As a oriental orthodox i am glad that people know that we exist

@mattiaaccoto7862

6 ай бұрын

yes brother, and we pray for a full communion with you ❤️🇻🇦

@fatjoshua664

6 ай бұрын

@@mattiaaccoto7862 it is impossible for us to reconnect unfortunately due to language issues and different theology. So the only way to reconnect is that one side goes on the other

@iammannyy

5 ай бұрын

fr@@shkor321 😂

@keya3005

5 ай бұрын

@@shkor321me too 😭

@liquidh5226

5 ай бұрын

Of course we know. One day will be in communion again hopefully.

As an Oriental Orthodox, I want to thank you so much for your thorough explanation of this schism. What an unfortunate turn of events that have lead to division for over the past 1500 years. Please pray for unity. God bless! 🙏

Here a proud Oriental orthodox chrstian from ethiopian i watch many videos but our eastern brothers always judge us by falsifying Thanks😊 T

Thank you for creating contents like this. I'm a Filipino Catholic. I am very inspired by your videos. May God bless your works and guide you always.

I have Coptic background (Catholic) so thanks so much for sharing this! Miaphysite all the way!

@liquidh5226

5 ай бұрын

Mia or Dyo... 1 nature being fully human and fully divine at same time or 2 natures being divine and human at the same time but separate.... I must not propagate heresy but my limited brains cannot split hairs here. But I still think duo makes abit more sense.

@higgs5528

2 ай бұрын

@@liquidh5226 Miaphysitism(The doctrine of Oriental Orthodoxy) does not preach 1 nature being fully God and Man. It actually preaches 2 natures both human and Devine unified in a in an unmixed and unconfused manner with a singular person, Christ. The teaching of only one nature is called Monophysitism and is not recognized as a doctrine in Oriental Orthodoxy. The difference between the Orientals Miaphysitism and Eastern's Dyophysitism is really that Miaphysitism preaches 2 natures unified and one person while dyophysitism preaches 2 natures that are not simultaneous yet unified. If you study it deeper you will realize that the schism was a matter of misunderstanding and not really a difference worth division. Both doctrines lead to Jesus being fully God yet fully human and a single person, the second person of the trinity. His humanity not contradicting his divinity.

@liquidh5226

2 ай бұрын

@higgs5528 I'm not learned enough to really affirm or deny, but I'm actually inclined to believe what you just said. Language difference and misunderstanding essentially. Even Nestorius vehemently denied the Two Sons doctrine, but alas technical language used by him tended to suggest to others what he was denying. Let's hope Oriental and Eastern Orthodox would overcome the schism some day.

@liquidh5226

2 ай бұрын

@higgs5528 Not sure what you mean by "not simultaneous" though.

I’m a Protestant but I’m very interested in Catholicism, what would you suggest I read or learn to have a good understanding of Catholicism. I’m not becoming Catholic but catholics are so misrepresented and slandered I want to be able to defend it even if I disagree. God bless brother

@VoiceOfReason_

Жыл бұрын

God bless you and thank you for your great charity and desire for truth 🙏🏽 read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, my friend! No better place to start than with that.

@henrybayard6574

Жыл бұрын

There are several KZread personalities you can view including: catholic truth, Trent Horn, reason and theology, Jimmy Akin and Brant pitre. They can give you some excellent insight into the catholic church and its teachings. Hope that helps

@CyboticYT

Жыл бұрын

I feel you with that last sentence. As a fellow Protestant, I sometimes try to explain how Catholics don't worship Mary and what Theotokos means.

@jessidiaz1891

Жыл бұрын

Read The Case for Catholicism by Trent Horn

@GospelDriven

Жыл бұрын

Thank you all for your suggestions

This was so wonderfully put, thanks from a fellow oriental Syrian Orthodox christian out of India. True on the partial communion reached mainly out of Vatican 2, its interesting to note the Catholics out of India (specifically Kerala) are in really good relations and communion with Oriental orthodox Christian community in India, so much so inter church mareiages dont even need a bishops dispensation.

