as stated by St. Cyril the Great, we also uphold the belief in One Will and One Act. The choices made by the Divine nature align harmoniously with those of the human nature, devoid of any contradiction or conflict, as there exists a seamless unity b/n the Will and actions of both. When discussing an individual's Will, such as your own, we abstain from fragmenting it by attributing, for example, the Will of your body to fall asleep in church separately from the Will of your mind to visit a friend. Instead, we attribute all your choices to you as a unified whole, not to your soul alone or your body alone, as all of your choices arise from your single, unified Will. While we acknowledge that your choices can be categorized as pertaining to either your physical body or your soul-such as choosing to eat or to pray-we do not advocate for the separation or the existence of two distinct Wills within you. Similarly, we don't advocate for the presence of two Wills within Christ, as we maintain the principle of One Will, in harmony with the One Composite Nature, underscoring the indivisible unity and harmony within the person of Christ. ✝The words of the Lord Jesus Christ resonate powerfully when He proclaimed, "My food is to do the Will of Him who sent me and to finish His work" (John 4:34), underscoring the alignment of His Will with that of the Father. He further teaches this unity by stating, "the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner" (John 5:19), emphasizing He does not seek a Will independent of that of the Father. Consequently, He said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own Will, but the Will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). It is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity have One Will, for the Lord Jesus Christ said, "I and My Father are One" (John 10:30). Since He is one with Him in the Godhead, He is essentially one with Him concerning the Will. Again, the Son, in His Incarnation on earth, was fulfilling the Will of the heavenly Father. Thus, it must be that He who united with the manhood had One Will. ✝The parallel holds true in the context of humanity's salvation, the core message that brought Christ into the world, as He declared, "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This mission aligns with the Father's Will, who "loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). Thus, the crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the human nature. Had it not been One Will, it would not have been said that Christ died by His Own Will for our sake. Since the Will is One, the Act is necessarily One.
For Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters:- I 'll cite the teachings of pre-Chalcedonian (pre-451 AD) Church Fathers who have advocated the doctrine of One Will in Christ. ✝Matthew 26:39 :- He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will' ☀St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - Since these words were spoken by Him who assumed our human nature (for He is the one who came down), and not by the nature He assumed, we must address this objection by stating that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own, other than that of the Father, but rather that He has not. Thus, the meaning would be, not to do My own will, for I have no will that is separate from you, but rather *_one will that is shared with You; for just as We have one Godhead, We also have one will._* [Fourth Theological Oration] ✝John 6:38-39 :- Christ declares, "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I will lose nothing of all that he has given me, but I will raise it up on the last day" ☀St. Cyril the great: - Being what He is, namely, God from God, Perfect from Perfect, exact imprint of the substance of His begetter, *_He will think nothing other than whatever the Father may think, whose counsel and Word He is. He will have the identical will as the Father, compelled by the law of consubstantiality, so to speak, to will all the same good things together with Him._* So do not be offended, sir, when you hear Him saying, “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.” [Homilies according the Gospel of John] ☀St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - If we consider this quotation… *_His Human will cannot be in opposition to God since it is completely united with God._* However, if we view it solely from the perspective of our human nature, we recognize that the human will does not always perfectly align with the Divine will; instead, it often struggles against and resists it. [Fourth Theological Oration] ☀St. Hilary of Poitiers :- *_God chose to suffer of His own will... God chose to die of His own will_* [Book IX On the Trinity]. The Will to suffer, the actual suffering and death are inherent to the flesh, yet, St. Hilary attributed them to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of one nature and one will following the union. This statement made by St. Hilary directly refutes Pop Leo's (EO) Christological perspective, which states Christ is God and Man, the man Christ willed, chose to suffer and die accordingly. ☀St. Athanasius :- *_He Who suffered thereon in the body was not man only, but Son of God and Savior of all. The sun veiled his face, the earth quaked, the mountains were separated, all men were stricken with awe - these things showed that Christ on the cross was God_* [On the Incarnation]. The Will to suffer, the actual suffering and death are inherent to the flesh, yet, St. Athanasius attributed them to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of One nature and One Will following the union.
No doubt, politics and power divided the Church. Now only the Roman Catholic is independent both as a universal Church and state, the rest are under a state.
as an orthodox Christian and theologian i consider pre Chalcedonian churches orthodox and its a pity that we all Greeks Slavs Romanians Ethiopians Coptic etc we are not in communion set aside the eclisiological reasons
25:04 We Eastern Orthodox do NOT believe that Jesus Christ was a man and God at different times. 24:22 You're saying that you're not defending one side and attacking the other while doing exactly this.
Leo of Rome says "The Word performs what belongs to the Word, and flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. The one performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence"
How do they not profess two sons in the Chalcedonian tradition? They state that the Word performs certain things but the man performs others. Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodoret orthodox who stated blasphemies against Ephesus I and St. Cyril such as “Christ did not suffer. The man assumed of us by God suffered”? Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodore of Mopsuesta orthodox by adhering to the letter of Ibas (stating it was orthodox), and uncanonically reinstating Theodoret who’s confession at Chalcedon was “I have always been orthodox and my fathers were always orthodox” (one of his fathers was Theodore)? The Chalcedonian position leads to two sons and a quaternity or tetrad because of these glaring errors.
Thank you for your comment. 1. Eastern Orthodox Church does believe that Jesus was suffering as a Man - His Human Nature was suffering only - and that He was performing miracles as God - His Divine Nature was performing miracles. EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die. I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief. 2.I am sorry if that sounded to you as an attack. That was not my intention. I love all Eastern Orthodox Christians and all EO churches. They are part of my upbringing and my faith. But, I have been lovingly blamed my whole life of being a heretic by Eastern Christians, and I wanted to show in this video a different historical perspective on the events of three councils I mentioned, because without really understanding what happened during these councils, it is impossible to understand how and why we got divided. If our ultimate goal is the reunion, then we have to be able to talk about this uncomfortable topics.
@@holasona Thank you for your comment too. 1. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that Christ is one (divine) person with divine and human natures. You said that we believe his human nature suffered on the cross. What you say about us sounds Nestorian to me. Nature doesn't exist without a person, it's abstract. Nature doesn't suffer, it's the person who suffers in his nature. When He is suffering on the cross, the person Jesus Christ is suffering not his human nature. After assuming human nature, the person of Jesus Christ became capable of suffering. "EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die." - Again, we believe that the person of Jesus Christ died, that's why we say that God died for us. "I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief." - You either are quote-mining EO Holy Fathers or you don't understand them properly. 2. You presented a case against what (I believe) Christ taught, that is an attack on our case. I believe that you don't have bad intensions and hatred, but you still presented (what I believe to be) heresy as truth. I believe (and you probably believe this too) that if we want to reunite, this reunion must happen in truth, in Orthodoxy.
I want to add something to this debate. I don't have theological preparation but we Eastern Orthodox state in a prayer as far as I remember that when Christ died Hell could not contain Him because He was God. So I don't understand why so much separation. I mean God doesn't die, but nor do we die die, we just leave the body and our soul goes to another place? Like Sona said in a comment, so much overthinking 🤷♀️
Saint Paisios & St Ephraim of Arizona are two of the most holiest saints that we've been blessed to have help from, in this 21st century. They hold the Truth far deep into their hearts & souls because they were such pure vessels of God's overflowing Grace. I strongly suggest anyone to read their lives & teachings about Our Lord & the Theotokos because you will be greatly touched and mind blown from their simple & humble hearts. ☺
The modern Orthodox church seems stale in terms of being a missionary. I see no attempt of Armenians going to Muslims in Turkiye, Kurdistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, or to Dagestani and Chechen Muslims, nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia, nor do I see Russia send missionaries to it's many Muslim and polytheist ethnic religious minorities in Siberia, Central Asia such as Kazakhstan or to Mongolia. Or Ethiopian Christians going to Sudan and Eritrea. The Orthodox church has a immense problem of lacking evangelization. I know they do because I don't see them converting Muslims to Christianity on mass ergo therefore i don't think they give to shits spreading the news of the gospel. I find that lack of zeel a big problem in the Orthodox Church. And I'm not a hypocrite in my accusation. I've successfully converted people to Christianity myself with the missionary zeal i accused the Orthodox as lacking.
Firstly, you converted people to your heretical nonsense religion, not Christianity. Secondly, your uninformed opinion is pretty much worthless, because if you actually did some research, you'd see all the publications by PEW and others which show that Orthodoxy is the fastest growing ecclesiastical body in the world right now. We also have a ton of missions happening across the world, but especially in the Americas and Africa.
"nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia" Respectfully, I don't think you quite understand the situation in that part of the world, lol- to put it mildly.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 dying for your faith as a martyr in a region known for a warzone doesn't sway me. I see my deathbed being a islamist sword through my gullet. Can you say you have the same vigor to spread the gospel? May you be anathemized for this lack of faith. This part of the world sees Christians picking up guns not gospels. Or even waging war against other Orthodox countries. My reason to rebuke and condemn the self centerness heresy stands. Orthodox Christians have no concerns for the souls of others beyond their ethnic group.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 i say the Eastern Orthodox lack zeal to die for their faith and they don't reach souls beyond their own ethnicity. That's my accusation. When war happens and persecution occurs the Orthodox give into nationalism and guns not love and gospels. As I speak from observation and experience. I pray I become a martyr and proselytizer, While may you be anathemized for your lack of faith.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 let me put it simple. Orthodox Christians do jack shit for proselytization and martrydom. But love ethno nationalism and war. If I don't die for the Christian faith than I have failed. And if I don't proselytize than doubly so.
