Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy (What is The Difference?)

Fr. John Mahfouz is the pastor of St. Matthew Orthodox Church in Torrance, California.
Please support Roots of Orthodoxy AND receive early access to all new KZbin content through Roots of Orthodoxy Patreon:
patreon.com/RootsofOrthodoxy?...
Your support makes this channel possible!
Follow on social media:
Instagram: @RootsofOrthodoxy
Tik-Tok: @RootsofOrthodoxy
#orientalorthodox #orientalorthodoxy #copticorthodox #copticchurch #copticorthodoxy #ethiopianorthodox #easternorthodox #orthodoxchristianity #orthodoxchristian #easternorthodoxy

[@sereneorb]

Syrian Orthodox from india. Our community started since AD 52 when St. Thomas came to Indian subcontinent(Southern part) happy and extremely grateful to be Christian. May God bless you and your loved ones. ✝️♥️

[@NablisZeyared]

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit one God amen. Ethiopian Orthodox here, Father, thank you for sharing this with us but with a great humility I would like to say these. 1. Wouldn't it be unwise while referring to St. Anthony the great of Egypt but ignore the coptic chruch by saying she is not the church of Christ? Indeed she is. A church of Jesus Christ which was evangelized by St. Mark the apostle. Of course we are Apostolic! 2. The Orthodox Church (which we also are and is the church of Jesus Christ) hasn't never ignored that Christ has both human will and divine will when we say Christ is one nature. Indeed He has two wills. When we say one nature, it has to be clear that we are saying that Christ is of two natures that are united inseparable. Christ is one person that is fully God and fully Human. Will of Divinity and will of humanity is also united in Christ and they are not separable. When Christ is hungry, we don't say it's the human nature alone that feels the hunger or when He did miracles, the Divinity do the miracles, but we say Jesus Christ did the miracle. 3. Father with all kindness and humility again, the way you speak is not right when you address about our differences and the way we are seeing each other. You have said that the priest told to to take the communion with them by saying we are the same. That priest is wrong and you are wrong by attaching the mistake of the priest to out Holy church. Indeed we are not the same at this time and we can not partake the Eucharist eachother. We won't say 'let's focus only on what works!' And then you try to give some examples and this makes us look like fools and that we are not aware there is no problem between us and the solution to that is looking the good side only. We are Orthodox Christians also father and it's was not a good way of handling this issue in fact. 4. The reason you pointed out about the Excommunication is not sufficient at all and why on earth will our fathers ignore coming to the council and talk about the issue if there wasn't something really wrong around there that is aggravated also by the politics? Not sufficient father. I recommend us all to read more. 5. When also talking about ethnicity attachments, don't forget also separating russians and eastern orthodoxy is difficult. The reason why we don't became EO is not the ethnicity factor alone father. Don't make it seem like it is. 6. We also believe in deification through Theosis. Even though I know little about what the pope said (I will try to read), a pope is not a church......just to remind you. If a pope or anybody rejects a doctrine, we will not be bothered by that if the Church accepts it. It is the church from where we get all our sources. 6. The last point I want to make is as father mentioned about the pious copts, both OO and EO church has pious saints which experienced the sweetness of Christ. Christ is not some sweet we buy and eat to make us feel good, He is a pure God who rests on the pure heart. Maybe there is something that is beyond both of our understanding right now but let us not talk harsh about one another for now. May our Lord and Savior make us one, as He and His Father are one. Amen!!! Again, thank you very much father.

[@user-yq2tx2oh3v]

Well said.

[@karrotexpress96]

God bless you 🙏

[@bostahome]

I hope you are enjoying this wonderful pascha season Thanks for the eloquent comments. Reading about the divisions in the church and the subsequent events is always very painful. I was thought to love the Greek Church in Sunday School and was disappointed when some thought that we are not a faithful Church. I hope and pray that all who read those comments are seeking and serving Christ without any contempt for any one especially those who suffered faithfully for Christ throughout the centuries Xristos Anistie PS there are no more monophysites in the world

[@yenenehw]

I appreciate your zeal in defending the OO and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido traditions - very well done brother. However, you commented, “Indeed He (Christ) has two wills”. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church (OO) steadfastly maintain that Christ has a single, unified Will - One Will. Given this fundamental doctrinal divergence, as well as various other longstanding theological divides between the OO and EO churches, the achievement of full unity is impossible, and we should all be okay about it. That said, I believe it is crucial that we learn to cultivate mutual respect, even in the absence of complete ecclesiastical unity. ✝As we believe in the One Nature of the Incarnate Word, as St. Cyril the Great called it, likewise, we believe in One Will and One Act. Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature to be one, the Will and the Act must also each be one. What the Divine nature chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the Will and the action of both. ✝We do not rightfully speak of two Wills in Christ, just as we do not speak rightfully of two Wills in any man. Jesus had a human Will in the sense that He made moral decisions. The humanity belonged to the Word, not as a prophet belongs to God. However, Jesus felt the things appropriate for a man to feel when faced with a terrible death - fear and reluctance. At the same time, in the Divine cheerfulness, He knew that He would break the power of death in the resurrection. ✝When taking about a person's Will for instance your Will, we refrain from dividing your Will by asserting that your body Willed to fall asleep in church or your mind Willed 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. However, we acknowledge that your choices can be roughly divided into those appropriate to your physical body, such as deciding to eat, and those appropriate to your soul, such as deciding to pray. In this sense, we recognize the distinction between these two types of Wills but do not separate them or claim the existence of two distinct Wills within you. Similarly, we do not assert the existence of two Wills in Christ, as supported by the pre-Chalcedonian Church Fathers, such as St. Hilary of Poitiers, who stated that "God chose to suffer of His own Will and died of His own Will." The Word operates and disposes of everything proper to it through His humanity, in such a way that it heals, creates, and gives life, because for the flesh has truly become the very body of the Divine Word, an intellectual and Divine flesh. The Word expressed His will and performed His saving activities through His humanity. Jesus did not utilize His humanity as one would employ a lifeless, irrational, and inert robot; but He used the strength of His soul as God Incarnate. To the sea, He says, "be still, be calm"; to Peter, who cried out "command me to come beside you on the water," He commanded "come"; to the paralytic He declared, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven"; and to His disciples, He gives the law by God's authority and saying, "Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me." ✝The Lord Jesus Christ said, "My food is to do the Will of Him who sent me and to finish His work" (John 4:34). This proves that His Will is the same as that of the Father. In this context, He said about Himself, "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). 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. ✝Sin is nothing but a conflict between man's Will and God's. But our Lord Jesus Christ had no sin at all. He challenged the Jews, saying, "Which of you convicts Me of Sin?" (John 8:46). Therefore, His Will was that of the Father. The Saints who are perfect in their behavior achieve complete agreement between their Will and the Will of God, so that their Will becomes that of God, and the Will of God becomes their Will. And St. Paul the Apostle said, "But we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16). He did not say that our thoughts are in accord with the mind of Christ, but that "we have the mind of Christ," and here the unity is stressed. If this is said about those with whom and in whom God works, then how much more the unity between the Son and His own humanity would be in all that is related to the Will, the mind, and the power to act in whom the Divine nature has united with the human nature, in a Hypostatic and Essential union without separation-not for a second nor a twinkle of an eye. ✝If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could Christ be our guide and our example to follow in His footsteps (1 John 2:6) if there is a conflict of Will in Him? Far be it from Him! The complete righteousness that marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to His Divine as well as His Human Will. ✝The same is true of the salvation of mankind, the message for which Christ came and said, "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" (Matt 18:11). This is the same Will of the Father 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. Here we do not distinguish between the two natures. ✝The fear, on the one hand, and the courage, on the other, represent the two Wills - that of humanity and that of Divinity in Christ - similarly, in us, our soul longs for spiritual nourishment while our body craves physical nourishment. In this sense, we recognize the difference between the two types of Wills, but we do not separate them and say that there are two Wills in us. In the same way, we do not say that there are two Wills in Christ. It was the same one, the Incarnate Word, Who humanly rejected death and said, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass"; but also, it was the same One, the Incarnate Word, who Divinely said, "the spirit is Willing" and Willingly accepted the passion. God himself voluntarily elected to take upon Himself all the anxiety and suffering that comes with being human, including the fear of death, and submitted Himself to the laws of our nature, but He is not susceptible to being dominated by a single one of the factors affecting human life. By the very fact that He is incarnated, He willed to suffer all human things. It would be quite true to say that what all men possess by nature, within the Incarnation, the Word possessed by Will. By an act of Will, God voluntarily submitted Himself to the laws of human nature or necessity and took upon Himself a rational, Willing human hypostasis. And this act of God's Will is what is of significance, not the human Will.

[@yenenehw]

In the following, I will cite the teachings of pre-Chalcedonian (pre-451 AD) Church Fathers who have refuted the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. This analysis will be based on an examination of the two biblical passages most commonly invoked by the EO to support their Christological position of asserting that Christ possessed dual wills. ✝Let us consider the scriptural passage from the Gospel of John, wherein 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" (John 6:38-39) ☀St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - If we consider this quotation where we assert that the Son descended from Heaven not to fulfill His own Will, but the Will of the One who sent Him, we must acknowledge that if this statement had not been made by the Son Himself, we would attribute it to the expression of His Human Nature rather than to Him who is understood as the Savior. This is because 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. Cyril the great: - Christ endured these things willingly for us, but if it had been possible for Him to accomplish His earnest purpose for us without suffering, He would not have willed to suffer. However, since the Jews were certainly and unavoidably going to inflict these things on Him, He accepts suffering, and He makes what He does not want into His will. From the following, you will understand that the suffering on the cross is both unwilled in a sense by Christ our Savior and willed because of us and the good pleasure of God the Father. 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.” What we were saying at the beginning, we will say again, Christ made this statement about a definite and distinct matter. He says these words to teach that He considers dying for all to be willed on the one hand because the Divine nature has willed it but unwilled on the other because of the suffering on the cross-and this insofar as the flesh is concerned, which seeks to avoid death. He made what was unwilled into something willed, and the Divine nature accepted this because of its love for us. Wisdom, the craftsman of all, that is, the Son, turned the fabrication of diabolical perversity (I mean his death according to the flesh) into the way of salvation for us and the door of life. (Homilies according the Gospel of John) ☀St. Hilary of Poitiers states, "God chose to suffer of His own will...... God chose to die of His own will." 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 the EO Christological perspective, which states Christ in his human nature, willed, chose to suffer and die accordingly. As a highly esteemed Church Father shared by both traditions, St. Hilary's views on this matter carry significant theological weight in support of the OO understandings of Christ's Will. [Book IX On the Trinity] ☀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. 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. [On the Incarnation] ✝Let us also consider the scriptural passage from the Gospel of Matthew, wherein Matthew narrates, "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' " (Matthew 26:39) ☀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." Similar expressions are used to describe this unity, employing a negative rather than a positive form. For example, "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure" (John 3:34) for as a matter of fact God does not give the Spirit to the Son, nor does the Spirit is measured by Him, for God cannot be measured by God. Likewise, "Not my transgression nor my sin" (Psalm 59:3) is not stated to suggest that He possesses transgressions and sins, but to affirm that He does not. Furthermore, "Not for our righteousness which we have done" (Daniel 9:18) indicates that we have not actually achieved any righteousness. This meaning is also evident in the subsequent statements when He asks, "What is the will of My Father? That everyone that believeth on the Son should be saved and obtain the final Resurrection" (John 6:40) - is this the Father's will alone and not the Son's? Does He preach the Gospel and receive people's faith against His own will? Who could believe that? Such notions are hardly believable. For I cannot see how that which is common to two can be said to belong to one alone, however much I consider it, and I do not think any one else can. If then you hold this opinion concerning the will, you will be right and reverent in your opinion, as I think, and as every right-minded person thinks. [Fourth Theological Oration] ☀St. Cyril the great: - since the Word was God, immortal and incorruptible, and He was life itself by nature, He could not cringe before death. I think this is perfectly clear to all. Since He has come to be in the flesh, however, He yields to enduring what is proper to the flesh, and He allows Himself to cringe before death when it is at the door so that He may show Himself truly human. That is why He says, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” You may learn that we are telling the truth about these matters also from the following: “For the spirit is willing,” he says, “but the flesh is weak.” Christ was not unaware, after all, that it is far beneath God-befitting dignity to seem inferior to death and to feel fear because of it. Therefore, He included a fervent defense in what He said, on the one hand, He said that the flesh was weak because of what is proper to it and what belongs to its nature. On the other hand, however, He said the spirit was willing, since it knows that it suffers nothing harmful. Do you see how death was not willed by Christ both because of the flesh and because of the ignominy of the suffering, but at the same time it was willed until He brings the whole world to its fitting consummation intended by the good pleasure of the Father, that is, salvation and life for all? (We observe that one and the same Christ both unwilled and willed to suffer - unwilled because He carried our infirmities within Himself and willed because Christ Himself is the Devine Word of God. Therefore, it becomes evident that the EO perspective deviates from the teachings of St. Cyril, as he did not separate Christ's will, but rather taught that there is one will in Christ, who is the Incarnate Word.) [Homilies according the Gospel of John covering Matthew 26:38-40] ☀St. Basil the great: - How could He who granted life to the dead not be even more capable of preserving life in the living? So why did He, who had raised Lazarus and others from the dead, not bestow life upon Himself? Why did He ask life from the Father, saying, in His fear, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me”? If He was unwilling to die, then He had not yet humbled Himself; He had not yet obeyed the Father unto death (Phil. 2:8); He had not yet given Himself as the Apostle says, “who gave Himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4), as a “ransom” (Matt. 21:28). If He was dying willingly, then why did He utter the words “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away”? what need of the words “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away”? No, these words must not be understood as referring to Himself; rather, they were meant for those who were about to sin against Him, aiming to prevent them from doing so. When He was crucified on their behalf, He said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). We must not interpret words spoken in accordance with the divine plan as simple statements. [Against Eunomius]