Wassup brother here from TikTok, fan of your work spreading awareness and knowledge on our beautiful Catholic faith

Thank you brotherfor the clear clarification on the Schism

I thank you very much for the Video and the explainetion much love from an oriental orthodox ❤

Χριστός Ανέστη my brother in Christ im so happy and blessed who god gave me the opportunity to found yesterday your channel finally i learned without BS the sad reasons of the schism god bless from an orthodox brother. Is killing me orthodox and catholics we divided because in those dark and scary years we leaving we need our faith more than ever.

@keya3005

5 ай бұрын

Xristos Anesti 🗣️ anen

@XPISTOS-ANESTH

5 ай бұрын

@@keya3005 alithos o kirios amen 🙏🙏🙏

@WaybetterthanBron23

Ай бұрын

Schlomo A’Laykum. Yes we are different but we both believe in the Lord Jesus. That’s the most important. As long as Christians don’t battle each other we will make it through these dark times

What a great video ❤❤

I'm Oriental Orthodox, and I appreciate the sentiment, but there is a lot here being ignored. First, you seem to miss Ephesus II, or what Pope Leo called the 'Robber's Synod', which is EXTREMELY relevant to the politics of Chalcedon, as well as the fact that Pope Dioscorus (the Coptic patriarch) was deposed solely for being too ill to attend the later convenings. What you did get right, is that the Oriental Orthodox theology is considered orthodox by Chalcedonian definitions, as well as it being confirmed by Constantinople II, but there is a difference between the theology of the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians. It isn't just a different description of the same phenomenon, but just different christologies.

Hey I was wondering if you could make a video on current Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox relations. Because they view each other as heretical

@gottliebgrubber92

Жыл бұрын

The Roman Catholic (especially the Traditional Roman Catholics) view the Eastern Orthodox as Schismatics, not as heretics. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox view the Roman Catholic (Eastern Catholics included) as Heretics. That’s to put clarity to what’s going today between East and West Christiandom

@isi_eke

Жыл бұрын

​@Gottlieb Grübber why do they think we're heritics. Whats a schismatic*

@gottliebgrubber92

Жыл бұрын

@@isi_eke about the definition, just Google it up or find the a book that deals with Church Terminologies. well the why thing mostly because of Traditional view, which is common in every Tradition.

@catholicusmaan

11 ай бұрын

@@gottliebgrubber92No, we view them as heretical schismatics

@jimcampbell7675

9 ай бұрын

@@gottliebgrubber92 the Eastern Orthodox deny the filioque and papal infallibility, two irreformable Catholic dogmas. The postbaptismal denial of a dogma is called heresy. That doesn’t mean every EO is a formal heretic, but the Orthodox communion certainly holds to heretical beliefs. I’m not sure where you got the idea that we don’t consider that heresy.

Cheers, Alex! I've been keen to learn more about how the schism after Chalcedon happened for a while! There doesn't seem to be as much material on the topic as there is on the Great Schism. If you're open to other video ideas, would you perhaps consider one on what "utraquism" is and why it is a heresy? Thanks again, God Bless from Down Under!

Very good explanation. Very happy that I watched this . Question , Can a catholic receive the eucharist at a Oriental orthodox church ? I do hope there is reunion one day

Apart from the Oriental Orthodox, this is the first I've heard the _Three Chapters_ addressed... The Tome of Leo is also problematic to the OO, since it speaks of the Divine and Human natures of Christ acting independently, which is very difficult to reconcile with St. Cyril. The 5th Council was absolutely necessary; and this is how the Fathers responded when Ibas' letter was read before them: _"In the third place the letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, was brought forward for examination, and we found that it, too, should be read. When it was read immediately its impiety was manifest to all. And it was right to make the condemnation and anathematism of the aforesaid Three Chapters, as even to this time there had been some question on the subject. But because the defenders of these impious ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were scheming in some way or other to confirm these persons and their impiety, and were saving that this impious letter, which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and their impiety, had been received by the holy Council of Chalcedon we thought it necessary to shew that the holy synod was free of the impiety which was contained in that letter, that it might be clear that they who say such things do not do so with the favour of this holy council, but that through its name they may confirm their own impiety."_

Dioscorus knew greek and so did many of the egyptian and syriac fathers as it was still the lingua franca. They rejected Leo’s Tome because it could be interpreted as Nestorian. More importantly was the acceptance of the three chapters which were nestorian and the reinstatement of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa who were known nestorians or at least sympathetic to Nestorian’s theology.