Could it be that Jesus was only born of a woman so he could be clothed in flesh so not born literally but God emptied himself as scripture says to become flesh . So it was God who walked in flesh . So as christ was not literally born so he did not literally die in his divinity but suffered in his human nature through his separation of God . I enjoyed your explanation of the history and the school of thought behind it . Thank you
Thank you for sharing! If I understood correctly, then what you are saying is similar to Docetism. The problem is that if Jesus was only clothed or masked under flesh, then He didn’t take on all of our humanity and, in that case, crucifixion wouldn’t be real, it would just be just a show. And our redemption would not be possible.
The oriental Orthodox are calling themself confusingly orthodox. They where against the imperial orthodox empire in constantinople - they should not call themself like that. They are orientsl catholics.
The miracle of Saint Euphemia In the year 451 in the city of Chalcedon, in the very church where the glorified relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia rested, the sessions of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod (July 16) took place. The Synod was convened for determining the precise dogmatic formula of the Orthodox Church concerning the nature of the God-Man Jesus Christ. This was necessary because of the widespread heresy of the Monophysites ["mono-physis" meaning "one nature"], who opposed the Orthodox teaching of the two natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and the Human natures (in one Divine Person). The Monophysites falsely affirmed that in Christ was only one nature, the Divine [i.e. that Jesus is God but not man, by nature], causing discord and unrest within the Church. At the Synod were present 630 representatives from all the local Christian Churches. On the Orthodox side Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (July 3), Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem (July 2), and representatives of Leo, Pope of Rome (Feb. 18) participated in the synodal deliberations. The Monophysites were present in large numbers, headed by Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Constantinople archimandrite Eutychius. After prolonged discussions the two sides could not come to a decisive agreement. The holy Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople proposed that the Synod submit the decision of the Church dispute to the Holy Spirit, through His undoubted bearer Saint Euphemia the All-Praised, whose wonderworking relics had been discovered during the Synod’s discussions. The Orthodox hierarchs and their opponents wrote down their confessions of faith on separate scrolls and sealed them with their seals. They opened the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia and placed both scrolls upon her bosom. Then, in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), the participants of the Synod sealed the tomb, putting on it the imperial seal and setting a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides imposed upon themselves a strict fast and made intense prayer. After three days the patriarch and the emperor in the presence of the Synod opened the tomb with its relics: the scroll with the Orthodox confession was held by Saint Euphemia in her right hand, and the scroll of the heretics lay at her feet. Saint Euphemia, as though alive, raised her hand and gave the scroll to the patriarch. After this miracle many of the hesitant accepted the Orthodox confession, while those remaining obstinate in the heresy were consigned to the Synod’s condemnation and excommunication.
Thank you for the comment. This is the second time someone brings up this story in the comment section. In all the extensive research that I have done, neither Eastern Orthodox, nor Oriental Orthodox sources mention this story. Also, St. Dioscorus and his supporters are named here Monophysites and followers of Eutyches, which is false, and my two entire videos tell the story of how that myth was born and why it was cultivated.
Think about the Yin and the Yang symbol and its meaning to you. Think about it and think about Jesus being both human and divine. As above, so below. As to the left, so to the right, and all diagonal directions with all directions spinning connected as one with the Father in Heaven and Me here on Earth. My Father and I are one.
John 10: 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
You CANTcall virgin Mary the mother of God even knowing that jeaus is God is bc linguistigly is WRONG,not to mention Mary is the mother of only the seconed Qnuma which is the son God ,but Not mother of the fatber God and holy spirit God. Even others will laugh hearing us calling her mother of GOD
Orthodox Church disagrees with you. Since Jesus was not only God at one point and only Human at another point, since He was fully Human and fully God after incarnation, then, as saint Cyril said, Virgin Mary gave birth to the One Incarnate Nature of the Word. Eastern Orthodox Church preaches that the two natures came together in one Person, so, again, she didn't just gave birth to a Man, but to God as well. Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, He is One with God Father and Holy Spirit, but He is a separate hypostasis, separate entity, separate Person. So, saying that Virgin Mary is Theotokos, doesn't imply that she gave birth to the Holy Trinity. She gave birth to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity whose nature united with the Human Nature in One Person of Jesus Christ.
The reason why there’s so many different denominations, etc. is because people don’t go by the Bible they go by traditions. Traditions are from hell OK the scriptures is what is a rock or foundation that’s what we have to go by now. There’s no Trinity in the Bible there’s no three persons if you wanna know, God is just look at Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said if you seen me seen the father, it’s his foreign him do all the fullness of the God had bodily, and you are completing him not them him which is head ball prince Belde in power so Jesus is God, and in the word made flesh God is a spirit in the Bible says God was manifest in the flesh is very simple. Jesus said the word I speak I speak not myself but the father that dwell in me he do with the Works OK I’m my father Juan Jesus said before Abraham was, I am not the son or the manifestation began in a major, but the word is always been because the word can’t be disassociated with the person just like we human beings have a body so in the spirit, but we we’re not three person or words Dictate who we are. We can curse we can bless with our words us and the word was made. God made the world by his word Jesus Christ. Jesus is the father son and the Holy Ghost that’s right there’s only one God God knows stupid Trinity no three persons it’s nowhere to be found in the Bible OK so that’s it stick with the scriptures. 2:49
if that the case why there are so many who claim to be Christians who rely only on the bible without traditions keep on forming different denominations? the reality contradicts your opinion.
I am an Armenian that grew up in the Armenian apostolic church but recently moved to a new state where there is only an Eastern Orthodox Church near me. I was shocked to learn that we were not in communion and was also struggling to understand what the difference was between the churches. This video was really helpful to me! I would love to know more about what happened at the council of Chalcedon. As a young adult your faith and lifestyle is inspiring to me ❤️
Thank you so much for sharing! And thank you for your kind words! Yes, Eastern Orthodox churches don’t give us communion until we officially renounce Monophysitism. At least, that was the case in Russia. So, first, we had to admit that we are Monophysites, which we are not, and then renounce it. And only then we are anointed again and we can take part in the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Or you can go to Ethiopian orthodox tewahdo church or Eritrean orthodox tewahdo church . ❤✝️ Today in Ethiopia, we commemorate the day when Saint Helena discovered the True Cross. It is a holly day
@hagopwmyeremianwhy
@@holasonawhat's so bad about renouncing it!? It's literally questioning the entire trinity and bringing in to the question the whole purpose of God's creation..
By the way I was not born Christian.. I was raised with Taoist philosophy and come to find the Lord around 2019 and have had many difficulties with Protestantism untill I discovered Orthodoxy a little over a year ago.
Plus there's a church father quote that goes something like, don't be so concerned with being right that you divide yourselves up into pieces. What is the reason for schismaticising one's self from the church, where's the inherent reason for it, I see no reason to take the side of schismatics, they havnt raised a single point to explain why they thought schismaticising themselves was the best decision.. why is two natures wrong? Without saying this person said this or that, just give me your definition of why two natures united in one "person" but still with two distinct natures none the less, is somehow wrong and worth dividing the body of christ over.
I have learned why Nestorius was later condemned after his continued intrigue into the human nature more. Nestorius was basically just the opposite of what the Orientals are doing.. embracing one nature more than the other.. when we have to acknowledge there are distinctively two natures.. what is so wrong about that? What am I getting wrong here?
@hagopwmyeremianwhy? God's trying to help her
Russian orthodox here! I don’t understand all the different concepts but I do know fully God fully Man! Love you all
I agree with you, that is all that really matters, and what the first three Ecumenical Councils accepted. After that, in my personal opinion, the churches started to overthink everything and try to over explain things. There has to be a space in our faith for Mystery. Not every aspect of our faith has to be put under the microscope.
Much love!
@@holasona wonderfully said
@@Olgaleigh Well said about the mystery. But the problem began when all faith began to be shoved into one formula. Do you speak Russian? Monophysites confess one nature in "Christ" and the Church of Christ confesses Christ in two natures. This is the main difference. When Christ walked on the waters on the Sea of Galilee, He walked on His feet as a man, but the elements obeyed Him as God. In the Lord Jesus Christ there are both two natures and two natural wills. And the human natural will is completely obedient to the Deity, as Christ showed us during the prayer in Gethsemane.
The solution is not to divide jesus christ into two natures. He is god and human . God.
Died for me . If you divide him and in to two you can't say that
Also , read the fifty families of saint mercurio's of Egypt
Armenian Orthodox here. 👋🏼
Awesome video on the church history.
Looking forward to more vids from you, Sona!
Thank you for watching! 🙏 And thank you for your kind words!
Thank you for the wonderful explanation! ❤✝️ Today in Ethiopia, we commemorate the day when Saint Helena discovered the True Cross. 🇪🇹
Hello. What does that mean? "Discover the true cross"?