[@nickdavila94]

EO convert here. I love my Coptic and OO brothers!

[@soapymcsoapy3815]

I'm a Copt and got nothing but love for all EO

[@RickyPlumbs]

This is the way!

[@consciouslyaware240]

……the way to ecumenism.

[@johns2226]

That is good, we are instructed by Christ to love even our enemies... just be aware of their (and others) heretical creed, and not be sucked into this modern ecumenistic propaganda... "we are all Orthodox", "we are misunderstood", "it's just semantics" etc....

[@themanwithdahelmet-ww8lr]

​@johns2226 nah it's not semantics boss, Its really simple Greeks are dumb, and Egyptians are smarter!

[@magdamikhael-kg5ni]

"But woe to that man by whom the offense comes" (Matthew 18:7) "And if i have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:2) Fr john, you really need to be honest and humble. God bless you 🙏

[@elizabethmansour978]

I loved hearing about this Priests Journey and how the Coptic Church had an influence on him. As someone who is Coptic and went to an Eastern Orthodox High School, it was very sad to be told every mass I could not partake in communion. I never understood why till I was older but it did ignite a flame in me which is still very much alive today to understand why. I pray for the unity of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit .

[@NicoleDionne]

We have a Coptic parishioner at our parish who takes communion. I’m not sure if he had to convert because I thought the traditions were similar? I’ll have to ask. But as a convert myself from modern Christianity one of my questions to the head father at our parish was “Do you think Orthodox is the only way.” I appreciated his answer & my walls came down. He said “We believe we know the truth & where God is, but we can’t say where he isn’t.” He went on to say “There are Muslims that act like Christians & Christians that act like the devil.” He continued to read a passage out of the Basil Liturgy which talked about how we pray for everyone even those in caverns. It was a beautiful answer & beautiful liturgy passage. I would hope this is a common belief that we don’t say where God isn’t because that how could we know? All we can do is keep our eyes on Christ & love God with our whole hearts & strive to live for him.

[@elizabethmansour978]

Hi Nicole, I’m going to assume you’re in the US? I know there is a common understanding amongst some dioceses and churches in both faiths due to the vast distances some people might have to travel to get to a parish for their respective denomination. I live in Sydney, Australia and while Copts could partake in communion in Eastern Orthodox churches when they first came here because we had no church it seems a step back has been taken. That was a very lovely response from your priest. The litanies of the liturgy of St Gregory also have one which exclusively pertains to ending the schisms of the church. I love when a priest decides to pray those litanies because it’s often forgotten how heartbreaking the history of Christianity is. God bless you and your journey in Christ.

[@isaac1965]

@@NicoleDionne Peace and Grace I am a Coptic Orthodox Priest. I always asked this question: what is God’s stand on the schism of the Church? Especially the Traditional Churches, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. I had an observation that led me to a simple conclusion, not very doctrinal or theological. The observation was that God in His love sends His Mother the Theotokos, the Virgin Mary to support and comfort her children in all three churches, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox with many miracles and apparitions. This happens thousands of times and beyond doubt. I believe God accepts especially the simple believers in all three churches probably more than the theologians. Now, to say that these apparitions and miracles are not from God in all three Churches, is beyond my ability to accept consciously. The conclusion is, all three Churches are in a state of acceptance by God to some decent and enough level. God bless

[@akopvanetsyan9110]

@@isaac1965In lord eyes we are still one. Cuz three of our churches were founded by Apostles

[@isaac1965]

@@akopvanetsyan9110 Thank you I pray that all three churches continue to be true to the faith in Christ handed down by the fathers of the Church. . May non of us fall to the deceptive spirit of the Antichrist especially the war on normal sexuality, marriage and family.

[@Avyboy28]

6th from Long Island NY 🇺🇸 greetings my fellow Orthodox family! God Bless

[@plimithsock]

Where in Long Island ? I just moved here been going to Saint Nicholas

[@habteyesabate166]

FIRST LET ME KNOW MYSELF THEN I MAY KNOW CHIRST ACCORDING TO THE WILLING OF GOD.I KNOW JESUS CHIRST IS LORD ,SON OF GOD ,MY SAVIOUR.ONLY WHEN GOD GIVES ENLIGHTMENT WE BECOME TO KNOW GOD THE FATHER AND SON OF GOD ,LORD JESUS CHIRST. WITHOUT GOD'S HELP I THINK TALKING ABOUT LORD'S NATURE IS BEING TO PROUD AND HAVE NO GOOD RESULT.

[@bostahome]

I am a Coptic Christian who lives in the US, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that we are not monophysites. As we declare in every liturgy that the divinity of Christ did not depart from his humanity. It was all politics and racism 1600 years ago and it is politics and racism now. Additionally, there are no monophysites in the world currently, the person who pointed this out to me is a Greek monk in Saint Gregory Plamas in Ohio it was a side note in a very brotherly conversation. I am privy to the negotiations between the two Churches that took place in Pope Shenonda's era, and the reason we are not one Church yet is because the Greek side wanted us to remove the excommunications on the Greek side without guaranteeing that the same would happen from the Greek side which is unfair, and again shows the politics and racism. And If we are monophysites, why did the Greek Church sign an agreement with the Coptic Church to accept each other's sarment of baptism? At any rate, seek Christ with all your heart, delving into ancient politics is not the best use of time. Enjoy the upcoming Holy Week Xristos Anisitie PS. Coptic Holy Week rituals are very pretty awesome :) check it out!!!!!!

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

Orthodox Church is not made up only from Greeks. Also, there is a huge problem the fact that some heretics from our point of view are saints from your point of view and also you reject some miracles we claim to be done against monophysites. So things are not that simple.

[@cgabriel777]

if Coptic Christians are not monophysites why they don't accept decisions of the all Ecumenical Synods of the Orthodox Church? If you accuse the other part by "racism", how is possible the reconciliation? The Holy Fire is going to the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem not to the Armenians or Coptic. It a sign of God!

[@frgabriely]

Well said

[@liquidh5226]

@@sfappetrupavelandrei Which saints in particular?

[@johnhenein1330]

I find it interesting that the Coptic Orthodox Church is known as the Church of the Martyrs yet are called heretics by their Eastern brothers. When the beloved and Holy Theotokos St. Mary appeared on the Coptic Orthodox Church of Zeitoun for 3 years straight (longest documented supernatural apparition in history), one must ask why would St. Mary come to the Copts? It would be wise to love her children rather than to defame them. May God unify His church and strip all political and superfluous pride that ensnares our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. And may Jesus Christ have mercy on us all!

[@King.Kaleb3]

Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It's important to recognize that the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, while historical and doctrinal, are often deepened by misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Firstly, the characterization of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the Coptic Orthodox Church, as not being part of "the Church" is a misunderstanding of our doctrinal position. The term "Miaphysite," which we use to describe our Christological position, should not be confused with "Monophysitism." Miaphysitism, as articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, affirms that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human in one united nature, "the Incarnate Word of God," without mixing, separation, or confusion. This is different from Monophysitism, which is often incorrectly attributed to us and suggests a single, merged nature. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which led to the schism between our churches, was rejected by the Oriental Orthodox not due to a rejection of the dual nature of Christ, but because we felt that the Chalcedonian definition could be interpreted in a way that divides Christ's natures too distinctly, which we believe risks Nestorianism. The definition of "two natures" can be seen as an overemphasis that potentially splits His unity, something we assert without negating His full humanity and divinity. Furthermore, it's crucial to acknowledge that significant theological dialogues have been undertaken in recent decades to bridge these historical divides. These discussions have often revealed that much of the disagreement was rooted in linguistic and cultural misunderstandings. For instance, joint statements between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians have acknowledged that our Christological positions may be far more aligned than historically contested. Regarding the assertion that Oriental Orthodoxy somehow contributes to theological "illness" or deviation, it is important to approach these discussions with a spirit of humility and reconciliation. As Christians, our focus should be on understanding and unity within the body of Christ. Our shared commitment to the core tenets of Christianity - the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the salvation of humanity - should guide us toward mutual respect and love. It's also necessary to honor the deep, spiritual, and historical roots of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which have preserved the faith amid numerous hardships and persecutions throughout history. The Oriental Orthodox Churches continue to contribute richly to the global Christian witness through vibrant liturgies, deep theological reflections, and a strong emphasis on asceticism and holiness. In conclusion, rather than focusing solely on historical divisions, it would be beneficial for us as followers of Christ to seek ways to heal these breaches, to emphasize our shared faith, and to work together to present a united witness to the world. Let us pray for unity in truth and love, remembering that we are called to be one as Christ and the Father are one.

[@zenehaile1766]

thank you that is perfect God bless you

[@Geez.]

That was a great explanation, thank you for clarifying this. It's important to understand that our churches share more than what divides us. Let's focus on that unity.

[@MatthiasAmare23]

Thank you so much.

[@orthochap9124]

Thank you for taking the time to comment this perspective. I'm curious how Oriental Orthodox would respond to his assertion that Oriental Orthodox Miaphysitism leads to Monothelitism (one will in Christ).

[@karrotexpress96]

Thank you so much for taking the time and patience to put this here, thank you and God bless you🙏

[@williamticknor1938]

Thank you, Father, for your beautiful and moving testimony and instruction on the faith. I found your reasoning on focusing on the problems in order to heal the errors (like at a hospital) to be particularly compelling. I pray that you and all of your parishioners at St. Matthew's have a blessed final week of Lent.

[@BrettSayles]

Thank you for this. Such beautiful stories.