Personally I love the Orthodox and their relationship to faith. Then their church are beautiful ahah. Being more serious I have protestant friends (evangelical for the most part), out of curiosity I went to see one of their services and I can't believe it. They don't sign themselves, they don't recite the Lord's Prayer, they sing and dance to contemporary music. I think we need to know how to pray for those we love and those we don't love enough. I pray for the Protestants, because I think you have gone astray. As a French Catholic, thank you for making this kind of video. Amen.

@felixnascimento7045

Ай бұрын

hello I was born as Easter Orthodox Growing up i didnt know anything about my faith All i knew were the traditions and things that people do in the church When i grew up i realized that a lot of people that hold to the tradition atually have no idea who Jesus is and what he has done They just go to hurch sing some hymns and do what you would consider regular worship in Orthodox church I got saved not by Orthodox church but by people like Eavngelial Protestants that planted the seed and led me to Jesus I attend a baptist church now and we do sing contemporary music but the point is we know who we prase not just by words or actions but we have a real relationship with God I would rather be with people that know and love Jesus personally then be with people following the traditions but not reading the bible or knowing anything about Jesus People think that God can only more through their church or commnunity but i am a living example how God saved me using anybody

I’m Syriac orthodox I love east orthodox and chatolics 3 different churches same Will !

Hi man just wanna say you’ve absolutely changed my view of Christianity entirely and am increasingly leaning towards going to become a Catholic, a massive hang up I have is the idea of purgatory in that we are disciplined into the purging of our remaining sins, my objection to that doctrine is how is the blood of Jesus not enough to wash away our sins and make us perfect once we die so we can enter heaven? How is Christ’s sacrifice not enough for us to enter heaven? Thanks so much!

@eduardo-bx4hw

Жыл бұрын

Nothing sinful can enter heaven. Jesus washes us of our mortal sins but its still human to fail so we go throught purgatory to purify ourselves and get rid of our desire for sin, and become sinless like Jesus

@rightinthedome9973

Жыл бұрын

He made a video on purgatory on this channel. Give it a watch. God bless and be not afraid.

@BubbaGradwell

Жыл бұрын

@@rightinthedome9973 I watched it and I’ve looked into other Catholic sources explaining it, I just have not seen any response to my exact objection which is, how is Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross not enough for us to go straight to heaven and wash away our sins with his blood which is why he even went up their in the first place.

@BubbaGradwell

Жыл бұрын

@@eduardo-bx4hw how is his blood not enough to purify us?

@jphillip_14

Жыл бұрын

Hi. I saw you TT comment so I came here😮. So did you look into the official catechism (idk if that’ll help but you should) But I’ll try to answer your Q….

✨✨✨✨👏👏👏👏

Hi , I am Catholic.Could you please help me with the interpretation of Colossians 2:18-22

In this day and age there is no reason why the breach shouldn’t be healed! Come on bishops let’s get this done! Enough already!

@aj9969

3 ай бұрын

The Chalcedonians have killed thousands of Orientals over the centuries.. all that bloodshed will take time to heal.. not to mention all the theological disagreements

It was a political move by the “Chalcedonies “ to go against the See of Mark . Chalcedon wasn’t a valid council because not all the bishops were there either

I humbly don’t know what is best to get us back into union. I do think with any orthodox reunion it will require the Pope taking a less active role acting more like a servant of servants but that is in the bible. Also the Filioque, perhaps we adopt, from the Father thru the Son? That seems to agree with both Christologies. Idk like I said I only pray that we unite and remain United because we have so many harmful viewpoints and ppl who persecute in this age, mostly secular and Islamic ideology and I believe we need to support one another. God bless.

The tome of Leo is Nestorian. To say two natures or two hypostasis is inherently Nestorian.