@@eve3363 Helena, later known as Flavia Julia Helena Augusta, mother of Constantine the Great, was credited after her death with having discovered the fragments of the Cross and the tomb in which Jesus was buried at Golgotha. .
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
@@eve3363
Helena ranks as an important figure in the history of Christianity. In her final years, she made a religious tour of Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem, during which she discovered the True Cross.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
@@eve3363maybe discover is the wrong word. We believe st helena found the cross jesus was crucified upon after it had been hidden by hews.
@@bernadera2142Oh wow ok. Thanks for the explanation
This is one of the most helpful narrations on the history of this topic I have seen. Despite attending seminary classes, this was one of my favorite summaries to watch on this very confusing topic! Your research and love of the subject really shows. Thanks for your effort in making this video. You have a gift!
Wow! Thank you so much for your kind words! I am so happy it was helpful!
Here a Coptic Orthodox present 🙏🏻⛪
Thank you for watching! 🙏
I am a Hindu from India, but will a Christian soon
Are you considering converting to Christianity?
@@holasona Yes
May the LORD and GOD bless thee and keep thee, and may HIS face shine upon you and be gracious to you, And may the LORD lift up His countenance upon thee and grant you His peace!
…. That peace which this broken and shattered world cannot give!
Please please come to Our LORD GOD and Savior CHRIST JESUS/YESHUA HAMASHIACH = JESUS the Anointed ONE! my भाई
@markfilippone3845
Amen my brother and I will be a Christian soon
Leady, Wow! I admire your voice and honesty about the past.
"This man has much bigger ambitions." 15:43 You have no idea how lovely this term is, because I believe Antochia and Alxaderia School can come together if Leo does not interfere.
Thank you for your kind words! And yes, I do believe that his ambition ruined the wholeness of the church.
God bless you sister! Thank you for sharing information about our communion! Would love to have a discussion with you further on the schisms that occurred and the distinction conceptually speaking between our different christologies ✝🙏
Thank you for watching! A new video is coming next week in continuation to this one:)
@@holasona Beautiful! God bless you sister!
Thank you for sharing this video. I am always interested in learning more about this topic and about the Church. I found this video to be helpful and enjoy your other videos as well.
Thank you so much for your kind words! And thank you for watching!
This is so good. Thank you for this. You managed to say so much in so little time. This is extremely complicated thing. EO and RC always accuses OO as monophysites and most of them does not even know what they are saying. Truly councils of Ephesus and council of Chalcedon are opposite in theology. Its also kind of hypocrisy that EO has st Cyril and Leo both as their saints. They try to say that st Cyril was teaching two natures even that he did not.
Thank you! I am glad it was clear!
God bless you🙏 Today in Ethiopia it is holiday we are celebrating the cross
God bless you too! Thank you for sharing!
Wow best explanation very well said god bless my true brothers and sisters from the oriental Orthodox Church from what I understood we the orientals never moved away from the original teachings
Thank you so much!
Great show love the content. Thank you!
Thank you for watching!
Excellent explanation of the history of the church councils. Thanks 🙏🏻
Thank you for your words of support! 🙏
Thank you for this video! It had much I didn't know.
Thank you for watching! I am glad it was helpful!
Great video, Thank you Sona!
Thank you for your kind words! 🙏
You make this extremely confusing history and theoretical debate easy to follow, and as exciting as a novel or spy movie. Thank you!
Thank you so much! I appreciate this compliment!
I love that yo are educated. Truly you are worth of the church promises. 🥰 love from the Ethiopian tewahedo church.
Thank you so much! I appreciate your kind words! 🙏
I love church history. Thank you for sharing!
Thank you for watching!
It doesn't matter if it's a Chalcedonian or not discussing this, what almost always gets left out is that when Cyril says "nature" he means "hypostasis", and when Leo says "nature" he means "ousia", because Leo is taking the Cappadocian language of the Trinity and applying it to Christ, so that the articulation of these categories is consistent.
Thank you for your comment. That is the only explanation I have heard the Eastern Orthodox Church has for these inconsistencies, but wouldn’t two people from the same church, from similar upbringing and education and the same era share the same understanding of the “nature”? This is just my conclusion, but there is more evidence that the understanding of the word “nature” of the two theologians was not the point of the argument.
@holasona I do think the division is likely real between the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, but I do think that getting hung up on the one or two natures articulation loses conceptually what the real differences might be. I think the philosophical categories really did take time to work out, so I think getting hung up on articulations, rather than focusing on substantive distinctions can be a distraction. For example, before the Cappadocians, my understanding is that the distinction between ousia and hypostasis was much less clear, which is likely partially why Basil has an entire letter to Gregory of Nyssa defining these terms. Augustine, being a Latin speaker who didn't love Greek, still struggled in his day to differentiate what the Cappadocians meant by ousia and hypostasis, because to him they both just meant the same thing: substance.
Like our saint Gregorius Bar Hebraeus said "... I became convinced that these disputes between the various Christian churches were not a matter of factual weight, but of words and formulations. Because all of them confess that Christ our Lord is fully God and fully a man, without fusion, mixture or ambiguity of natures... This is how i gained the insight that all Christian communities with their different christological positions stand on a common ground, without any differences between themselves."
So we all believe in the natures of Christ. I hope that we can be united with our eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters soon🙏🏻☦️
Thank you for your comment! God willing!
That's only an opinion of someone who hasn't actually read the acts of the council of Chalcedon. They literally condemned the mia physis formula and the 12 anathemas of St Cyril. If you reject those anathemas you're just not even Christian tbh
@kightsun do you know the man i mentioned at all?
@@LizzetV yes. And I repeat my point. I don't care for titles or names, I care for reading the actual sources.
Thank you for your clear explanation of this tragic, ancient split in the One Church that Jesus founded. I thought your explanation was very clear.
I think the solution to this dilemma can be found in St. Cyril's use of the one word "nature" in 2 different ways --- he said, if I understand you correctly, that there were 2 natures before Incarnation and one nature thereafter, but without the confusion of the original two natures. The Council of Chalcedon used a different word for St. Cyril's second use of "nature" -- the statement was then, there are two natures in Christ, and one unique "hypostasis" after the Incarnation, so that there is One Son, etc. and 2 distinct natures, fully human and fully divine, without confusion and without separation, without one nature overwhelming the other.
That this separation has continued for so many centuries is a wound to the heart of the Church.
Great analysis!..You tried your best not to be subjective but fairly objective. Anyways, their difference was all political among the church fathers back then.
She literally says in the video that it's not "only" political and is in fact doctrinal.. you clearly didn't listen. She said she used to think it was only political..
@@WaysOfTheJedis For her it can be both, but for me it was all politcal. It is just my opinion not b.c she said it so I have to agree with her.
Would love to do a collaboration with you on this topic, I am Syriac Orthodox, we are in agreement! 😊
Sounds great! You can contact me at @holasona_la on Instagram.
Sounds great! You can contact me at @holasona_la on Instagram.
5:30 is a point that doesnt refute the Chalcedonian position at all!! Hes refuting Nestorius's claims
As i have said!
Distinction and division are two totally different words!
God bless you sister 🙏
God bless you too! Thank you for watching!
THANKS!! 😁
Thank you for watching!
thank you so much for explaining this ❤ I have met some hostile eastern christians that try hard to label me as monophysite. at a certain point, it seemed as if they wanted it to be true more than the reality lol. I didnt even know what it meant, I just knew they were wrong from the church services ive attended. breaking down this history is so valuable. thank you for this!
to me it seems as nestorians back tracked from their roots and tried to plagiarize miaphysite theology, then leading smear campaigns against them. funny how their new converts make the same mistakes.
I remember there is a video of a pastor asking an audience on the natures of Christ. when asked on a purely intuitive level, almost the entire room sided with Miaphysite theology. he happily entertained it before correcting them but I found it amusing & innocent to watch as an Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Christian.
BTW Tewahedo literally means oneness of God for our Miaphysite theology. coincidentally its technically the same term as the islamic tawheed/ making oneness of God... aka monotheism.
Thank you so much for sharing! Your experience is so interesting! I also encountered many people who tried to label me as a Monophysite. I will make as many videos as I needed to show that Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysite.
@holasona To avoid being confused with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God.
Imho that makes the entire experience less connecting with humanity as a whole, as if his two natures are always perfectly united rather than him actively uniting them on his mission while demonstrating to us with his accession to heaven..
One needs to put on the table Jesus's human intellect ----
Jesus’s divine intellect does not change. However, his human intellect, because he’s also fully man, he has a human intellect. His human intellect is created, it’s subject to time. And so it does change over time because that’s what time is, is a measure of change. And so Jesus’s human intellect does change over time. And we see this in the New Testament.
Jimmy Akin:
Saint Luke, for example, talks about how, as he grew up, Jesus grew in wisdom. And so he learned more things. I think it’s helpful to look at the passage in the catechism that talks about Christ’s soul and his human knowledge
www.catholic.com/audio/caf/does-god-change-his-mind
I find it most convincing to believe Mary's intercession is a large part of this story and thus showcased. However there is more to this conversation.
www.catholic.com/qa/wedding-of-cana-what-if-the-wine-had-run-out
I think the chosen actually does a good bit of justice to this scene, in that we also know by Mary asking for intercession, that by Mary setting things in motion, she is Condemning her son to death. She was told from the start that her son would die, and so her asking Jesus to start, sets that in motion.