[@b0bm4rl3y8]

We orthodox coptic christians believe in what St. Cyril of Alexandria taught, One incarnate nature for God the Word, where both natures are fully united, fully God and fully man. We kept the faith of our fathers, one nature formula is orthodox, it’s what the church believed in, it’s called miaphysitism not monophysitism, monophysitism is a heresy condemned by all churches. Also, the Coptic Orthodox Church believes in Deification in the orthodox way, where we are united with Christ, we believe it as the early fathers taught it like St. Athanasuis & St. Cyril, not the exaggerated way of Gregory Palamas where we become gods, this is heresy, this is what HH Pope Shenouda taught. Much love❤️✝️

[@habteyesabate166]

the point is...Sorry to say that ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IS VERY FAR FROM APOSTRLIC TEACHING MIXING JEWISH,CHIRSTIANITY AND CATHOLIC RELGION.THE CHURCH IS NOT A LIFE GIVING CHURCH BY PREACHING GOSPEL OF LORD JESUS CHIRST.IF ANYONE WHO IS ORTHODOX YOU EOTC FORCES HIM TO FLEE FROM ORTHODOX EASTERN ORTHODOX IS A SOLUTION FOR TRUE CHIRSTIANITY SINCE IT FOLLOWS APOSTELIC TEACHINGS

[@habteyesabate166]

Sorry to say that ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IS VERY FAR FROM APOSTRLIC TEACHING MIXING JEWISH,CHIRSTIANITY AND CATHOLIC RELGION.THE CHURCH IS NOT A LIFE GIVING CHURCH BY PREACHING GOSPEL OF LORD JESUS CHIRST.IF ANYONE WHO IS ORTHODOX YOU EOTC FORCES HIM TO FLEE FROM ORTHODOX EASTERN ORTHODOX IS A SOLUTION FOR TRUE CHIRSTIANITY SINCE IT FOLLOWS APOSTELIC TEACHINGS

[@GG-lh2yw]

@@habteyesabate166Are you ok ?you’re repeating in every comment the same comment he’s talking about Coptic Church not Ethiopian Church.

[@habteyesabate166]

FIRST LET ME KNOW MYSELF THEN I MAY KNOW CHIRST ACCORDING TO THE WILLING OF GOD.I KNOW JESUS CHIRST IS LORD ,SON OF GOD ,MY SAVIOUR.ONLY WHEN GOD GIVES ENLIGHTMENT WE BECOME TO KNOW GOD THE FATHER AND SON OF GOD ,LORD JESUS CHIRST. WITHOUT GOD'S HELP I THINK TALKING ABOUT LORD'S NATURE IS BEING TO PROUD AND HAVE NO GOOD RESULT.

[@GG-lh2yw]

@@habteyesabate166 So what’s your religion???

[@MankinaZoomer]

St. Matthew’s is where I experienced my first Vespers and Akathist service. Fr. John instructed me on how to venerate icons. Their perish is truly an amazing place

[@georgepapatheofilou6118]

If you're hurting in your headspace, there's help available. Just be brave enough to ask . Blessings of love and laughter plus wisdom be upon you. Kyrie Eleison Me.❤❤❤

[@habteyesabate166]

FIRST LET ME KNOW MYSELF THEN I MAY KNOW CHIRST ACCORDING TO THE WILLING OF GOD.I KNOW JESUS CHIRST IS LORD ,SON OF GOD ,MY SAVIOUR.ONLY WHEN GOD GIVES ENLIGHTMENT WE BECOME TO KNOW GOD THE FATHER AND SON OF GOD ,LORD JESUS CHIRST. WITHOUT GOD'S HELP I THINK TALKING ABOUT LORD'S NATURE IS BEING TO PROUD AND HAVE NO GOOD RESULT.

[@SamuelComptonLeslie-xc1lb]

Wow, praise the Lord. I met the same Nun, Abbos Marcella and she touched me deeply by the words she said. Love that Monastery Life Giving Springs Monastery.

[@SaltShack]

Thank you for the content and all the many and important lessons. Kalo Pascha!

[@habteyesabate166]

FIRST LET ME KNOW MYSELF THEN I MAY KNOW CHIRST ACCORDING TO THE WILLING OF GOD.I KNOW JESUS CHIRST IS LORD ,SON OF GOD ,MY SAVIOUR.ONLY WHEN GOD GIVES ENLIGHTMENT WE BECOME TO KNOW GOD THE FATHER AND SON OF GOD ,LORD JESUS CHIRST. WITHOUT GOD'S HELP I THINK TALKING ABOUT LORD'S NATURE IS BEING TO PROUD AND HAVE NO GOOD RESULT.

[@JohnDoukasPhotography]

Thank you for this video. I think it’s wise to keep dialogue open with brothers who disagree.

[@wauliepalnuts6134]

Roots of Orthodoxy is knocking it out of the park with these videos. Great and concise explanations from very knowledgeable and insightful priests on topics we've all asked about.

[@isaac1965]

Please father remember, Chalcedonian have some blood in their hands. The Coptic Orthodox Christians have no blood in their hands from St. Mark to Pope Tawadrous II. Only on their necks. May God bless you and your parish

[@fadikhoory5350]

No blood? But Dioscorus killed Flavian and his successor killed Proterius.

[@mwhabs]

@@fadikhoory5350 This is myth is literally fact checked in the minutes of the counsels after chalcedon (which the Coptic church didn’t partake in so you know it’s not biased lol). Sorry Fadi, but I think you’re misinformed on this one brother. ❤️✝️

[@isaac1965]

@@mwhabs Thank you Would please elaborate more on how the minutes of the counsels after Chalcedon prove the innocence of our Patriarchs from these horrible accusations?

[@tsegawminyilshewa2052]

@@fadikhoory5350 Even if the Roman writer does not say this,. Just try to double-check what you learn about chalcadon.

[@minatawadros4644]

Hello father, it brought me joy to see how God is working with all of humanity to bring them closer to the truth. I have one request or question to ask. It seems as if you are targeting our Coptic youth, what do you do so? This is an Eastern Orthodox Channel and in this video you explain Eastern Orthodox Dogma. Why do you have tags related to the Coptic church so they may be found by our faithful? I pray for unity, though it should be done faithfully , not deceitfully. I kindly ask to remove these and tag the faithful of your church. This is not right father, forgive me. As for everything else you mentioned, I do not wish to debate or to explain our beliefs. I see enough Coptic people has done so in these comments. Also the growth of our Oriental Orthodox Church is a sufficient defense of itself, the defense of Christ Himself who, when asked, said “I AM.” God bless you and may He lead us all to the truth.

[@habteyesabate166]

Sorry to say that ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IS VERY FAR FROM APOSTRLIC TEACHING MIXING JEWISH,CHIRSTIANITY AND CATHOLIC RELGION.THE CHURCH IS NOT A LIFE GIVING CHURCH BY PREACHING GOSPEL OF LORD JESUS CHIRST.IF ANYONE WHO IS ORTHODOX YOU EOTC FORCES HIM TO FLEE FROM ORTHODOX EASTERN ORTHODOX IS A SOLUTION FOR TRUE CHIRSTIANITY SINCE IT FOLLOWS APOSTELIC TEACHINGS

[@cassiuscollectio6553]

First from Brazil? God bless y'll!

[@RayRay-zj5rb]

Thank god not everyone in your wonderful church is having the same opinion like you, with all respect. I’m Coptic and in my university days I had no Orthodox Church near me. One day my whole soul needed sacrament of confession. I couldn’t wait longer till next holiday to go to my Coptic church soo I’ve decided to call the Russian Orthodox Church. An Angel of a priest opened the door, said to me I see how much you are distressed. Don’t worry we will sort everything out. He sat down with me for hours and we prayed and he gave me the absolution and said if I want I can come for communion next liturgy. He offered to sort it out with the bishops and my priest of confession, I have to do nothing. He will take of me like a father. Yes there are differences between our churches but just people like you on both sides are in the way of becoming one again. We need more people like that father you just want to bring everyone to heaven. That’s the goal

[@Geez.]

First.. from Ethiopia.. ThankYou!

[@eotceotc]

- *30 differences between COPTIC & EOTC* - Purpose: This was written to educate and give Ethiopian believers a BETTER understanding of the origin of their faith, history and tradition and answer why the EOTC is quite different from other orthodoxies. This should not to be interpreted in the wrong way, unity is important but so is transparency. Author: As an Ethiopian Orthodox servant and having attended several Coptic liturgies, and from theological research on both churches, I can tell you we the EOTC have SO MANY differences. ✅ ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED! *Dogma Differences* 1. We believe that Saint Mary was born without original sin 2. We believe that Saint Mary has NO fallen nature no sin or nature to sin after birth as well *Jewish Practices* Matt 5:17 - “I did not come to abolish the Law” 1. We have Ark Processions year-round 2. We abstain from all unclean food (Halal, pork, shrimp, crab, etc) 3. We do no enter church if we are unclean (men and women) 4. We wear all white shawls (Netelas) as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection and spiritual purity 5. We have a shoeless entry (not just during communion) 6. We abstain from any modern instruments (piano, guitar, etc) 7. We have 81 books in the Bible (Coptics have 74) 8. We go of Halachic Jewish Time (Fasting entry and exits are based of our sun and star movements (Twilight) and our hours are reversed (12=6, 9=3) 9. We observe Friday evening and Saturday as the Sabbath (in addition to Sunday) 10. Women after giving birth have to wait 40 days or 80 days to enter church. ( Lev 12) *EOTC Belief System* 1. We abstain from any fish on fasting days (It is a meat - 1 Cor 15:39) 2. We eat starting at 3pm on fasting days 3. We fast 292 days of the year (including Tsige & Pagume Fast) 4. Women are not allowed to wear pants only ankle length dresses (Deut 22:5) 5. We never imprint (wear) icons of saints on clergical or any other clothes 6. We have a 2 or more priest liturgy system (Coptics have 1) 7. We close curtains during significant moments 8. To be a Deacon you must be a unmarried virgin 9. We have 14 liturgies (Coptics have 3) 10. We celebrate all 33 feasts for Saint Mary and all 18 feasts of Jesus with millions in attendance year round 11. We have Hymnaries (Mahlet) 4-10 hours short version and 24-48 hours long on Epiphany and Horologions (Sa’tat) 12. We perform year- round Subae’s (7 days of no food or water) 13. Believers have (Full Body - Holy Water) services year round for healing and forgiveness of sin 14. We do not eat bread inside church 15. Only men can pour Holy Water 16. The Holy Trinity Icon is always depicted (Coptics use mostly Jesus and the 4 creatures of the Gospel) 17. We have to fast 18 hours to take communion (3 days of no intercourse) 18. We prohibit any use of contraceptives or birth control (Genesis 38:6-11) *Explanation:* While we didn’t establish a church prior to Coptics, Ethiopia was and is historically known as the First Christian Kingdom and Civilization (Reference: Prophecy Psalms 72: 9-10 along with multiple Church sources shows that one of the three wise man has been confirmed Ethiopian, Acts 8 shows Christianity teaching existed in Ethiopia and Aksum Kingdom predates back to BC showing traces of Christianity prior to Armenian Church). And so while we the EOTC are labeled “oriental” with our sister churches, we are the only orthodox nation who incorporate 4000 year old Jewish customs (Judeo-Christianity) and Jewish forms of worship and tradition into our faith. The reason for this is because we were the only Orthodox country to convert from Christianity’s former faith so we hold very sacred information or the “original link” that drives our Christian faith to be more conservative or allows us to have more divine levels of worship (Ark Processions year round, Hymnaries (Mahlet), (Horologions (Sa’tat), Subae (7 days of no food or water), Year round Full Body Holy Water Services, all white clothing, shoeless entry, restraining from unclean meat and 292 days of fasting to name a few all makes our orthodoxy unique different and special in every way compared to all other oriental and eastern orthodoxies but most importantly and evidently seen is our love of Saint Mary. Ethiopia is in fact called the Land of Mary. Thank you have a nice day. Blessings in Christ Sources: 1. EOTC Sunday School Department Immaculate Conception - eotcmk.org/e/the-birth-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary-2/ 2. M/r RODAS kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5qadYijgdCFlZpn. 3. MAHBER KIDUSAN kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWTck4KhptiAZ6s 4. Dersane Gabriel Tahsas Ch. 21-22 5. Ethiopia’s 4000 year history m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppWUe5JrZ5x2rs0 6. Lika Likawnt Ezra - Promised Land Saint Mary kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGnZc5Rtbdmpg6s 7. Holy Synod’s published document titled “The Doctrine and Foreign Relations of the EOTC” 8. No Fish on Fasting Day (EOTC) kzbin.info/www/bejne/omK0Y3asgsqVqrM 9. Fetha Negest 10. Mesafe Kebur 11. Kebra Negest 12. The Didache Ch 6

[@ethiochickenfarm8773]

God bless you for a good explanation love more eotc

[@yenenehw]

Very well written my brother. However, you should've mentioned the fact that the two sister Oriental Orthodox (OO) Churches, Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido (EOTC) churches, maintain identical Christological positions. Given that the focus of this KZbin discussion was on the theological differences between the OO and EO traditions, it would have been prudent to also explicitly highlight the irreconcilable doctrinal divides between the EOTC and the EO Churches pointing the prospect of achieving any meaningful ecclesiastical unity between them is effectively impossible.

