History of the church: Chalcedon

[@Copt774]

Thank you for this lesson ! This history is very fascinating.

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

This is how Leo "congratulated" Dioscorus on becoming Pope of Alexandria. You choose which narrative you want to believe from this point forward. The one that slanders him or the one that doesn’t: "For since the most blessed apostle Peter receives the apostolic primacy from the Lord and the Roman church continues the traditions he established, it is wrong to believe that his holy disciple Mark, who first ruled the church at Alexandria, formulated decrees with other provisions than those handed down to him. For the single spirit of the disciple and the master was unquestionably from the same source of grace, nor could the one consecrated hand down something different from what he received from his consecrator."

[@meina0614]

Mission Impossible: Eastern Orthodox attempting to defend Leo/chalcedon and maintain primus inter pares.

[@johnpalomo6671]

I am Eastern Orthodox not all priests are like that my parish had a Oriental Malankara family that attended for a long time and they communed regularly with full support of our priest.

[@yousifyacoub6707]

Sank you sirty sree ti-mes

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Sorry but your missing more of the truth thwn your delivering .

[@crislim791]

In mathew 16:18 our Lord Jesus Christ directly said to St. Peter about the supreme power of his church that he is the key holder of heaven, he is the head of his church, so if your patriarch or pope declares excumunication agaisnt the successors of Peter, they cut off themeselves to the body of Christ which is his church. And there is another passage on the writing of saint Jhon chapter 21:15 to 17 that Jesus our Lord appoint to saint Peter to feed his lambs and sheeps, it means he is the vicar as sheeperd. Now if you are pushed by your pride to be a highest rank over among christians you cursed yourself into a schismatic cut off from the church of Christ, because this is not the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that his chuch will be separated to each other jhon 10:16.

[@70AD-user45]

Cris Lim This video is about the schism between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in the 5th century, not the Papist church in Rome. In Matthew 16: 18, it is clear that Christ is the true rock and 1st Corinthians 10: 4 confirms that Christ is the rock. John 21: 15 is a throwback to the verse where Peter denied Jesus 3 times, and so Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him 3 times, and Jesus also told Peter to feed His flock 3 times. There is nothing in these verses to show that Peter was the first Pope. It's a title that's been imposed on Peter by the papists in Rome. The idea that Roman Catholicism is the first church is laughable when you bear in mind all the heresies and all the ungodly popes they've had: Inquisitions, crusades, indulgences used to build the Vatican, heresies like the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, forced conversions etc. If you're looking for someone who founded modern day Roman Catholicism, then it was the Franks and the emperor Charlemagne in 800 AD. Before that it was called the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, with one schism in the 5th century with the Oriental Orthodox. But Charlemagne and his lust for power meant that another schism with the Apostolic churches in the east was to take place in the 11th century. Even to this day the Eastern Orthodox still has Patriarchs in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, and the new Rome which is Moscow.

[@antonyxavierpawath5418]

70 AD the church of Rome exsisted since ancient time the letter of Saint Paul to the Roman's is evidence of it. Not to forget Jerusalem was under roman rule during Christ life. The church St Peter's basilica is the one of the church built by emperor Constantine the great along with the church of holy scepulcher. The pope of Rome was regarded as eldest patriach in all ecumenical council. Even patriach Cyril of Alexanderia sought counsel from the church of Rome when Constantinople fell under Nestorian heresy. The church of Rome is true church eldest of all the other sees. Even the Catholic Church has patriachs from the see of Jerusalem, antioch, Alexanderia. The Maronites patriach of Antioch/ Syrian orthodox patriach of antioch The Melkite patriach of Jerusalem/ latin patriach of Jerusalem The Coptic Catholic patriach of Alexanderia Pope of Rome is truely the successor of St Peter as the throne of Rome was never conqoured by any invasion. It must have fallen in liturgy. Russia became orthodox only after the baptism of rus and will be under the shadow of Constantinople.

[@DivineAegis02]

@@antonyxavierpawath5418 What are you talking about? Rome was the first to be conquered lol. Also Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are all Petrene See's not just Rome.

[@johnthekkemuriyil21]

@@DivineAegis02 Rome is where St. Peter martyred and got entombed . Therefore it is his only see. The Bishop of Rome is the only successor of St. Peter. How can Alexandria be st. Peter's see when he never ever been to it!!! How can Antiochia be his see after all, he left the city and established his Holy Seat at Rome.

[@DivineAegis02]

@@johnthekkemuriyil21 St. Peter resided over Antioch and Alexandria he sent St. Mark there. That's why those three Sees early on were highest at the time. And the Apostles were not like our Bishops today they were able to move and not locked in into their jurisdiction.

[@m.f.f.r3840]

The Divine Nature of Christ And The Human Nature of Christ are united in one PERSON not in one Nature. Because if they are united in one nature, your saying that our lord when he died on the cross, The "nature" which combines the two died. and the divine lord never Dies. Thats Why We Separate the 2 natures from each other But we Combine Them in one person, 100% God and 100% man, in 1 lord. This Is What the Eastern Orthodox Church Believes. It Has Nothing To do with language Differences There Are Two Natures Combined In 1 Person (Jesus Christ) and not 1 Nature إن الطبيعة الإلهية للمسيح والطبيعة البشرية للمسيح متحدتان في شخص واحد وليس في طبيعة واحدة. لأنهم إذا اتحدوا في طبيعة واحدة ، فإن قولك أن سيدنا عند موته على الصليب مات "الطبيعة" التي تجمع الاثنين. والرب الإلهي لا يموت أبدا. هذا هو السبب في أننا نفصل الطبيعتين عن بعضنا البعض ولكننا نجمعهما في شخص واحد ، 100٪ إله و 100٪ إنسان ، في رب واحد. هذا ما تؤمن به الكنيسة الأرثوذكسية الشرقية. لا علاقة له بالاختلافات اللغوية فهناك طبيعتان متحدتان في شخص واحد (يسوع المسيح) وليس طبيعة واحدة

[@7thsky585]

By saying this, you are admitting or believing that Christ’s divinity departed from his humanity, which is a great heresy in your own EO church. Also, believing that his human nature “died” is the same great heresy.

[@m.f.f.r3840]

@@7thsky585 You are correct they are not separated and his divinity did not leave him. but Jesus died on the cross. when he died the divine never dies so the human nature died and then was raised and united again. by saying his human nature never died Is a great heresy. and Saying The Divine Nature Died with the human is also a great heresy.

[@7thsky585]

@@m.f.f.r3840 Saying the human nature died is the great heresy… you’re just reaffirming that

[@7thsky585]

@@m.f.f.r3840 you are a nestorian

[@m.f.f.r3840]

@@7thsky585 Jesus died on the cross. the divine can not die. so the human nature dies. if the human nature doesn't die, then who died on the cross??

[@Faizan_H]

Jesus is no god

[@StoleBearer]

Yes He Is

[@primaltactics6885]

Who is your God then

[@Demo.S]

may god bless you