I think there's a lot to be said for this about self sacrifice for humanity. She was willing to suffer so that humanity could be redeemed in the end, just as Christ. So by Jesus saying his hour has not come, he gives Mary a choice, and Mary chooses obedience, sacrifice and suffering...for God, his will be done.
She is the Queen of Heaven. Here is a great podcast by an Orthodox priest about it:
www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/the_queen_stood_at_thy_right_hand
It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
16:24, That is a mosaic of Theodora...
I would like to have seen the practical outworking of the two views in contrast with one another... The whole matter of nature vs person vis a vis hypostasis seems to be the crux of the matter, for the nature is seen to change via discipling in persons from two natures to the transformation of the Human nature into the new nature of the human in the age to come, at least in part... So the question then becomes one of which praxis is better equipped to enable this transformation...
Great discussion - Thank-you!
Thank you for sharing! The new video is coming next week where I discus further this matter. And the third one will soon follow.
@@whiteraven3753 as someone who grew up Protestant and went to a Baptist College I can tell you this has serious practical implications. Because of the two natures formula we would literally have debated on if Jesus could have sinned in his humanity, that's a very common debate among Protestant seminarians
@@kightsun I ran into that debate, and imply discarded it out of hand... Embracing the Mystery of the Faith of Christ avoids having to give human thought friendly accountings... The Gospel is clear: "Be ye repenting, for the Kingdom of Heaven its at hand (here and now)..." Initiation into this Mystery is by Baptism... There is no substitute for repentance... On the other Gand God "Will have mercy on whom I WILL to have Mercy... " And the Mercy of God entering the dust that we are is a great Mystery...
As a convert to Oriental Orthodoxy I can confidently say the problem is no body actually reads the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Session 10 literally condemned the 12 anathemas of St Cyril and the tome condemned a direct quote of Cyril's as "the height of impiety and stupidity." The OO are the only historically Orthodox group of Christians
@@kightsunthank you for this!
Hi Sona. What an amazing video! I see you have done some good work here! And it is absolutely essential that Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox talk nicely with each other without insults. There's more that unites us than divides.
I myself am Eastern Orthodox. I see one thing that I would argue about in your video. I think you do not present correctly the meaning of the word "hypostasis", at least how we, Chalcedonians, understand it. It is not "substance", but a synonym of "person". Hypostasis and person are interchangeable terms. At least after the Cappadocian Fathers. The word substance (lat. substantia), even though it has the same etymology, has a different meaning, which is similar to "physis"- nature.
Us, Chalcedonians, we use the words "substance" or "essence" (ουσία), as well as φύσις for "nature", and the words hypostasis (υπόστασις) and (more reluctantly, because it came from the Latin theology, as it literally means a "mask" in theatre) persona (πρόσωπον) for "person".
Nature is something that is common, e.g. all of people share the same human nature. But the human nature of every single one of us found its unique expression in our own person. Therefore nature is something that is common, whereas person (hypostasis) is something that is unique, unrepeatable. Every person is unique. And Jesus Christ's person is the one of the Son of God, the Second person of the Holy Trinity. His two natures are united in His Divine Person (Hypostasis) of the Son of God. They are united in His person "unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably", according to the Chalcedonian όρος (definition). You aren't right in saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is the continuation of the Antiochian theological tradition. We share love for both, Alexandrian and Antiochian schools, balancing both extreme views into an equilibrated and in my opinion the only correct view of the Incarnate Logos.
I would also appreciate if you talked about monothelitism and monoenergism. I am curious which side you are on.
your religion is all made up
Thank you for your comment and you kind words! Theodore of Mopsuestia - an Antiochene School theologian who was born after Cappadocian Fathers and after the First Council of Constantinople - taught that in Christ there are two natures, human and divine, and two corresponding hypostases which co-existed. He meant it as "subject", "essence", not "person", right? Or did he mean "two persons"?
@@holasona Theodore of Mopsuestia was a heretic, a Nestorian. That’s what they believed: they divided Christ into two separate hypostases (persons): Divine and human. We, Eastern Orthodox, believe in one hypostasis (person) of Christ. We say that the human nature is assumed into the hypostasis (person) of the Divine Logos and that He is one person, being truly God and truly man at once. The two natures (φύσεις) are united in one hypostasis without any confusion and didn’t suffer any changes after the union, but at the same time they can’t be divided nor separated from each other. That’s the true meaning of the Chalcedonian Christology.
And we are totally faithful to Ephesus as well! We condemn Nestorianism!
That’s me doing my best to explain our position. Still, your video was very insightful. I just hope you take my comment into consideration. God bless!
In St Cyrils terminology the hypostasis and prosopon are two different things. Hypostasis can be also not living subject of that nature. For example there is nature of table. Every table is hypostasis of that nature. Prosopon is found only withing living hypostasis. There fore there is one common human nature and every human being is hypostasis of that nature and has his own prosopon. Hypostasis is not exactly same as prosopon.
And if natures talked and acted in Jesus Chist as Leo said that means that he actually had two hypostasis and two persons since natures do not talk nor act.
More important that this philosophy is the faith of the fathers. Councils of Ephesus were mya physite councils. Chalcedon was dyophysite. St Cyril was myaphysite. Leo of Rome was diophysote. So how can chalcedonians have them both as saints. They are clearly twistimg the theology of Ephesus and st Cyril.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 Well in our tradition hypostasis and person are the same and are taught as such at our seminaries. You can open any Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church to see for yourself. That is why when we say “hypostasis”, we mean “person” and vice versa.
Both natures can act separately, since will or energy are attributes of nature, not of person.
Christ had to assume the complete human nature, both body and soul, with its will and action. Otherwise His salvation of our human nature isn’t complete. As St. Gregory the Theologian said: what is unassumed, is not saved. The purpose of his salvific work in Incarnation is our theosis, like St. Athanasius the Alexandrian who said: God became man so that man could become god.
P.S. St. Cyril of Alexandria is a saint in the EO and is regarded very highly. However, we don’t base our theology only or mostly on one holy Father, but on all of them together. No holy Father is infallible, even St. Cyril.
St. Dioscoros and the bishops with him didn't invent the Miaphysite Christology, they were taught by St. Cyril. Miaphysitism isn't just the Christology of St. Cyril, but also the Cappadocian fathers and other saints believed and taught it. The irony is that some fanatics especially in Eastern Orthodox venerate these fathers, accept the council of Ephesus and yet consider us as heretics.
Thank you for your comment! Yes, you are correct, the teaching was not invented by St. Cyril. It has been the teaching of the church since the first Coincil of Nicaea.
diaphysite: 2 natures, 1 person.
if i do not remember wrong i read monophysites claimed the physical nature disappeared absorbsed by the divine nature and morphed into a different type of hybrid as if Christ had no bodily nature anymore; miaphysite as far as i've heard somehow claimed a similar idea that the bodily nature was enveloped by the divine and dissapeared;
nestorianism was the idea that Christ is not God but a different person, according to what was written by Nestorius he taught Christ was not the Son of God so not from the Holy Trinity but someone else and only a human (2 different persons, not just 2 natures, not God incarnate through Mary), he did not consider the Messiah to be God Himself and claimed that virgin Mary was not mother of God and non-chalcedonians were upset and tried as much as they could to reject the idea of Christ obtaining a human nature
@@respectkindness-oj6xz Thank you for your comment!
I have no boldness to call anyone a heretic, and I lack the wisdom and understanding to deliberate on this matter, but I must defer to holy elders such as St Paisios of Mt Athos, who is no mere fanatic.
To be sure, those present at Chalcedon had no easy time solving the disagreement, which is why they went to the relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia. If you don't know about the miracle that took place, please go read about it.
@@david6ravy know your true value and preciousness even if people would not acknowledge. be careful. wishing you the best, peace, health, wellbeing, blessings and all good. btw, nice beard.
Instead of trying to score points, can we focus on helping each other find salvation? Too often, everyone speaks but no one listens, and sometimes it feels intentional. Does it really matter if you're "factually correct" if you lack compassion for your brothers? Christ didn't die and rise for us to get caught up in divisions or proving who’s right.
While i understand your frustration, hasn’t the history of Christianity since Paul been nothing but arguments over just about every major tenet. Seems to me like this bickering is perfectly in line with the history and nature of the Church, and given that there seems to be one and only one way to the Truth, it isnt going away any time soon.
I see where you're coming from, but it's really important not to overlook how theology matters. It can have a big impact on how we understand salvation. Different beliefs about theology can change how we think about what it means to be saved and how we connect with God. So, theology isn't just something to debate; it actually affects how we live our faith and view salvation.
Thank you for your comment! I think that's our duty to help each other - not only Orthodox Christians, but all Christians - find salvation. It is also our duty to speak the truth about who we are, and not let others define who we are.
Thank you
Thank you for watching!