[@eotceotc]

@@yenenehw That is a given since we are both Oriental Non-Chalcedonian who accept miaphysitism. No need to mention the obvious and make a textbook out of a KZbin comment.

[@Tanya-tb8ir]

Mary born without original sin?!!! How did she do that? Why she did not save us then ?

[@eotceotc]

@@Tanya-tb8ir Adam and Eve were also born without sin. It doesn’t mean they had savior or divine capabilities

[@ramezmarcos505]

For anyone who knows history, this was the struggle between the Alexandrian (Coptic) and Antiochian (Greek) theologies. Here we have one Church that is offering it's hand in the name of love and unity and another Chruch that is so full of pride which does not want to admit its own faults in wrongfully accusing the Orientals of heresy. From a personal experience, I have numerous Antiochian and Greek Orthodox friends where I visit their churches and take communion there just as they do in my Coptic Church. The reality is that people really don't care anymore about the details (2X2=4 and 2+2=4) or what councils are accepted or not. We just know that we are Orthodox. That's why our generation stopped caring about the "status quo" and what the clergymen say. We are not blind followers. May politics be set aside, and may we strip away our pride and arrogance so that we may unite in brotherhood and fill our hearts with this love which we have for Christ who unites us all in his blood.

[@nickstone3113]

Agree totally

[@consciouslyaware240]

No, that’s not right. And you’ll find out in the end it doesn’t matter if you don’t care or it doesn’t bother you, to go to other churches and commune. I see you said “take communion” but you see, we DONT TAKE it, we humble receive it. And it might not matter to you like we’re over these divides and such you’ll find out when you leave this life, it’s pretty major.

[@dealsisle]

The Antiochian Orthodox Church is the Syriac Orthodox Church.

[@consciouslyaware240]

@@dealsisle I don’t think so. Father Josiah Trenum. Is Antiochian not Syriac so it’s not the same.

[@Gigachadsik]

Stop mutilating your sons with circumcision then maybe there can be union.

[@michaelmina8904]

We did not deviate. We believe in St. Cyril’s doctrine. How is that different than what the EO believe? We are not “ill” as you say. Unbelievable. Your Coptic grandfather would be ashamed for what you are saying. Very arrogant video

[@user-zi2cp4ii6b]

You cutters are heretics! You broke away from the only true faith, which is ORTHODOX! Also, your 'mysteries' are INVALID and do NOT have the grace of the Triune God! Wake up and come out of the darkness of heresy and come to the light of Orthodoxy!

[@CyprusHot]

Amazing insight. God bless Orthoroxy !

[@davidm1536]

St. Cyril of Alexandria said you cannot speak of two natures after the union... period

[@habteyesabate166]

Sorry to say that ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IS VERY FAR FROM APOSTRLIC TEACHING MIXING JEWISH,CHIRSTIANITY AND CATHOLIC RELGION.THE CHURCH IS NOT A LIFE GIVING CHURCH BY PREACHING GOSPEL OF LORD JESUS CHIRST.IF ANYONE WHO IS ORTHODOX YOU EOTC FORCES HIM TO FLEE FROM ORTHODOX EASTERN ORTHODOX IS A SOLUTION FOR TRUE CHIRSTIANITY SINCE IT FOLLOWS APOSTELIC TEACHINGS

[@ivanbravo347]

I love these interviews so much. Thank you!!!!

[@minaammonius1435]

Someone once said to me that many of the Eastern O are like " the Taliban of Christians ". While I disagree with him, I came to understand why he said that after listening to some of them like the one in this video, so divisive and full of themselves. There only argument is that the other side does not follow them so the other is " not Christian ", ' not a church "or " not Orthodox ". As if he consider his throne to be above that of The Most High. Notice the classic tactics of a pathetic argument, devoid of logic and even honesty. 1- The repeated use of blatant lies most notably calling the Oriental O, Monophysites. No they are not and never were. That is a heresy according to the Oriental O theology and in fact according all Christians. 2- Deliberately omitting important facts including but not limited to; - The oriental orthodox did not change the formula about the nature of the Christ as stated by the ecumenical councils in Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. - St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Anthony and many others of the early church fathers who wrote extensively about faith and theology were Copts and Coptic Orthodox church again never changed any of the doctrine of the ecumenical councils or the early church fathers. The eastern O are those who deviated and made the changes, so using there logic, Eastern O are actually not orthodox. - The council of Chalcedon was NOT an ecumenical council by definition. Saying that it was one is simply falsification. Furthermore, the sole purpose of that council was to assert the dominance of the bishops who are close to the emperor. That sin resulted is division of The Body Of The Christ and that same sin resulted in their later division and the formation of the catholic church. Remember it was the same very first sin, the one resulted in falling of the lucifer. - Non of the Oriental O has officially said that they are " one and the same " or " have the same doctrine" as that of the Eastern O. The truth is that a recent joint commission of theological dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 80s concluded that the differences in the Christology between both sides are matter of semantics, with a signed declaration. It is now increasingly evident that the main stumbling block against the unity of faith is the politics, bigotry and arrogance rather than theology. - The eastern O have blood on their hands. Remember the history, the persecution and massacres that the adherents of Oriental Orthodoxy have suffered under the Byzantines. While Christians must forgive, this matter should be addressed and an adequate apology from the Eastern O should be offered. That is not a personal matter, it is about our Christian faith and values.

[@evem620]

Exactly!

[@Tanya-tb8ir]

I love your comment. The arrogance and pride in EO is unchristian

[@isaac1965]

@@Tanya-tb8ir just add the word “some” to your comment 😊. The arrogance and pride that SOME of the EO have is unchristian because most of them are beautiful Orthodox Christians and I love them.

[@PlRATE]

Thank you!

[@habteyesabate166]

FIRST LET ME KNOW MYSELF THEN I MAY KNOW CHIRST ACCORDING TO THE WILLING OF GOD.I KNOW JESUS CHIRST IS LORD ,SON OF GOD ,MY SAVIOUR.ONLY WHEN GOD GIVES ENLIGHTMENT WE BECOME TO KNOW GOD THE FATHER AND SON OF GOD ,LORD JESUS CHIRST. WITHOUT GOD'S HELP I THINK TALKING ABOUT LORD'S NATURE IS BEING TO PROUD AND HAVE NO GOOD RESULT.

[@TruthSeekerEverywhere]

As someone already pointed out Coptic (Oriental) Orthodox are unequivocally NOT Monophysites. Go find that comment it explains well. The Eastern Orthodox - especially the Greeks - should approach this with humility or they are just perpetuating the disunity that their forefathers created 1600 years ago. It was a colossal mistake that had disastrous effects not only on the body of Christ but geopolitically and the course of all of human history. If you know the history of the region, how Constantinople persecuted the Copts after Chalcedon to the point of martyrdom and how that enhanced the success of Islam sweeping over the near East and North Africa … you would not be talking in this way. I respect the priests genuine love for Christ but he displays an ignorant bigotry that only hurts the body of the Christ he loves.

[@tsegawminyilshewa2052]

10Q

[@fanispatsalides1810]

God bless you Father and God bless Roots of Orthodoxy

[@soriniacoboni9983]

5th from Romania 🇷🇴 God bless you my orthodox christian brothers

[@openocean09181]

You do this trick where there’s a attention getting title and the content of the video is a little different but just enhanced by the priest’s stories and I love it

[@johnphilip6926]

I'm an Indian orthodox 🙏

[@joeyoussef9594]

We believe in one will from two wills or one composed will we didn't deny the human will of Jesus Christ and Pope Shenouda did not reject deification, but he rejected an extremist concept of deification, that we are God by nature, not by grace. And we believe in theosis like eastern orthodox churches

[@frgabriely]

Correct

[@JohnMikhail-fy9ew]

Dead accurate. Thank you for explaining this. It's videos like this which are not accurate in describing the other side. Any chance of full communion with one another HAS to be done with humility and grace. Continuing to call Copts something that we are not is slanderous.

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

The byzantines actually have a heretical form of theosis. Gregory Palamas states that we become unoriginate or uncreated. We believe we become like God, sanctified, partakers of the divine nature, so much as the human nature allows. We remain created beings, but somehow they believe they become the Father. This is the sin of Isaiah 14 and St. Athanasius actually speaks against this. They have dogmatized Palamas heretical words on this. They do not believe in theosis like the church does.

[@angrynas9668]

No composed will,but the agreement of humnan with Gods will .And thats the big deal humman will to agree with Gods ,this reality in jesus person shows the hummanity's agreement with its father and not with satans proposal

[@angrynas9668]

​@@MinaDKSBMSBAre you serious?buzantines that turned all the universe in christians are heretic?and saint palamas?are you serious?

[@user-og5bx5hg4k]

Ethiopian Orthodox here. disappointing to see the EO side continuously and intentionally misrepresenting and belittling our position. I have started to think that maybe I should stay away from their content altogether. Regarding Christology, It is not us who need to clear our position but you. Explain to us how you say you follow St. Cyril's teachings of the "One incarnate nature of the word incarnate" but then go on to say Christ is in two natures at the council of Chalcedon. As far as consistency we the OO have it. Belittling or misrepresenting us will not cover up the contradictions between Ephesus and Chalcedon, which you have to deal with.

[@tonton586]

I hear about two devout Copts in this video: St. Anthony, the father of all monasticism and the one to whom the monastery spoken of is named after, and your grandfather. These two were not blind or lost. To claim that the Coptic church is blind and not part of the truth is very shortsighted. “You will know them by their fruits” - the riches, the saints, the miracles, the martyrs all under the Coptic faith stand as witness of the genuineness of the Coptic faith and God’s acceptance of our ancient and strong church. ”In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border. Then the Lord will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to the Lord and perform it…whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people.“ ‭‭(Isaiah‬ ‭19‬)

[@corneliu-mihaimagureanu6626]

It is not shortsighted my friend, in fact it's stating that the copts have been orthodox but now are heretical, the Latins were once orthodox and now are heretical, the Jews were once the chosen people but then they renounced God, things change

[@JohnMikhail-fy9ew]

​@@corneliu-mihaimagureanu6626This shows how you are misinformed. Copts do not believe what you say they do, whether you want to believe it or not, Copts believe the same. It's unfortunate because all of this is available in the minutes to the ecumenical counsel of Chalcedon where Pope Dioscoros was excommunicated, not based on his faith, but because he did not attend a smaller meeting during the time of the counsel where he was summoned, making his excommunication an administrative matter and not faith based. Please do research before spitting dribble at us

[@isaac1965]

@@corneliu-mihaimagureanu6626 Thank you for sharing your perspective. We the Coptic Orthodox people are trying to continue in piety. Fr. John’s grandfather whom Fr. John testified to his piety is contemporary. The Youth at Coptic Club at UC Riverside whose piety touched Fr. John’s heart are contemporary. The 21 Coptic Martyrs who were slain by ISIS in 2015 for refusing to abandon their Coptic Orthodox faith in Jesus Christ are also contemporary. You can pray for us as we pray for you.

[@tonton586]

@@corneliu-mihaimagureanu6626 The Coptic Orthodox Church is not "lost" or heretical and the proof is in the fruits. The Coptic church is not only the church of many saints, such as St. Anthony the Great, father of monasticism, but even in modern times is filled with miracles and martyrs and saints. St. Mary's appearance in Zeitoun in the 70s is a prime example of God's love of the Coptic church. In terms of doctrine, we say Christ's nature is one nature out of two; He is fully man and fully God but we cannot separate His nature into two separate natures. You do not call a burning coal both fire and coal separately, but it is one burning coal. The same with Christ's divinity and humanity. If you separate His nature, you allow for Nestorian belief to creep in. I am not claiming that is what the Eastern church believes in, but you can see the hesitation of the church to accept this council coming only 20 years after the council of Ephesus, in which dividing Christ’s nature into two was the basis of the Nestorian heresy

[@yenenehw]

Let me add to your point my brother --- Ethiopia (OO) holds the distinction of being the first nation to establish Christianity as a state religion. ✝According to St. Eusebius's (260-339 AD) chronological account of the development of Early Christianity from the 1st - the 4th century, Ethiopia is the first to receive the mysteries of the divine word. Eusebius in his famous ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK II states --- "While the saving preaching was increasing and advancing day by day, a certain providence brought from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of the queen of that country, for according to an ancestral custom the nation is even to this day ruled by a woman. Tradition holds that he was the first of the Gentiles to receive the mysteries of the divine word from Philip through revelation, and was the first to return to his native land and preach the Gospel of the knowledge of the God of the universe and the life-giving sojourn of our Saviour among men, and thus in fact was the prophecy fulfilled by him which says, 'Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand to God.' [Psalm 67:32]". ✝In his work AGAINST HERESIES III.12.8, St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD) recounts a narrative that aligns with St. Eusebius's account regarding the origin and early development of Christianity in Ethiopia. In it St. Irenaeus states, but again: Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of whom the prophet spoke: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the mouth? But who shall declare His nativity? For His life shall be taken away from the earth (Acts 8:32; Isaiah 53:7-8) [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God (Acts 8:37). This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him. ✝The Holy Bible mentions Ethiopia but does not mention none of the EO. St. Eusebius's and St. Irenaeus's account find support in the biblical narrative, Acts 8:26-40 provides relevant references to this account. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church is an OO. ✝The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church remains steadfast in its position as an OO Church, firmly opposing any dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches unless they denounce Leo, the Bishop of Rome, and the two-nature formula. It seems that your eagerness for dialogue and unity has led you to go to great lengths to accommodate them, and they have interpreted this as a weakness, openly disrespecting and labeling you as heretics. It is important for Egypt and the other Oriental Orthodox churches to follow our example - demonstrating a firm faith in our Church Fathers and strength is crucial; otherwise, there is a risk of losing your followers to them.

[@alulatesfazion3841]

St Dioscoros patriarch of Alexandria was smart know that Roman catholic was started by Leo I in 451 not 1045 .Leo I want supermacy of Rome. St Dioscoros was secretary of St Cyril of Alexandria and learned christology . St Cyril deposited Nestorius so why they were invited in the Chalcedon council.

[@yenenehw]

The priests implication that the "Oriental Orthodox (OO) never been a Miaphysite in 451AD" is a blatant lie. The truth however is during the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, the Eastern Orthodox (EO) along with the Roman Catholics, rejected St. Cyril's teachings of the *_“One Nature of God the Incarnate Word"_* and adopted the Tome of Leo which heavily *_leaned on the heretic Nestorius._* The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church's (OO) Miaphysite faith is based on St. Cyril of Alexandria's formula “One Nature of God the Incarnate Word." The Lord Jesus Christ is God Himself, the Incarnate Word who took to Himself a perfect manhood. His Divine nature is one with his human nature yet without mingling, confusion or alteration; a complete Hypostatic Union. Words are inadequate to describe this union. It was said, that without controversy, "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit - the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin's womb. As a result of the unity of both natures the Divine and the human inside the Virgin's womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Word" as St. Cyril called it. *_Isn't it ironic that the EO venerate St. Cyril while simultaneously dismissing his teaching on the "One Nature of God the Incarnate Word"?_* *✝THE NATURE OF THIS UNION:* The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Word". St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity. So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature within the Virgin's womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ. In fact, the expression "two natures" implies in itself division or separation, and despite your belief in unity, regrettably you admit separation by stating two natures existed in Christ following His birth. This fundamental divergence in understanding has been a significant factor leading to the schism between our respective churches. By "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature. *✝THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNION BETWEEN IRON AND FIRE:* St. Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire - an ignited iron. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man". In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement, but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire. Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Word is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well. *✝THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNION BETWEEN THE SOUL AND THE BODY:* This example was used by St. Cyril, St. Augustine and a large number of ancient and recent theologians. In this simile, the nature of the soul unites with the physical earthly nature of the body to form a single nature known as human nature (one nature). This united nature does not include the body alone nor the soul alone but both together are combined without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation. No transmutation occurs of the soul into the body nor of the body into the soul, yet both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one nature and one person. Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature?! Here I'd like to raise an important question regarding the One Nature and the Two Natures: Do we not all admit that the nature which we call Human Natures contained before the unity two Natures: the soul and the body? Yet, the EO who claim that there are two natures in Christ: a divine and a human, do not mention the two natures of manhood of Christ i.e. the soul and the body but consider them one. If we go into details we would find ourselves before three natures in Christ!!! the Divinity, the soul and the body, and each of them has its distinct entity and essence... Of course, this is unacceptable on both sides. *_When we accept the union of the soul and the body in one nature in Christ, and when we use the expression theologically, it becomes easier for us to use the expression “One Nature of Christ" or "One Nature of God the Incarnate Word" as St. Cyril taught us._* *_Just as we say that the human nature is one nature consisting of two elements or natures, we can also say about the Incarnate Word, that He is one entity of two elements or natures._* If the Divine nature is claimed to differ from the human nature, how then do they unite? The reply is that the nature of the soul is fundamentally different from the nature of the body, yet it is united with it in one nature, which is the human nature. *_Although man is formed of these two natures, we never say that He is two, but one person. All man's acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul alone or to the body alone. Thus when we want to say that a certain individual ate, or became hungry, or slept, or felt pain, we do not say that it is his body which ate, or became hungry, or got tired or slept or felt pain. All man's acts are attributed to him as a whole and not only to his body. Similarly, all the acts of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not to His Divine nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone._* The union of the soul and body is an intrinsic real union, a Hypostatic one. So is the union of the Divine nature of Christ with the human nature in the Virgin's womb. It is a Hypostatic union, self-essential and real and not a mere connection, then separation as Nestorus claimed. Though the example of the union of the soul and body in the human nature is inclusive, still it is incomplete as it does not explain how the soul departs the body by death nor how they reunite again in the resurrection. But as for the unity of the Divine and human natures of Christ, it is an inseparable union as the Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye. *✝THREE MAIN REASONS WE REJECT THE COUNCIL OF CHACEDON (451AD):* ⛔Leo, the Bishop of Rome, stated in his famous Tome "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering" thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. EO accepted and voted for the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo. *_St. Dioscorus, however, firmly rejected the Tome of Leo and remained steadfast in his adherence to St. Cyril's formulation of "One nature of God the incarnate Word."_* Subsequent Ecumenical Councils of the EO later made amendments to the Tome of Leo, removing any Nestorian-like positions from it. This fact confirms, without dispute, that St. Dioscorus was correct in his stance. ⛔Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa had insulted St. Cyril of Alexandria by their deeds and writings and had supported Nestorius and his teaching, for which, they should have been characterized as heretics and excommunicated. But yet, they were accepted and were present at the Council without having renounced their Nestorian-like positions. ⛔St. Dioscorus of Alexandria, representing the OO Churches, made a request for the removal of the two heretics, namely Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, from the Council. However, his request was denied, leading to his decision to abstain from further participation in the Council. Nevertheless, in the EO Church's Fifth Ecumenical Council held in 553 AD, the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa was scrutinized, and their Nestorian-like and anti-St. Cyril writings were ultimately condemned. *_This indisputable fact confirms that St. Dioscorus was correct in his assessment during the 451 AD Council. Yet, it took the EO a century (102 years) to rectify the errors of the 451 AD Council and finally excommunicate the two heretics._* In my forthcoming post, I will cite various Church Fathers who precede the Council of Chalcedon (451) and express their endorsement of the belief in "One nature after the union," similar to the OO tradition. By presenting these historical references, I aim to refute the falsehoods propagated against the OO church. The Church Fathers this priest mentions are all post Chalcedon (451) and EO.

[@andrewgendi3666]

Very well written. You, my friend, are a scholar. I am very impressed at how well you represented our orthodox faith.

[@user-yq2tx2oh3v]

Appreciated.

[@karrotexpress96]

God bless you 🙏

[@yenenehw]

Several Church Fathers, predating the Council of Chalcedon (451), affirmed the belief in "One Incarnate Nature of Christ after the union" a position similar to OO. ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - So just as everything is spoken of the one person, for ONE nature is recognized as existing after the union namely that of the Word incarnate. [Second Tome against Nestorius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do NOT divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “ONE incarnate nature of the Word.” [1st Letter to Succensus 6] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and ONE is His nature since the Word has been made flesh. [Letter to Eulogius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely, it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is A SINGLE nature presented to our minds, the Incarnate Nature of The Word Himself. [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into TWO after the union. [Letter 1] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Though your nature is ONE, its interpretations are many. There are narratives exalted, intermediate, and lowly. [Hymns on Faith 10:3] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. Two names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. [Hymns on the nativity 25.5] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Glory to that Hidden One, Who even with the mind cannot be felt at all by them that pry into Him; but by His graciousness was felt by the hand of man! The Nature that could not be touched, by His hands was bound and tied, by His feet was pierced and lifted up. Himself of His own will He embodied for them that took Him. [Hymns on the nativity of Christ in the Flesh] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are blended into ONE, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity. [Letter 101.5-6, to Cledonius.] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead... For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods. For neither in this life are there two manhoods; ... And (if I am to speak concisely) the Saviour is made of elements which are distinct from one another (for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time), yet He is not two Persons. God forbid! For both natures are ONE by the combination, the Deity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it. [To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.)] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become A UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into A Divine being (ONE). The two natures compound into A UNIT (ONE); and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. [Oration 37.2.2] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - And since a question has also been mooted concerning the Divine Assumption of humanity, or Incarnation, state this also clearly to all concerning me, that I join in One the Son, who was begotten of the Father, and afterward of the Virgin Mary, and that I do not call Him two Sons, but worship Him as One and the same in undivided Godhead and honour. [Against Apollinarius; The Second Letter to Cledonius. (Ep. CII.)] ✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - So how could the unity be separated into a duality, since no numerical distinction can be made? [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria] ✝St. Ignatius: - There is ONE Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit, both made and not made, God in the flesh. true life in death, both of Mary and of God, at first suffering then incapable of suffering. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians; Chapter 7] ✝St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... He made it ONE with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. [Liturgy of St. Basil the great] ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life.... By the union of the two natures He is ONE entity comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity He lacked nothing of the other, so that He did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. [Book IX On the Trinity] ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh…it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself. [Book IX On the Trinity]. St. Hilary emphasized the complete divinity and humanity of Christ within a unified one nature and he further emphasized that it was Christ Himself who underwent death and subsequently Christ resurrected Himself from the dead. Leo of Chalcedon (EO) on the other hand presents a division within Christ depicting one aspect of Christ performing awe-inspiring miracles while another aspect endures suffering and humiliation. It is sad to observe that the EO church embraces Leo's viewpoint, while simultaneously venerating St. Hilary. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Since God had assumed our weakness... God chose to die of His own will….[Book IX On the Trinity]. St. Hilary ascribes weakness and death to God; he does not state that it was Christ the man who took on our weakness and chose to die as Leo of Chalcedon (EO) declared. God does not possess weakness, weakness and death are attributes that pertain to created beings. However, St. Hilary declares that "God assumed our weakness and willingly chose to experience death." From a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept of one nature following the union, and that all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole & not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. Hence, although weakness, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of one nature following the union. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers states: -Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, since God died through the flesh. [Book IX On the Trinity]. In this instance, St. Hilary did not express the notion that Christ the man was born, suffered, and died as Leo of Chalcedon (EO) expressed. Instead, he asserted that it was God who was born, suffered, and died. From a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one incarnate nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. In Jesus Christ, the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh. Hence, although the acts of being born, suffering, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will....[Book IX On the Trinity]. God does not experience suffering; however, St. Hilary attributed suffering to God. Even though suffering is inherent to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed it to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of one nature following the union.