What’s your take on the narrative that the word nature was used in a different way by chalceadon and going forward as opposed to how the word was traditionally used by the nicean churches ?
I didn’t find evidence that it was used differently before and after Chalcedon. At least, not in the resources I trust. There might be confusion in the old texts with the word “hypostasis” whether it means person or substance. But “nature” seem to always mean the same thing. If you have a trustworthy source with a different evidence, let me know.
@@holasona thanks, will do
At Ephesus, St Dioscorus did read the tome and wanted to protect the Pope of Rome from the Council. If he had read it out loud the council would have condemned Leo as well (rightfully so imho)
So you think that Leo’s “Tome” was Orthodox? It definitely states “two natures” in Christ. Quote: “being God that cannot suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of death”. “For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other ; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not cease to be on an equality with His Father's glory, so the flesh does not forego the nature of our race”. There are many more quotes that indicate two natures where one suffers in flesh, the other performs miracles. Oriental Orthodox do not distinguish the suffering being only the trait of one nature and the immortality the trait of the other nature. We say He was a perfect Himan and a perfect God in one nature and with one will. He suffered on the cross, died for our sins and has risen on the third day.
I believe all of the differences have been resolved but so far , communion hasn’t been restored. I hope it comes soon
The Armenian people are so hospitable!
Thank you! Deep inside, I really hope so too! For that, we will have to agree to disagree on some aspects of Chrystology.
And thank you:) I thinks so too 😊
Just realized my understanding of Orthodox theology was Oriental and that's why when I went to the Eastern Orthodox church I was confused loll
Thanks for sharing! Were you converted to Orthodoxy?
☦️☦️☦️🌴🇮🇳⚔️🦾🌴🇮🇳one love
🙏
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Eulogius
Some attack the exposition of faith which those from the East have made and ask, "For what reason did the Bishop of Alexandria endure or even praise those who say that there are two natures?" Those who hold the same teachings as Nestorius say that he thinks the same thing too, snatching to their side those who do not understand precision. But it is necessary to say the following to those who are accusing me, namely, that it is not necessary to flee and avoid everything which heretics say, for they confess many of the things which we confess. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and Lord of all, does it follow that we avoid such confessions? Thus also is the case of Nestorius even if he says there are two natures signifying the difference of the flesh and the Word of God, for the nature of the Word is one nature and the nature of his flesh is another, but Nestorius does not any longer confess the union as we do.
For we, when asserting their union, confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God. It is possible to say something such as this about any ordinary man, for he is of different natures, both of the body, I say, and of the soul. Both reason and speculation know the difference, but when combined then we get one human physis. Hence knowing the difference of the natures is not cutting the one Christ into two. But since all the bishops from the East think that we, who are orthodox, follow the opinions of Apollinaris and think that a mixture or a confusion took place, for such are the words which they have used, as if the Word of God had changed over into the nature of flesh, and his flesh had turned into the nature of divinity, we have yielded to them, not so far as to divide into two the one Son, far from it, but only to confess that neither a mixture nor a confusion took place, but the flesh was flesh as taken from a woman, and the Word as begotten of the Father was the Word, yet the Christ, Son and Lord, is one according to the saying of John, "The Word was made flesh," and to prepare them to pay heed to the reading of the letter of our blessed father, Athanasius.
Because in his time some were contending and saying that God the Word from his own nature fashioned a body for himself, he stoutly insisted to and fro that his body was not consubstantial to the Word. But if it is not consubstantial, then there is one nature and a completely other nature from which two the one and only Son is known to be. And let those accusing me not be ignorant of this, namely, that when there is mention of a union, it does not signify the coming together of one thing, but of either two or more which are also different from each other according to nature. If, then, we speak of a union we are confessing a union of flesh animated with a rational soul and the Word, and those who speak of two natures are thinking thus also. Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his physis is one as the Word made flesh.
Thank you! This is one of the many quotes that confirm what I was saying in the video. We do not deny that Christ is both Man and God, so there are two natures that after incarnation were united in One New Composite Nature without mixture or confusion where Divinity and Humanity are equally present. As St. Cyril says in this letter, "we...confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God."
@@holasona St. Cyril is accepting of the Antiochian dyophysite expressions being compatible with his Miaphysite understanding.
@chiefamongsinners16 What are you trying to prove with this ?
That the Chalcedonians are justified in using two natures expressions?
And what do you mean by Dyophysitism ?
Because Nestorius' teaching is Dyophysitism, The bishops from the East taught Dyophysitism and Chalcedonians also teachs Dyophysitism.but are they all the same ?
no they are not. St.Cyril would accept only the bishops of the East Christology because he thought although they say two natures.they are only saying that to imply the distinctions between the two natures.
And He goes further to say that they do confess one son,one nature,
This following passage is from the same letter you quoted.
"(5) Yet once we confess the union, those things which have
been united are no longer separate from each other, but then
there is one Son, and his physis is one as the Word made flesh.
The bishops from the East confess these doctrines, even
though they are somewhat obscure concerning the expression.6 For since they confess that the only begotten Word
begotten of God the Father was himself also begotten of a
woman according to flesh, that the Holy Virgin is the Mother
of God, that his person is one, and that there are not two sons,
or two christs, but one, how do they agree with the teachings of
Nestorius? "
St.Cyril says here although they are somewhat obscure in their Expressions, they confess the Doctrine of One Son, and his Physis is one as he is made flesh.
Now what about Chalcedonians are they in align with St.Cyril or even with bishops of the East ?
Many have claimed Cyril would not have considered Chalcedon heretical Council because of two natures expressions.
But these who have such understanding, are failing to understand or are ignorant of the fact, that the bishops in Chalcedon did not just Confessed two Natures after the union, but they view the one nature and of two natures expressions as heretical.
However this is from St.Cyril,
"We will not imagine, like some of the more primitive
heretics, that the Word of God took from his own (that is, his
divine) nature and' fashioned himself a body, but follow at
every point the inspired Scriptures in insisting that he took it
from the holy Virgin. In this way, when we have the idea of the
elements of the one and unique Son and Lord Jesus Christ, we
speak of two natures being united; but after the union, the
duality has been abolished and we believe the Son's nature to be
one, since he is one Son, yet become man and incarnate.
Cyril of Alexandria letter to Acacius bishop of meltine.
And here is from the Bishops of Chalcedon,
"The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said, “I
accept ‘from two natures’, but I do not accept ‘two’.”43 But the most holy
Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without
confusion, change or separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour.44
So whom do you follow - the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?’
27. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe as Leo does.
Those who object are Eutychianists. Leo’s teaching was orthodox.’"
The Council of Chalcedon session V.
What did St.Cyril just say above here,
"we speak of two natures being united; but after the union, the
duality has been abolished and we believe the Son's nature to be one"
But these who said these words are Eutychians according to the Bishops in Chalcedon.therefore St.Cyril is also Eutychian.
What about Leo?
"know that they are utterly to be
detested who according to the impiety and madness of Eutyches have dared
to assert that in our Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, who undertook the
renewal of human salvation in himself, there are not two natures, that is, of
perfect Godhead and perfect manhood, and who think they can deceive our
attentiveness when they say they believe the one nature of the Word to be
incarnate. For although the Word of God has indeed one nature in the
Godhead of the Father and of himself and of the Holy Spirit, yet when he
assumed the reality of our flesh our nature also was united to that unchangeable substance; for one could not speak of incarnation, unless flesh were
assumed by the Word"
POPE LEO TO BISHOP PASCHASINUS
According to Leo the only way you can confess perfect Divinity and Perfect flesh in Our Lord is, if you say two Natures.
And when you say One Nature in Christ it only apply to the nature he shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit.or before his incarnation.
Where does Cyril's teaching stand in Leo's mind then ?
And How do the bishops in Chalcedon shouted Leo and Cyril have taught the same ?
Such words exposed the ignorance and delusion of these bishops.
What about Leo? Was he ignorant of Cyril's teaching or was he against it ?
If he was against it then he is heretic. if he was ignorant then that puts the whole Council of Chalcedon to shame, because some ignorant Pope is dealing with Dogmatic issues, while still being ignorant on Dogma.
What about his Christology ?
"And there is no deceit in
this union, in that both are with each other,
both the lowliness of the man
and the greatness of the Godhead; for just as God does not undergo change
through compassion, so the man is not consumed by the greatness of divine
dignity. For each form performs what is proper to it in communion with the
other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes
what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles, while the other has
succumbed to outrages."
Tome of Leo.
The lowlines of the man and the greatness the of Godhead ?
The man is not Consumed by the greatness of the divine dignity ?
Which man is Leo talking about ?
ah the man who is with the Word.
So the man and the Word are not the same.although Leo says they are the same, but how do you say the man is not Consumed by the divine dignity when that man is the divine himself ?
After you divided them like that, there is no point calling Christ one and same even if it is for million times.infact Nestorius is not tired of calling Christ one and the same many times, after he already divided him.
Leo says again each form performs what is proper to it ?
Does the flesh acts by itself ?
Well this is not inconsistent with his christology, but this Christology does not seem to align with the Chalcedonians who tried to tell us that there is only one Hypostasis and person.that the flesh does not exist outside the Divinity or the Word.