[@user-zk4rc3qb7o]

God bless you for your response🙏

[@ultraman1red]

Very real testimony. God bless..

[@NYCPriest]

As a Coptic priest, you are out of line. A rejection of a council that we didn't attend bc it was illegal to make any decision without the attendance of our bishops, makes it null. Your doctrin is based on Alexandrian (Coptic Orthodox) fathers (Sts. Cyril, Athanasius, Anthony). God give clarity, humilty and less regurgitation of ignorant bigotry.

[@user-zi2cp4ii6b]

The coptic church is heresy!!! Only Orthodox faith is original and true faith!!!

[@mattias640]

Yes, Abouna. I’m Syriac orthodox and I LOVE Coptic church!

[@chapteralex5066]

Ethiopian orthodox church which is a member of Oriental orthodox actuality teaches christology two nature and two body came in to one with out destroying the other.

[@mathewemad9661]

This is just straight up false information. where did you get it from?

[@jimvellios1426]

For rhe love of Christ For the love of Truth You speak the words of truth. May God bless you and your endeavours. You certainly gone though the loops when it comes to living or finding Christ

[@frgabriely]

17:01 Father please listen to what your Reverence is saying, earlier you referenced St Cyril and his formula of the one nature of the Incarnate Word of God. Also please remember the 5th Council has corrected the 4th Council's terminology Praying for unity

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

They thought they fixed it but they only seem to end up creating 2 contradictions for every previous contradiction. The Chalcedonian today is more Nestorian than Nestorius. Two natures, two minds, two wills, two activities? What is this divided Christ? What is this quaternity by introducing the man? How do they accept this along the dogmatic 12 chapters of Ephesus I, the Ephesus I dogmatic homilies of St. Theodotus of Ancyra, St. Cyril’s letters to Euologius,Succensus, and St. Acacius? Their gatherings are in vain. Repentance of their insult to the Holy Spirit’s work at Ephesus I and Ephesus II is the only remedy. Please absolve me father.

[@marcoebaid6258]

555555

[@marcoebaid6258]

You respect this fellow so much as a hypocrite and never respected me as a Coptic parishioner who letterally died for CHRIST. Gabriel you are a big hypocrite

[@geo-mj4gb]

To say an Ecumenical Council is corrected is to say the Ecumenical council was in error. And as well all know, Ecumenical councils are infallible, meaning they can't be wrong, consequently can't be corrected. So to say it was corrected is to say it had something wrong making it an invalid Ecumenical council. Which I agree, Chalcdon is not an Ecumenical Council as it has erred contradicting Ephesus.

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

@@geo-mj4gb or as our Ethiopian brothers and sisters rightly call it "a gathering of dogs"

[@mariatoboc3247]

Third from Romania! Love from 🇷🇴💗💗

[@alancaplotbozard]

Bună ziua Eu sunt ortodox în Franța la biserica română

[@mariatoboc3247]

@@alancaplotbozard Bună ziua! Sunt foarte fericită să aud acest lucru! O zi mirifică îți doresc 💗

[@theninjaturtle649]

​@@alancaplotbozardDomnul sa te binecuvanteze frate. Ma bucur sa aud ca avem frati francezi in Biserica Ortodoxa Romana

[@alancaplotbozard]

@@mariatoboc3247 Dumnezeu să te binecuvânteze

[@alancaplotbozard]

@@theninjaturtle649 Maica Domnului să te ocrotească

[@MrEgyPete]

I am shocked by a priest who lived so closely with Copts and whose mother attended the Coptic church claims the Copts are monophysites!! First, please read the common statement of orthodoxy signed by EO and OO in 1990. Second, just by logic, how a church of st Cyril who formulated the Christology of the third council be heretics. We are sticking to the same formulation till today! I pray for my brothers and sisters in EO to stop dividing the body of Christ like this.

[@achilleuspetreas3828]

He literally said Coptics are Miaphysites. We are not in communion, period...this is no different than the Roman Catholics. We are not dividing the Church. You believe we left the Church and we believe you left the Church. Ignoring the problems won't help us be truly united once again. Watch the video without emotion and you'll see he mentions much more differences than the nature of Christ. You are the closest to us and our friends, but we are different.

[@MrEgyPete]

@@achilleuspetreas3828 you have your facts wrong. 1) this is not like the Roman Catholic. You are probably not aware of the unification efforts and the common statement of orthodoxy. We recognize each other as orthodox. 2) we don’t believe that EO left the church. None of our Bishops/Popes say anything negative about EO. We recognize them as Orthodox.

[@consciouslyaware240]

@@MrEgyPete that’s because of ecumenism. Doesn’t make it correct and doesn’t make it right and no, we do not want to unite with you. We want to keep our faith that Christ handed down to us. You’re welcome to come over here, but we’re staying true to Christ and Holy Tradition.

[@achilleuspetreas3828]

@@MrEgyPete unification EFFORTS, not union. They're doing that with Roman Catholics as well, what's your point? We don't recognize each other as having the same faith and history says that clear as day. Only modern ecumenists claim we are the same. The concensus of our saints, which is what matters in our Church, do not agree with the Oriental Orthodox; THOSE are the facts. We don't celebrate your saints anywhere and you don't celebrate ours. We love our Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, and Ethiopean brothers and you are our only brothers imo but the fact remains that we are different churches. If we were the same, we wouldn't both have our own separate Patriarchs in Alexandria and Antioch.

[@MrEgyPete]

@@achilleuspetreas3828 did you read the statement of faith of 1990? You celebrate many of our saints, and on top of them St Cyril who formulated the Christology. You can read the documents and make up your mind.

[@garabedfakrajian5149]

With all due respect and love, Father, we as Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single will. We always teach that Christ was fully human and fully divine. This includes a fully divine will and a fully human will without sin. This was confirmed in many discussions amongst EO and OO churches. My source of knowledge to evaluate the EO Church must be the EO Church. The same goes for OO. It is unreasonable to rely on other sources. I am against any superficial unification. Therefore, we need to listen to each other so that we can understand what the other truly believes. Only then do we have a clear position. (This is a very delicate topic, and I apologise for any misrepresentation as a result of my words failing me)

[@peterkaladius6718]

EXACTLY .. thank you!

[@EMR17A]

Abo tebarek! You are magnificent! We desperately need such kind of great spiritual!brilliancy

[@henokhabtu6386]

So do you accept two natures of Jesus Christ as the Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxies?

[@tsegawminyilshewa2052]

@@henokhabtu6386 ምንም ሳይሰማ እኮ ነው 🤣🤣

[@isaac1965]

Peace and Grace When Rome and Constantinople split in 1054 over the “ Filioque” - I hope I wrote it right - Was there an Ecumenical Council ? Thank you

[@logangriffith4950]

Hello from south carolina

[@farida.5766]

According to the 1990s Joint Commission agreement the chalcedonian and nonchalcedonian views are in agreement in meaning: “It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father Who in these last days became a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.”

[@Tanya-tb8ir]

Thank you who signed this 1990 letter? All EO churches seem like they never heard about it

[@farida.5766]

@@Tanya-tb8ir Members of the Joint Commission included official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.

[@farida.5766]

@@Tanya-tb8ir Members of the Joint Commission included official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.

[@farida.5766]

@@Tanya-tb8ir Members of the Joint Commission included official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.

[@farida.5766]

Members of the Joint Commission included official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.

[@Tanya-tb8ir]

Jesus is not schizophrenic he is one pan nature fully human fully Devine without mingling , confusion or change . Not a divinity that devoured humanity and not a humanity that devoured divinity. It is clear that it is not a matter of difference in faith it is just pure pride and lack of will for unity.

[@TesfalemMekonen]

Our beloved brothers. I don't understand why in this days people assumes that oriental orthodox teaching is Monophysite. Its Miaphysite not mono.

[@jay2yosi]

As an Oriental Orthodox, I watched it very focused. As far as I learned from other none biased theologians, both churches difference is: "Of Two Nature (Miaphysite) - Oriental Orthodox" " In Two Nature (Dyophysite) - Easter Orthodox" Rather than working for the better good of both churches' unity, Fr. John was biased in his analysis.

[@Loyler_1-1]

So? The “Eastern Orthodox” don’t even accept Miaphysitism. Us, (Oriental) Orthodox simply saying “we’re not monophsyites, but Mia” is not sufficient, since they deny the faith of the third ecumenical council, that Christ our God is the Divine Word of God, Who assumed a human nature and made it one with His divinity, thus one nature after the union.

[@Loyler_1-1]

@@jay2yosi The elder in this video will of course be biased since he belongs to his sect. The better good of the Church is that they embrace Orthodoxy. We say of two natures, meaning they’re united and one. The Chalcedonians deny the unity and are stuck in the dark days of the old.

[@TesfalemMekonen]

@@jay2yosi I can't agree more. Fr John have made wrong assumption and analysis. He wasn't even sure what actually oriental believe. Of two nature doesn't mean Monophysite.

[@jay2yosi]

@@Loyler_1-1 I know why he is biased. I totally understood his biased attitude. What makes his analysis worse is that he called Oriental heretical (old time religious politics of the old days). Anyways, better to move on and focus on the teachings of the Lord Jesus.

[@user-ht3bo1us4j]

Thank you for explaining two natures one well that explains the division and the schism that is there and if that is what they believe God had Jesus had two will he had a human will and a divine will but he subjected that human to the divine will you understand I have been a protestant/Pentecostal for my whole life basically my first day in church with when I was 10 days old and I never heard that before after I started exploring orthodoxy I just assumed that Christ had two natures and that was the end of it. Thank you for clearing that up.

[@TheGhost13512]

We do not say that God has one nature. We believe that God has two natures, the nature of the body and the divinity. I do not know where that concept about us came from. I believe that in the last council a misunderstanding occurred. It is not safer. We believe in two natures. God is like you.

[@themanwithdahelmet-ww8lr]

Tell me why in greek orthodox in Sydney deaconess are deployed alongside deacons on the main choir bench, not congregation?

[@UtopiaPictures]

I am an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian and I been following this channel and other Eastern Orthodox teachings but this Priests statements just made me wonder may be I should stay on my own side of the fence!

[@jay2yosi]

Did you notice that this father sees Orientals Orthodox as heresy. Rather than working for the better good of both churches' unity, he was biased in his analysis.

[@andys3035]

He wasn't biased, he was just stating facts. The decision to heal the schism is through an Ecumenical Council, not this priest. ​@jay2yosi

[@bradleyperry1735]

@@jay2yosiThis is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[@Blindguardianfan1998]

​@@jay2yosi because they are in error

[@blahblah4129]

Eastern Orthodoxy (I.e., Russia, Serbia) follow the early Christianity teachings to the tee. Everything else is a heresy, including Ethiopian and Coptic churches. Both Greek and Romanian Orthodox Churches need to return to fully following the Julian calendar.