And if that's the case, it is heretical to say the flesh acts this or that.
It is the person of Christ who does the action.now when he does humanly actions, it is not the flesh acting by itself, but the divine person acting through it.otherwise who do we say God hungered,thirst,cried or dead ?
In no way are we saying you can not describe some actions in Christ as humanly.what we are saying is you can not say the the flesh did that or the divinity did that.
That would mean there are two persons acting.
The preferred way of speaking about this according to the fathers is Christ did or say that in his flesh or in his divine.
Not the divine did that and the flesh did this.
Conclusion
St.Cyril does not seems to object two natures expressions if it is used in a correct way as he said how the Oriental bishops would use it.
But as we have seen the bishops in Chalcedon not only did they confess extreme Dyophysitism, but they Condemned many of St.Cyril's phrases and terminologies.i ma sure if St.Cyril received this from the Oriental Bishops he would not have Considered them Orthodox.
Now that is the problem with Chalcedon and Chalcedonians.they went extreme on the two natures which seems to be mixed between Nestorius's and the Orientals teachings.and they Condemned St.Cyrils Terminologies as Nestorians would do.
If you have solution for that, we would yes your Dyophysitism is something St.Cyril would not have problem with.
And quick note it seems those who were bringing accusations against the Oriental bishops to St.Cyril were right.because at Chalcedon we saw how they treated the One Nature Christology.
Which would have grieved St.Cyril very greatly.
@@merhawifirzun3477 The Chalcedonians did not confess “extreme Dyophysitism” (Nestorianism). The theology of Chalcedon is consistent with Ephesus and the Fathers. Chalcedon received and accepted the letters of St. Cyril against Nestorius, the 12 chapters, and all decrees of the First Council of Ephesus.
St. Cyril confessed two united natures in one Son, just as Pope Leo and Chalcedon do. What is condemned at Chalcedon is one nature of Godhead and manhood made by mixture and confusion. When St. Cyril speaks of the one physis of the Son/Hypostasis, he means by this one hypostasis, the Son/Word Himself.
Chalcedon does not proclaim two persons, a man and the Word. The council proclaims one hypostasis of the Word made flesh. St. Cyril would certainly have considered the council and it’s definition Orthodox. He yielded to the authority of the Chair of St. Peter with Pope St. Celestine during the Nestorian controversy, he would have done the same at Chalcedon. If Cyril had any questions or concerns, he would have requested clarification from the Pope rather than rebel against the Church of Christ and run off into schism.
And virtually all OO objections and concerns relating to Chalcedon were addressed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
@@merhawifirzun3477 Fifth Ecumenical Council
Chapter 7
If anyone using the expression, in two natures, does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.
Chapter 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.
Remeber, Pulcharia had vowed herself to virginity but broke her vows to gain imperial power.
That’s true! She was not suppose to marry!
As a Tamizh Tantra Samana ethnicity we lean more towards miaphysite and more so to say God CAN live within you and your body is the Temple ...theosis is the fundamental philosophy of Asian(Aaseevagam)religions ....
Aaseevagam colour concept
Black - Virgin Womb
*Blue - Sexual excitement*
*Green - Mental development*
Red - Sacrificial temperament
Golden yellow - Value orientation
White - Character Fulfilment
Water transparency - Cosmic Union
This is bringing back the Serpent (Kundalini)to the man from the woman from the Tree to the Christ and then to God
Very big strawman of what eastern orthodox believe in that last section. also I like how did didn’t mention that ephesus 2 restored eutyches back as bishop after he was disposed. Also you didn’t mention that dioscoros monks killed a St flavian at that same council.
Hi! I am talking about Eutyches and his teaching during the Second Council or Ephesus and the Coincil of Chalcedon in my next video that will come out it next week. He was a very controversial figure and, according to the many sources I went through, several times changed his beliefs throughout his life. And I will mention the controversy around Flavian’s death in my third video on this topic. The fact that I didn’t mention these events doesn’t mean I am hiding them, the video was just already way too long.
Ephesus II restored Eutychus because he gave an Orthodox confession. Prior to this at Constantinople 448 he stated that Christ is consubstantial with St. Mary, but indeed hesitated to state he was consubstantial with us. Also his confession of faith to Leo of Rome written after Conatantinople 448 is orthodox and is available for all to read. Flavian was not killed at Ephesus II contrary to unfortunate myth. He wrote a letter several months after Ephesus II to Leo still in existence. He states that at Ephesus II, the soldiers of the Emperor restrained him. It is believed by some that Pulcheria had Flavian killed in order to facilitate the power grab by Anatolous that would bolster Constantinople's see. Pulcheria was the Empress who broke her vow of virginity and also had Chrysaphius killed after the death of her brother.
Ephesus II restored Eutyches upon a confession of faith and repentance, and he changed his beliefs quite a lot of times.
Furthermore, your own council of Chalcedon contradicts you on who killed Flavian. And scholars now lean toward a conspiracy that it might be Anastasius in collaboration with Leo who murdered Flavian.
In Chalcedon, your own Father claims Dioscorus killed him, others of them claim St Barsouma killed him, others say his monks killed him, and others say the parabolas killed him. So who killed him?
This is all your own incoherent accusations.
Flavian was not killed at Ephesus II, made up story
@@Miaphysite3 Oh so eutychies can change his view and repent but you can't say the same thing about Ibas? Also who killed him is not the point who was killed by those who sided with discoros that is a fact.
❤
❤️
You've done a wonderful job sister.
Thank you kindly!
W video! Love from a eastern orthodox Armenian
Thank you for watching! 🙏
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I think we should reunite with Orientals.. however, saying that the 3rd & 4th councils fully contradict? Just doesn't make sense. And indirectly makes it seem like EO are Nestorians.. we are not Nestorius believed in two Persons in Christ. We believe one person two naturez. And I accept u all are miaphysite not monophysite those who say u all are wrong for sureee. We fully agree that Jesus was always fully man & fully God. Just cauee he hungered & was transfigured did not make Him less God or less man at any point he was always since the incarnation both. Anyways I pray we do reunite even if it comes in times of trouble. May the Lord God be with you and your family!
brother its rare to see an honest E.O like you that doesn't misrepresent us god bless you. i do agree the 3rd and 4th councils fully contradict and what is funny is the 5th council goes and contradicts the 4th council as well proving more and more Chalcedon was not a holy council. i hope our churches find a way to find communion with each other.
@@DoomkingBalerdroch yes i hope our churches unite as well and ur right it's sad. Tho i disagree with ur understanding of the councils I pray you are united to Christ. It's about sanctification & transfiguration not councils itself
@@jordanmessengerforchrist it's okay if we disagree😁 you are right at the end of the day it's about our salvation. that's why I belive atleast we the e.o and o.o need to stop debating and instead have conversations non stop for our lord's church to unite 1 day 🙏
@@DoomkingBalerdroch yess we should build one another up rather than put down
Thank you for sharing! I definitely don’t believe that EO are Nestorians, but I believe that Nestorianism ruined the relationships between the three ecumenical sees of Roman Empire. Thank you for acknowledging that we are not Monophysites, followers of Eutyches. It is also my biggest dream to see both Orthodox Churches reunited!
Dyophysitism (/daɪˈɒfɪsaɪtɪzəm/; from Greek δύο dyo, "two" and φύσις physis, "nature") is the Christological position that Jesus Christ is one person of one substance and one hypostasis, with two distinct, inseparable natures, divine and human.
Too many exclusivistic ecclesiologies going down. I follow Jesus and am happy to worship Him and pray to Him wherever and preach Him to whoever. All Trinitarians are Church. Enough of the divisions and mutually excluding councils.
❤️👏👏👏👏👏
They NEVER learn or care
The Eastern Orhtodox do believe in a unified person in Two natures. Cyril speak of one physis which means two natures in unity.
Thanks you for your comment. St. Cyril speaks about one nature after the incarnation. As does St. Basil, St. Athanasius and many of the teachers of the church before Chalcedon.
Stay Hye✝️🇦🇲❤
I will:)
One problem at 8:27: half of what was said is correct, viz., one Person, but neither St. Cyril nor the Council said anything about one (united) nature of Christ after His incarnation. Rather, all throughout the Acts is mentioned the unity of the two natures. This one united nature business is foreign to the Ecumenical Council.
Anathema 3 of St. Cyril, the homilies of Theodotus of Ancyra, and the florilegium of the saints dogmatised at Ephesus I say otherwise.
@@MinaDKSBMSB No they don't please quote them. Anathema 3 does not say "one united nature" it uses the same language from Cyril's letter to Nestorius from the Council's Acts. "πρὸς ἕνωσον φυσικήν" does not mean "one united nature" but rather "towards a natural uniting" of the two natures. φυσικήν is an adjective, not a noun.
@@Kepha3 so what of it is in the adjective form here? What's your point? Are you just going to give me different ways of saying "one according to nature" and pretend like it doesn't say what it does?
Also what united in this hypostatic union that St. Cyril speaks of here? Do you believe 2 hypostases united?
@@MinaDKSBMSB That's because it doean't say "one" but "united".