[@6yHaP]

This father is so cool, i could listen to him in a much longer interview

[@alazarsamuel2795]

Ya , he is cool and he use to do coffee cup witchcraft before he became an arrogant EO paid priest 😂

[@6yHaP]

@@alazarsamuel2795 huh,what? i know what "coffee cup witchcraft" is as you call it, but it was never something profitable, anywhere in the world. also,why arrogant?

[@RaymondFelixFrancis]

As Christians our business is to show mercy, compassion and love, no matter what system we live under 🙏☦️♥️

[@tims5677]

I am Oriental Orthodox. WE ARE NOT MONOPHYSITES!!!!!! READ OUR FATHERS AND HYMNS, IT CANNOT BE CLEARER!

[@tigstabraha6476]

They know we’re not I feel like they purposely try to put us down just like the fathers back in the day did to St Cyril

[@killbill1175]

Sorry, but you're not.. You fall with the non- chalcedonians. ( Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian, Ethiopian,) All these churches don't recognize the 4th ecumenical council of 451. Non-Chalcedonian denominations reject the Christological Definition of Chalcedon (which asserted Dyophysitism), for varying reasons.

[@tims5677]

@@killbill1175 Yes we are non-Chalcedonian. I didnt deny that. But that doesnt mean we are monophysites. We are miaphysite as St. Cyril taught and is clearly shown in our fathers, hymns, and liturgy, and even Pre-Chalcedon fathers and the Bible itself. Anyone who calls us monophysites is ignorant of what we actually believe. Meanwhile Leo and Flavian sometimes said exactly the same thing Nestorius said.

[@christopheraaronbaker]

He said mia

[@geo-mj4gb]

​@@killbill1175 Why should we accept Chalceon when it contradicts Ephesus? Thats the whole point. We don't think Chalcdon is a valid Ecumenical council. If it was, as the three before it were, we would accept it. But it is not. Thus we don't. It is as simple as it gets.

[@fikirzelalem6521]

Everyone knows the truth about council of chalcedon. It was clearly political and embarrassing council all in all. All the truth in that "council" can be founded on the book of father Samuel V.C. the council of chalcedon re examined. Just because the easter Orthodox side has more number of sees and also the oriental side has few numbers of churches and also suffered and oppressed by the islamic movement, it doesn't make us any less. The fullness of the truth is in the truth church which is the oriental orthodox church!

[@myhb1219]

Eos don't have more sees.catholocs got 1 rome. Oriental orthodox got the legitimate sees of alexanderia and Antioch

[@alancaplotbozard]

FouRth fRom fRance 🇲🇫 Que Dieu vous bénisse

[@amirsad4113]

8th from Ethiopia GOD BLESS YOU

[@Loyler_1-1]

Brother or sister, you need to realise these are false Orthodox. They’re NOT Orthodox. They follow the heresy of the impious Leo, the Nestorian.

[@Loyler_1-1]

Brother or sister, you need to realise these are false Orthodox. They’re NOT Orthodox. They follow the heresy of the impious Leo, the Nestorian.

[@myhb1219]

Why are you blessing him?

[@koskara1314]

Father, this is true. We call it Φλυτζάνι . A relative of mine was told by the holy virgin theotokos to not do this….. ☦️❤️

[@chiukid]

Are the stumbling blocks less than the protestants who affirm up to the 6th council, do you think?

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

The stumbling block is at Chalcedon. Dividing Christ into 2 and stating that each nature performs what is proper to it is literally definition of stumbling at the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory.

[@chiukid]

@MinaDKSBMSB Thank you for the reminder! I suppose I had some people on my mind while I watched and started thinking of other things.

[@liquidh5226]

I was protestant (still am member of the Methodist Church) but to say protestants accept up to 6th council would be a stretch for few reasons: 1. So many protestant sects with so many differing beliefs. How does 1 represent the whole bunch? 2. Saying protestants "accept" up to 6th council is quite wrong because the church of Martin Luther accepts the use of icons. Just google! I'm quite sure Martin Luther can be considered a protestant :) 3. Some theology of protestants verge on Nestorianism (see Jay Dyer's argument against Penal Substitutionary atonement) 4. Alot of protestants do not know even the existence of ecumenical councils. They do not know about the Filioque controversy for instance. I didn't before exploring Orthodoxy as a catechumen. So, to say protestants accept up to 6th council is lip service really.

[@chiukid]

@@liquidh5226 I am speaking entirely on historic protestantism. (lots of the people called protestants are simply cultural Christians for sure) All historic protestants use icons and images didacticly but will not kiss, prostrate, or pray to them. They Also affirm up to the 6th council in their creeds and confessions. They recite the beliefs in their liturgy even today. I know because I have been to their churches and have studied their beliefs dilligently for 7 years now. I want to believe that we can come back together but I fear it is not so easy now. I really lament what could have been in ausburg/constantinople letters.

[@liquidh5226]

@chiukid Patriarch Jeremias II was under great pressure from Ottomans who conquered Constantinople a century earlier and was clearly in no mood to entertain the Lutherans on reapproachment with their Augsberg Confession (which to the former minds were heretical teachings). I'm afraid the boat has sailed centuries ago, my friend. It is up to present believers to choose wisely.

[@natnaelashebir7120]

What about the agreement reached recently between the two church to come together 🤔

[@Burtannia]

You mentioned that the Patriarch of Alexandria was not present at Calchedon. I am a huge believer in the government of the Church via councils as the Apostles enacted. My question is, how do we know when a council was sufficiently ecumenical to be binding? For example, the recent Council of Crete has been controversial since many claim that half of Orthodoxy was unrepresented. I would love to see a video diving further into the nature of ecumenical councils.

[@johnketema8880]

Look up the florilegium (quotes from church fathers) Ubi Petrus has compiled. Also, after Dioscorus was deposed, the next patriarch did accept the council

[@Burtannia]

@@johnketema8880 Thanks, will take a look!

[@NoeticInsight]

That recent council is a false council.

[@Burtannia]

@@NoeticInsight Could you expand on what makes it a false council? I've heard many people claim as such but I don't know what the requirements are for a council to be deemed valid.

[@user-yb4xo2vj9m]

@@Burtannia It’s not a false council but it isn’t an ecumenical council. It is merely a council, a gathering of many orthodox bishops to discuss issues etc. it is not a major council that will address new heresies as was the theme in the ecumenical councils.

[@Theoretically-ko6lr]

Glory to God ❤

[@BerhanuWoldesenbet-bq7wr]

Simple question for you , when you give this conversation is this your body or your soul talking? I am sure you would say I am talking .

[@evem620]

Yes yes, not body talking and soul talking 😂

[@d.o.7784]

What would be the main difference between them? I thought they are the same 🫣

[@isaac1965]

You are blessed. Enjoy what you have

[@jacobbaradaeus6250]

Abouna 😂

[@yenenehw]

Several Church Fathers, predating the Council of Chalcedon (451), affirmed the belief in "One nature after the union"(OO). ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - So just as everything is spoken of the one person, for ONE nature is recognized as existing after the union namely that of the Word incarnate. [Second Tome against Nestorius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do NOT divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “ONE incarnate nature of the Word.” [First Letter to Succensus 6] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and ONE is His nature since the Word has been made flesh. [Letter to Eulogius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely, it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is A SINGLE nature presented to our minds, the Incarnate Nature of The Word Himself. [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)]. ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into TWO after the union. [Letter 1] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Though your nature is ONE, its interpretations are many. There are narratives exalted, intermediate, and lowly. [Hymns on Faith 10:3] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. Two names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. [Hymns on the nativity 25.5] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Glory to that Hidden One, Who even with the mind cannot be felt at all by them that pry into Him; but by His graciousness was felt by the hand of man! The Nature that could not be touched, by His hands was bound and tied, by His feet was pierced and lifted up. Himself of His own will He embodied for them that took Him. [Hymns on the nativity of Christ in the Flesh] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are blended into ONE, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity. [Letter 101.5- 6, to Cledonius.] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead... For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods. For neither in this life are there two manhoods; ... And (if I am to speak concisely) the Saviour is made of elements which are distinct from one another (for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time), yet He is not two Persons. God forbid! For both natures are ONE by the combination, the Deity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it. [To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.)] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become A UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into a Divine being. The two natures compound into A UNIT; and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. [Oration 37.2.2] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - And since a question has also been mooted concerning the Divine Assumption of humanity, or Incarnation, state this also clearly to all concerning me, that I join in One the Son, who was begotten of the Father, and afterward of the Virgin Mary, and that I do not call Him two Sons, but worship Him as One and the same in undivided Godhead and honour. [Against Apollinarius; The Second Letter to Cledonius. (Ep. CII.)] ✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - So how could the unity be separated into a duality, since no numerical distinction can be made? [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria] ✝St. Ignatius: - There is ONE Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit, both made and not made, God in the flesh. true life in death, both of Mary and of God, at first suffering then incapable of suffering. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians; Chapter 7] ✝St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... He made it ONE with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. [Liturgy of St. Basil the great] ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life.... By the union of the two natures He is ONE entity comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity He lacked nothing of the other, so that He did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. [Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity] ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh…it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself… [Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. St. Hilary emphasized the complete divinity and humanity of Christ within a unified one nature and he further emphasized that it was Christ Himself who underwent death and subsequently Christ resurrected Himself from the dead. Leo of Chalcedon (EO) on the other hand presents a division within Christ depicting one aspect of Christ performing awe-inspiring miracles while another aspect endures suffering and humiliation. It is embarrassing to observe that the EO church embraces Leo's viewpoint, despite its similarities to Nestorianism. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Since God had assumed our weakness... God chose to die of His own will….[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. St. Hilary ascribes weakness and death to God; he does not state that it was Christ the man who took on our weakness and chose to die as Leo of Chalcedon (EO) declared. God does not possess weakness, weakness and death are attributes that pertain to created beings. However, St. Hilary declares that "God assumed our weakness and willingly chose to experience death." From a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept of one nature following the union, and that all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole & not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. Hence, although weakness, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of one nature following the union. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers states: -Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, since God died through the flesh. [Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this instance, St. Hilary did not express the notion that Christ the man was born, suffered, and died as Leo of Chalcedon (EO) expressed. Instead, he asserted that it was God who was born, suffered, and died. From a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one incarnate nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. In Jesus Christ, the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh. Hence, although the acts of being born, suffering, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will....[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. God does not experience suffering; however, St. Hilary attributed suffering to God. Even though suffering is inherent to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed it to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son, emphasizing the concept of one nature following the union.

[@MrRandomEgyptian]

The truth is 90% of Eastern or Oriental Orthodox people do not know what the difference is and may not even have the right theology of other topics. I would argue that no one has 100% correct theology, or else, we would not be enlightened when reading the church father's, we would also not have moments of repentance when getting to a more correct place. So maybe the better thing for the body of Christ is for us to love one another?

[@michellethrockmorton7233]

Thank you for sharing your beautiful testimony Father John.

[@wedi-set577]

I think the biggest roadblock to true communion is the issue of Saints!

[@crispyjitsu]

Second from bootah(Utah) !

[@Saint_nobody]

😂 Bootah. Imma hafta remember that. I know, ewtah, though. Much love.

[@orthodoxtewahido4853]

I have been following this channel for a while, and now it got me thinking maybe my foot is in the wrong door. How do you explain the incarnate nature of our Lord Christ in your explanation? By the way, I'm an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido believer. Im hoping you'll have more explanations to do in your future videos after you review some of the comments. God Bless.

[@johnketema8880]

Have you read St John of Damascus's exact exposition/on the Orthodox Faith? I have found his explanations very helpful

[@yousefsalib7609]

@@johnketema8880 John damacene teaches the divine hypostasis of the word had a new natures inserted into it, changing divine simplicity and mutilating the divinity of the word

[@johnketema8880]

@@yousefsalib7609 divine simplicity is only violated if you think the divine nature became composite. St John is clear that Christ remained simple in his divinity and became composite according to hypostasis. The Word remains the Word but also becomes flesh.

[@yousefsalib7609]

@@johnketema8880 the divine nature doesn’t become composite but exists as a part to a whole within the Orthodox model, you teach the human essence subsists enhypostastized in the middle of the divine hypostasis.

So which one is the one true church?

[@liquidh5226]

Great video. I'm currently a catechumen in Russian Orthodox Church. One thing that bothers me (ever so slightly) is that the Roman Catholics can use the same argument that we Eastern Orthodox have rejected their "ecumenical councils" and thus fallen off from the true faith. I clearly don't accept this argument because their ecumenical councils were held to make innovations to the original faith passed down to us by the Apostles (e.g. Filioque). But would there be a more concrete counter-argument here that we EOs can raise?

[@tonton586]

Very strong point. There is no concrete argument. The Coptic Orthodox Church is not “lost” and the proof is in the fruits. The Coptic church is not only the church of many saints, such as St. Anthony the Great, father of monasticism, but even in modern times is filled with miracles and martyrs and saints. St. Mary’s appearance in Zeitoun in the 70s is a prime example of God’s love of the Coptic church. In terms of doctrine, we say Christ’s nature is one nature out of two; He is fully man and fully God but we cannot separate His nature into two separate natures. You do not call a burning coal both fire and coal separately, but it is one burning coal. The same with Christ’s divinity and humanity. If you separate His nature, you allow for Nestorian belief to creep in. I am not claiming that is what the Eastern church believes in, but you can see the hesitation of St. Cyril to accept this council coming only 20 years after the council of Ephesus. May God bless your journey to orthodoxy!

[@liquidh5226]

@tonton586 Hey brother, St. Cyril died in 444 a couple of years before Chalcedon in 451. I have much respect for Coptic church. Not easy in Muslim majority Egypt. Just wanted to point out St Cyril's date of death here. So, who knows what the great Saint would have decided in Chalcedon.

[@tonton586]

@@liquidh5226 thanks for pointing this out! And thank you for your kind words, I am very proud of my Coptic heritage. I find it difficult to call our church “not part of the orthodox body” when there are so many modern saintly gems within it. While my knowledge of St. Cyril’s life is limited, Pope Cyril (Kyrillos) VI was a modern light that is a common name in every Coptic household. He worked countless miracles both in his lifetime and even after his death. If you’re looking for a good read, I’d recommend “A Silent Patriarch” by Fr. Daniel Fanous.

[@liquidh5226]

@tonton586 Hey, Coptic brother, we are very close. Don't get disheartened. The Orthodox world owes a great deal to St Cyril, amongst other Alexandrian saints. Let's pray to the Lord for schisms to heal.

[@tonton586]

@@liquidh5226 amen brother

[@Inquisitive_Martin]

If the Oriental Orthodox and by reasoning all other "Church's" outside the Eastern expression of faith are outside the true Church. Then the logical conclusion of this declaration would spell eternal damnation of those individual who exist and express outside the one true Church. Is this correct?

[@MrRandomEgyptian]

Church, in Greek, Ekklisía, is not a building or a bunch of documents and history.... It is an assembly of people called out for a purpose. To examine a church i would argue it is more important or accurate to examine the assembly of people and what they believe vs. what is documented. Ideally they are both in sync. This is not always the case. At the end of the day, whatever your denomination is, these are the words of Christ himself; "you will know them by their fruit", and "he who is not against us, is on our side". As God, is love, may God us loving eyes that are only cable of loving other people.

[@reactorhamster3323]

Oriental Orthodox do receive communion in the EO Church. There’s some agreements in Syria. It’s a confusing time.

[@jacobbaradaeus6250]

@reactorhamster3323 In Syria and Egypt as well. The Indian (Malankara) Orthodox and Romanian Orthodox (EO) synods also ratified intercommunion.

[@isaac1965]

This is the Oriental Orthodox Christology as we were taught in our Churches: Jesus Christ our Lord is the Son of God, fully divine. He is the Son of Man, fully human. His Divinity united with His Humanity a hypostatic union (as St. Cyril explained against nestorianism) without separation for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. This union is without mingling, without confusion, without mixture or alteration ( against Eutichus).

[@yordanosgebremariam6000]

I am oriental Orthodox from Ethiopia. We believe in miaphsyte christology. And no adding in our father teaching but you calcedonean add a new thing on the church but we continued as the church before chalcedonean❤

[@christinemanigian209]

Yes❤🙏

[@mihaelapuiu5673]

Fr. John Mahfouz este un bun teolog după teologia ortodoxa greacă.

[@josephology3290]

How about St Joseph: younger Virgin or old Widower?

[@JulianLife81]

Bravo. Great interview

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

Thank you for this interview and for the comments here. I was initial part of the group who believes that EO and OO have the same faith. Now I can see that actually we don't.

[@Kwakuthetravelerr]

I thank God the ancient church are rising in Jesus name we will be united in one name and move strongly

[@johnsambo9379]

I don't know if any of this true. I like to watch the videos though.

[@gelmallakh]

We both condemn the heresy of eutechus

[@gechopt8659]

We bless and take one flesh and blood of christ so christ is one paul is one we are also one by christ...

[@Loyler_1-1]

We don’t share one table and cup with these heretics

[@gechopt8659]

@@Loyler_1-1dear brother one is heretic for the other where do it stop for God mother sake?? so the thief came slaughtered many and took them Islam flourished through this process...how can we be strong if we quarrel in explanations is there any one who deny Jesus is God b/n us or died for our sin rise from dead in third day his blood and flesh is true blood and flesh of Our God Jesus Christ our baptism is for salvation of soul the other things can be solved with love in holy congregations of our bishops...

[@Saint_nobody]

*Mark 9:37-40*

[@michaelamir73]

The oriental orthodox narrative is so very similar but from the opposite side each side views themselves as the true church and that the others left and rejected the one body of christ the one holy catholic apostolic church.

[@matheusmotta1750]

The Holy Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was approved by the Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, (partly) Alexandria, (partly) Antioch and Jerusalem. Miaphysitism was accepted only by some of the clergy of Alexandria and Antioch, but not by the Universal Church. That's a testimony that the Miaphysites are not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[@Loyler_1-1]

All Christians are Miaphysites.

[@yousefsalib7609]

The council of Nicaea makes reference to only 3 apostolic sees in canon 6, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Oriental Orthodoxy has both the canonical chairs of Alexandria and Antioch. You should watch lions den, it’s talked about more in depth on the streams 5here

[@bradleyperry1735]

@@yousefsalib7609This is untrue.

[@yousefsalib7609]

@@bradleyperry1735 ask fr. Google for canon 6 of Nicaea if you don’t believe me.

[@bradleyperry1735]

@@yousefsalib7609 No.

[@mihaelapuiu5673]

Grecii sunt cei mai buni teologi ortodocși din lume. Credința lor este singura adevărata.

[@gabrielgabriel5177]

I am EO but i have followed Coptic Orthodox Church almost ten years and i have studied the issue of chalcedon and other theological differencies. I really feel that Holy Spirit in non chalcedonian Churches. Non chalcedonians are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Churh. They are the ones who follow teaching of st. Cyril, St. Ehpraim Syrian and others. I really want to convert to non chalcedonian Church but we dont have any near to me.

[@Calciu_83]

Love Fr John, he was the first Orthodox priest I ever met. This was an excellent and accurate video. I randomly met a nice Copt this morning, I saw an icon in his office and a conversation started. He knew people from my Greek Church in town and he said we are brothers. I didn't reply to the latter statement but we are different now as much as we are different then ( read "The Spiritual Meadow" by St John Moschos). The whole "We're Miaphysite not Monophysite" argument that many Orientals use doesn't somehow make the 1500+ year schism disappear. You still venerate people we consider heretics and vice versa, you're still non-Chalcedonians and there still needs to be repentance. St Paisios said it perfectly: "they (orientals) say that the holy fathers didn’t understand them. In other words, they talk as if they’re right, and the fathers misunderstood them.. So many divinely enlightened holy fathers who were there at the time didn’t understand them, took them the wrong way, and now we come along after so many centuries to correct the holy fathers? And they don’t take the miracle of Saint Euphemia into account? Did she misunderstand the heretics too?”

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

We don’t say that we are misunderstood. Please understand us perfectly in that our position is the only position that is true to Ephesus I and St. Cyril. Know well that we understand that we reject Chalcedon because it blasphemously attempted to overturn the Holy Spirit breathed dogma of Ephesus I and the Holy Spirit breathed judgements of Ephesus II. We don’t need your heresy. Also, the St. Euphemia lie your fathers fed you comes centuries after Chalcedon, is not mentioned anywhere near Chalcedon, and seems to be lost to the OO who also venerate her. Your Coptic friend calling you a brother was a mercy.

[@Calciu_83]

@@MinaDKSBMSB thank you for proving my point that we are so different than what ecumenist would like to believe.

[@anthonyp6055]

​@@Calciu_83I disagree. Reading Severus and St. Leo is like reading the same thing. Severus vehemently opposed Chalcedon yet I see seldom in his verbiage that opposes what we believe. A dejure opponent of Chalcedon but defacto expounded the essence/substance of what we believe. "We clearly see the hidden meaning which relates to the Cross: for the type denotes that the same One Christ suffered in the flesh but remained without suffering in that He is considered to be True God." - Patr. Severus Of Antioch "Accordingly, it is plain that the two goats signify the One Christ, and that the same suffered in the flesh, and, in that He is God, remained raised above sufferings." - Patr. Severus Of Antioch "And although the nature which is taken is one, and that which takes is another, yet these two diverse Natures come together into such close Union that it is One and the same Son Who says both that, as true Man, "He is less than the Father", and that, as True God, "He is equal with the Father"." - St. Leo The Great "The one is passible, the Other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the Glory." - St. Leo The Great

[@ksgurgui]

Nothing new here. Just another bigoted effort on part of the Eastern Orthodox Church to try and dismiss the truth by accusing us of something we are not. God forgive you father.

[@bradleyperry1735]

How is it bigotry?

[@Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture]

May the Orthodox Church remain strong by God and resist ecumenism.

[@adelrizkala7788]

Very nice video by Fr. John, but a point about the concept of two wills. Given the one nature of the incarnate Word (St. Cyril’s formula which both the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in), it is difficult to speak of two wills. Speaking of two wills in this context, which conceivably can be in opposition to each other, implies schizophrenia, which is impossible for Christ. So, as miaphesites, i.e., those believing in one nature of Christ after the union of the fully divine and fully human natures, we can not ascribe two wills to Christ. I also recommend to those interested to really research the Council of Chalcedon. If you do, you’ll find that it was conducted in a very politically charged atmosphere with the end already predetermined to excommunicate the Pope of Alexandria, who at the time wielded considerable prestige and authority on theological teaching, unlike the bishops of Rome and Constantinople who historically wielded political power and authority. As a side note, several years of dialogue between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches during the era of Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox of Alexandria have clarified that our understanding of Christ’s nature is consistent and some of the differences can be attributed to differences in understanding of terminology used at the time of the fourth ecumenical council (as well as other more political issues alluded to above). So, I understand that at the leadership level the differences about Christology has resolved. However, I also understand that it may take many decades until our brothers and sisters in the Eastern Orthodox Church accept this change and reverse the thinking that their church has been teaching them for centuries about the theology of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is the Church of St. Cyril, and all the Oriental Orthodox Churches. As for the issue about Theosis, I agree with the other comments about the Oriental Orthodox understanding of Theosis as St. Athanasios of Alexandria (another leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church) has taught it. Teachings of St. Gregory of Palmas changed the orthodox understanding of Theosis to an extreme, almost like how Eutyches, took the concept of one nature to an unacceptable extreme resulting in Monophysitism, which is also rejected by the Coptic Orthodox and other Oriental Orthodox Churches. I pray that God will give his Orthodox Church with both her wings love, patience, and humility to understand each other to pave the road to full unity. Thank you again for a nice video of Fr. John. I really enjoyed it. 😊❤️