Perhaps, you may take offence in the following, and I am by no means an expert on this, but miaphysitism, after being scrutinized, either goes to monophysitis(one nature, thus one will and energy), or diaphysitism(two preserved natures with their proper will and energy, thus two wills and two energies).
The Coptic Church, in my view, stubbornly refuse to declare herself being faulty on the terminology. When pressed, you'd deny that Christ has one nature, which is a fusion of the Divine essence and human essence(for it would be an essential union, and not hypostatic). And will confess that the natures are preserved and are two. From which wpuld follow two wills and two energies. Yet, refuse to commit to the diaphysite formula.
What doesn't make sense is maintaining "single nature(MIAphysitism)", but then say it isn't "one nature(MONOphysitism)", but also reject "two natures(DIAphysitism)".
You stated, when pressed, you'd deny that Christ has one nature, which is a fusion of the Divine essence and human essence (for it would be an essential union, and not hypostatic)….. Such is the recurrent propensity to distort our beliefs by the EO, you guys love to propagate falsehood. We consistently affirm that our Miaphysite Christology is based on St. Cyril's formula “One Composite Nature of God the Word Incarnate," a principle devoid of any connotations of mingling, merger or anything of that kind. Despite our clear articulation of this stance, your persistently slander and insinuate that we advocate for the mingling of natures or in your words "fusion of natures." Who granted you the authority to misrepresent our beliefs or dictate our confessions, imposing words upon us that we have not uttered? It is imperative for the EO to avoid deceitfulness, adopt humility, and refrain from interjecting unwarranted commentary on our Christology - Learn from the approach adopted by Catholics, be humble. The EO’s reputation precedes them, characterized by a tendency to engage in aggressive confrontations with the Catholics and, since 2017, with the OO Church. Despite enduring 6 years of unwarranted criticism, the OO community eventually reached a breaking point and initiated efforts to defend our beliefs. For instance, The Lion’s Den brothers effectively presented the OO perspective across a 10-part series on Sam Shamoun’s platform. In a spirit of fairness, Sam extended invitations to individuals like Fr. John Mahfouz, Fr. Zechariah Lynch, Fr. Michael, and David Erhan of the EO-who are known for their critical views of Oriental Orthodoxy-to engage in dialogue and defend their Christological positions. Regrettably, these individuals have failed to participate in this discourse, with over 10 months having passed without any substantive engagement -none of them showed up. If you desire a dialogue, the initial step would be to refrain from dictating our beliefs to us, sir.
For Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters:-
✝In our adherence to the concept of the One Composite Nature of the Incarnate Word, as stated by St. Cyril the Great, we also uphold the belief in One Will and One Act. The choices made by the Divine nature align harmoniously with those of the human nature, devoid of any contradiction or conflict, as there exists a seamless unity b/n the Will and actions of both. When discussing an individual's Will, such as your own, we abstain from fragmenting it by attributing, for example, the Will of your body to fall asleep in church separately from the Will of your mind to visit a friend. Instead, we attribute all your choices to you as a unified whole, not to your soul alone or your body alone, as all of your choices arise from your single, unified Will. While we acknowledge that your choices can be categorized as pertaining to either your physical body or your soul-such as choosing to eat or to pray-we do not advocate for the separation or the existence of two distinct Wills within you. Similarly, we don't advocate for the presence of two Wills within Christ, as we maintain the principle of One Will, in harmony with the One Composite Nature, underscoring the indivisible unity and harmony within the person of Christ.
✝The words of the Lord Jesus Christ resonate powerfully when He proclaimed, "My food is to do the Will of Him who sent me and to finish His work" (John 4:34), underscoring the alignment of His Will with that of the Father. He further teaches this unity by stating, "the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner" (John 5:19), emphasizing He does not seek a Will independent of that of the Father. Consequently, He said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own Will, but the Will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). It is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity have One Will, for the Lord Jesus Christ said, "I and My Father are One" (John 10:30). Since He is one with Him in the Godhead, He is essentially one with Him concerning the Will. Again, the Son, in His Incarnation on earth, was fulfilling the Will of the heavenly Father. Thus, it must be that He who united with the manhood had One Will.
✝The parallel holds true in the context of humanity's salvation, the core message that brought Christ into the world, as He declared, "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This mission aligns with the Father's Will, who "loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). Thus, the crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the human nature. Had it not been One Will, it would not have been said that Christ died by His Own Will for our sake. Since the Will is One, the Act is necessarily One.
For Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters:- I 'll cite the teachings of pre-Chalcedonian (pre-451 AD) Church Fathers who have advocated the doctrine of One Will in Christ.
✝Matthew 26:39 :- He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will'
☀St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - Since these words were spoken by Him who assumed our human nature (for He is the one who came down), and not by the nature He assumed, we must address this objection by stating that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own, other than that of the Father, but rather that He has not. Thus, the meaning would be, not to do My own will, for I have no will that is separate from you, but rather *_one will that is shared with You; for just as We have one Godhead, We also have one will._* [Fourth Theological Oration]
✝John 6:38-39 :- Christ declares, "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I will lose nothing of all that he has given me, but I will raise it up on the last day"
☀St. Cyril the great: - Being what He is, namely, God from God, Perfect from Perfect, exact imprint of the substance of His begetter, *_He will think nothing other than whatever the Father may think, whose counsel and Word He is. He will have the identical will as the Father, compelled by the law of consubstantiality, so to speak, to will all the same good things together with Him._* So do not be offended, sir, when you hear Him saying, “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.” [Homilies according the Gospel of John]
☀St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - If we consider this quotation… *_His Human will cannot be in opposition to God since it is completely united with God._* However, if we view it solely from the perspective of our human nature, we recognize that the human will does not always perfectly align with the Divine will; instead, it often struggles against and resists it. [Fourth Theological Oration]
☀St. Hilary of Poitiers :- *_God chose to suffer of His own will... God chose to die of His own will_* [Book IX On the Trinity]. The Will to suffer, the actual suffering and death are inherent to the flesh, yet, St. Hilary attributed them to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of one nature and one will following the union. This statement made by St. Hilary directly refutes Pop Leo's (EO) Christological perspective, which states Christ is God and Man, the man Christ willed, chose to suffer and die accordingly.
☀St. Athanasius :- *_He Who suffered thereon in the body was not man only, but Son of God and Savior of all. The sun veiled his face, the earth quaked, the mountains were separated, all men were stricken with awe - these things showed that Christ on the cross was God_* [On the Incarnation]. The Will to suffer, the actual suffering and death are inherent to the flesh, yet, St. Athanasius attributed them to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of One nature and One Will following the union.
All Christians should unite. It is mucho silly being divided. For Satan cant cast out Satan if his kingdom is divided.
There’s nothing more I could wish for than that…
No doubt, politics and power divided the Church. Now only the Roman Catholic is independent both as a universal Church and state, the rest are under a state.
as an orthodox Christian and theologian i consider pre Chalcedonian churches orthodox and its a pity that we all Greeks Slavs Romanians Ethiopians Coptic etc we are not in communion set aside the eclisiological reasons
yes 👍👍👍👍
I agree, it is so tragic that we are not in communion!
25:04 We Eastern Orthodox do NOT believe that Jesus Christ was a man and God at different times.
24:22 You're saying that you're not defending one side and attacking the other while doing exactly this.
Leo of Rome says "The Word performs what belongs to the Word, and flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. The one performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence"
How do they not profess two sons in the Chalcedonian tradition? They state that the Word performs certain things but the man performs others. Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodoret orthodox who stated blasphemies against Ephesus I and St. Cyril such as “Christ did not suffer. The man assumed of us by God suffered”? Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodore of Mopsuesta orthodox by adhering to the letter of Ibas (stating it was orthodox), and uncanonically reinstating Theodoret who’s confession at Chalcedon was “I have always been orthodox and my fathers were always orthodox” (one of his fathers was Theodore)? The Chalcedonian position leads to two sons and a quaternity or tetrad because of these glaring errors.
Thank you for your comment.
1. Eastern Orthodox Church does believe that Jesus was suffering as a Man - His Human Nature was suffering only - and that He was performing miracles as God - His Divine Nature was performing miracles. EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die. I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief.
2.I am sorry if that sounded to you as an attack. That was not my intention. I love all Eastern Orthodox Christians and all EO churches. They are part of my upbringing and my faith. But, I have been lovingly blamed my whole life of being a heretic by Eastern Christians, and I wanted to show in this video a different historical perspective on the events of three councils I mentioned, because without really understanding what happened during these councils, it is impossible to understand how and why we got divided. If our ultimate goal is the reunion, then we have to be able to talk about this uncomfortable topics.
@@holasona Thank you for your comment too.
1. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that Christ is one (divine) person with divine and human natures.
You said that we believe his human nature suffered on the cross.
What you say about us sounds Nestorian to me.
Nature doesn't exist without a person, it's abstract.
Nature doesn't suffer, it's the person who suffers in his nature.
When He is suffering on the cross, the person Jesus Christ is suffering not his human nature.
After assuming human nature, the person of Jesus Christ became capable of suffering.
"EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die." - Again, we believe that the person of Jesus Christ died, that's why we say that God died for us.
"I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief." - You either are quote-mining EO Holy Fathers or you don't understand them properly.
2. You presented a case against what (I believe) Christ taught, that is an attack on our case.
I believe that you don't have bad intensions and hatred, but you still presented (what I believe to be) heresy as truth.
I believe (and you probably believe this too) that if we want to reunite, this reunion must happen in truth, in Orthodoxy.
I want to add something to this debate. I don't have theological preparation but we Eastern Orthodox state in a prayer as far as I remember that when Christ died Hell could not contain Him because He was God. So I don't understand why so much separation. I mean God doesn't die, but nor do we die die, we just leave the body and our soul goes to another place? Like Sona said in a comment, so much overthinking 🤷♀️
Saint Paisios & St Ephraim of Arizona are two of the most holiest saints that we've been blessed to have help from, in this 21st century. They hold the Truth far deep into their hearts & souls because they were such pure vessels of God's overflowing Grace. I strongly suggest anyone to read their lives & teachings about Our Lord & the Theotokos because you will be greatly touched and mind blown from their simple & humble hearts. ☺
Thank you for sharing!
The modern Orthodox church seems stale in terms of being a missionary. I see no attempt of Armenians going to Muslims in Turkiye, Kurdistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, or to Dagestani and Chechen Muslims, nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia, nor do I see Russia send missionaries to it's many Muslim and polytheist ethnic religious minorities in Siberia, Central Asia such as Kazakhstan or to Mongolia. Or Ethiopian Christians going to Sudan and Eritrea.
The Orthodox church has a immense problem of lacking evangelization. I know they do because I don't see them converting Muslims to Christianity on mass ergo therefore i don't think they give to shits spreading the news of the gospel. I find that lack of zeel a big problem in the Orthodox Church.
And I'm not a hypocrite in my accusation. I've successfully converted people to Christianity myself with the missionary zeal i accused the Orthodox as lacking.
Firstly, you converted people to your heretical nonsense religion, not Christianity. Secondly, your uninformed opinion is pretty much worthless, because if you actually did some research, you'd see all the publications by PEW and others which show that Orthodoxy is the fastest growing ecclesiastical body in the world right now. We also have a ton of missions happening across the world, but especially in the Americas and Africa.
"nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia" Respectfully, I don't think you quite understand the situation in that part of the world, lol- to put it mildly.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 dying for your faith as a martyr in a region known for a warzone doesn't sway me. I see my deathbed being a islamist sword through my gullet. Can you say you have the same vigor to spread the gospel?
May you be anathemized for this lack of faith.
This part of the world sees Christians picking up guns not gospels. Or even waging war against other Orthodox countries. My reason to rebuke and condemn the self centerness heresy stands. Orthodox Christians have no concerns for the souls of others beyond their ethnic group.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 i say the Eastern Orthodox lack zeal to die for their faith and they don't reach souls beyond their own ethnicity. That's my accusation.
When war happens and persecution occurs the Orthodox give into nationalism and guns not love and gospels.
As I speak from observation and experience.
I pray I become a martyr and proselytizer,
While may you be anathemized for your lack of faith.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 let me put it simple. Orthodox Christians do jack shit for proselytization and martrydom. But love ethno nationalism and war.
If I don't die for the Christian faith than I have failed. And if I don't proselytize than doubly so.
Could it be that Jesus was only born of a woman so he could be clothed in flesh so not born literally but God emptied himself as scripture says to become flesh . So it was God who walked in flesh . So as christ was not literally born so he did not literally die in his divinity but suffered in his human nature through his separation of God . I enjoyed your explanation of the history and the school of thought behind it . Thank you
Thank you for sharing! If I understood correctly, then what you are saying is similar to Docetism. The problem is that if Jesus was only clothed or masked under flesh, then He didn’t take on all of our humanity and, in that case, crucifixion wouldn’t be real, it would just be just a show. And our redemption would not be possible.
The oriental Orthodox are calling themself confusingly orthodox. They where against the imperial orthodox empire in constantinople - they should not call themself like that. They are orientsl catholics.
The miracle of Saint Euphemia
In the year 451 in the city of Chalcedon, in the very church where the glorified relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia rested, the sessions of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod (July 16) took place. The Synod was convened for determining the precise dogmatic formula of the Orthodox Church concerning the nature of the God-Man Jesus Christ. This was necessary because of the widespread heresy of the Monophysites ["mono-physis" meaning "one nature"], who opposed the Orthodox teaching of the two natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and the Human natures (in one Divine Person). The Monophysites falsely affirmed that in Christ was only one nature, the Divine [i.e. that Jesus is God but not man, by nature], causing discord and unrest within the Church. At the Synod were present 630 representatives from all the local Christian Churches. On the Orthodox side Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (July 3), Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem (July 2), and representatives of Leo, Pope of Rome (Feb. 18) participated in the synodal deliberations. The Monophysites were present in large numbers, headed by Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Constantinople archimandrite Eutychius.
After prolonged discussions the two sides could not come to a decisive agreement. The holy Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople proposed that the Synod submit the decision of the Church dispute to the Holy Spirit, through His undoubted bearer Saint Euphemia the All-Praised, whose wonderworking relics had been discovered during the Synod’s discussions. The Orthodox hierarchs and their opponents wrote down their confessions of faith on separate scrolls and sealed them with their seals. They opened the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia and placed both scrolls upon her bosom. Then, in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), the participants of the Synod sealed the tomb, putting on it the imperial seal and setting a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides imposed upon themselves a strict fast and made intense prayer. After three days the patriarch and the emperor in the presence of the Synod opened the tomb with its relics: the scroll with the Orthodox confession was held by Saint Euphemia in her right hand, and the scroll of the heretics lay at her feet. Saint Euphemia, as though alive, raised her hand and gave the scroll to the patriarch. After this miracle many of the hesitant accepted the Orthodox confession, while those remaining obstinate in the heresy were consigned to the Synod’s condemnation and excommunication.
Thank you for the comment. This is the second time someone brings up this story in the comment section. In all the extensive research that I have done, neither Eastern Orthodox, nor Oriental Orthodox sources mention this story. Also, St. Dioscorus and his supporters are named here Monophysites and followers of Eutyches, which is false, and my two entire videos tell the story of how that myth was born and why it was cultivated.
Think about the Yin and the Yang symbol and its meaning to you. Think about it and think about Jesus being both human and divine. As above, so below. As to the left, so to the right, and all diagonal directions with all directions spinning connected as one with the Father in Heaven and Me here on Earth. My Father and I are one.
John 10:
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
MOST division are CAUSED by greed to POWER Cyril is ONE of them
Are you Nestorian?
They're schismatics
This woman looks like a Palestinian.
I am Armenian:)
@@holasona Ok cool.
You CANTcall virgin Mary the mother of God even knowing that jeaus is God is bc linguistigly is WRONG,not to mention
Mary is the mother of only the seconed Qnuma which is the son God ,but Not mother of the fatber God and holy spirit God.
Even others will laugh hearing us calling her mother of GOD
Orthodox Church disagrees with you. Since Jesus was not only God at one point and only Human at another point, since He was fully Human and fully God after incarnation, then, as saint Cyril said, Virgin Mary gave birth to the One Incarnate Nature of the Word.
Eastern Orthodox Church preaches that the two natures came together in one Person, so, again, she didn't just gave birth to a Man, but to God as well.
Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, He is One with God Father and Holy Spirit, but He is a separate hypostasis, separate entity, separate Person. So, saying that Virgin Mary is Theotokos, doesn't imply that she gave birth to the Holy Trinity. She gave birth to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity whose nature united with the Human Nature in One Person of Jesus Christ.
I converted to Jehovah's Witnesses
You are on the road to perdition my beloved. May God reveal to you the true faith.
Bad decision. I mean. Really bad.
Were you previously oriental?
@@Biniam_Hailu What makes you think Jehovah's Witnesses are not the true faith?
@@BeALearnerAlways Why is it sad to worship Jehovah God?
The reason why there’s so many different denominations, etc. is because people don’t go by the Bible they go by traditions. Traditions are from hell OK the scriptures is what is a rock or foundation that’s what we have to go by now. There’s no Trinity in the Bible there’s no three persons if you wanna know, God is just look at Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said if you seen me seen the father, it’s his foreign him do all the fullness of the God had bodily, and you are completing him not them him which is head ball prince Belde in power so Jesus is God, and in the word made flesh God is a spirit in the Bible says God was manifest in the flesh is very simple. Jesus said the word I speak I speak not myself but the father that dwell in me he do with the Works OK I’m my father Juan Jesus said before Abraham was, I am not the son or the manifestation began in a major, but the word is always been because the word can’t be disassociated with the person just like we human beings have a body so in the spirit, but we we’re not three person or words Dictate who we are. We can curse we can bless with our words us and the word was made. God made the world by his word Jesus Christ. Jesus is the father son and the Holy Ghost that’s right there’s only one God God knows stupid Trinity no three persons it’s nowhere to be found in the Bible OK so that’s it stick with the scriptures. 2:49
if that the case why there are so many who claim to be Christians who rely only on the bible without traditions keep on forming different denominations? the reality contradicts your opinion.
Thank you
Thank you for watching!