@lacagoveranyting4455

2 ай бұрын

Two hypostasis is 100% Nestorian. The tome of Leo did not preach that. Ibas and Theodoret, as well as Theodore, were anathemasied at constantinople II. Miaphysites believe the two natures are completely 100% distinct, but are more like sub-natures creating one whole nature. Sound familiar? Well that is Diaphytism.. Unfortunately St Cyril often interchanged physis (nature) and hypostasis, instead using ousia to refer to the two natures. Constantinople refered to physis as nature, instead of ousia. This shows there is no real distinction, simply a misusage of words. Both OO and EO have the same definition for the nature of Christ in English, but the Koine Greek is mixed up. Unfortunately because of the political competitivity between Alexandria and Constantinople, this was made to seem as a bigger problem than it was, with one side calling one Nestorian, and the other Monophysite (when neither was neither.). After the arrival of Islam, Communication between Constantinople and Alexandria became very difficult, so EO and OO have remained not in communion.

@lacagoveranyting4455

2 ай бұрын

Nature is the essence(ousia) NOT hypostasis. CHRIST HAS ONE HYPOSTASIS - Do not misinterpret the language used by St Cyril

@Corpoise0974

2 ай бұрын

@@lacagoveranyting4455 This is not the proper usage of how these terms are used for both OO and ACOE a hypostasis is the Concretely existing form of Ousiai. Concrete existence which sets apart all existing hypostasis into subsisting Individuals, and through the particularity of each hypostasis, we get a distinction between all hypostases. A nature can both be a Concrete (Hypostasis) or an Abstract (Ousia) Existence depending on context. So fo us there is one incarnite nature in Christ. "Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son" - St Cyril, Letter to Acacius "But who would be so misguided and stupid as to think that the divine nature of the Word had changed into something which formerly it was not? or that the flesh was changed by some kind of transformation into the nature of the Word himself? This is impossible. We say that there is one Son, and that he has one nature even when he is considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have already said, he has made the human element his own. And this is the way, not otherwise, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and man." - St Cyril of Alexandria, from On The Unity Of Christ, page 77

@Corpoise0974

2 ай бұрын

​@@lacagoveranyting4455Your theology is wrong that is not at all what we believe. KZread deletes keeps deleting my responses so you i cannot correct you. Also ACOE agrees with us Oriential Orthodox on the meaning of these terms. They come from aristotelian philosophy and you cannot change their definition.

@lacagoveranyting4455

2 ай бұрын

@@Corpoise0974 funny… Two non-Greek churches agreeing on terminology. You are a radical. Our theology is one and the same. Correct me. St Cyril interchanged nature and hypostasis. Used Ousia instead. We used Nature. Two compositions united into one hypostasis. No two persons, no separations. Perfect unison into one Person, one Son, one Word, part of the Trinity. Miaphytism=diaphytism. You have no argument. The fact you try create fabricated divisions existing 1600 years before you were born (for political gain) goes COMPLETELY against Christ teachings of unity especially considering we DO have the same Christology (as confirmed by Pope Tawadros) and we are both ORTHODOX sharing the same liturgical rites. Shame on you

i love my oriental orthodox brothers but monophysiticism is hersey

@DivineAegis02

16 күн бұрын

Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysite (Eutichian) we condemn that belief as heresy.

TL:DR OO chose miaphysitism in 451 and rejected the 4th ecumenical council , EO chose dyophysitism. So they schism in 451. Same church same teachings beside one thing, which is actually a heresy unfortunately, and not just semantics. I realized that dyophysitism is correct as someone who attends the Armenian Church. There doesn’t seem to be a good argument defending miaphysitism, when you apply it there comes the question “If the divine nature and human nature are one united, then what about the essence of the Father and the Holy Spirit, they are supposed to have the same essence or nature as Christ, but the Human and Divine are blended that cannot be the case. Would that mean the divine energy of the Father and Holy Spirit is also different than that of Jesus, because it’s one united nature, and the Father and Holy Spirit don’t have a human nature, so in turn since they are all different and all have a different divine nature, because Jesus’s divine nature is one therefore it cannot be the same as that of the Father and Spirit because they aren’t human, so since they all have a different nature they are then not the same one God, and you become a tritheist. This problem does not occur in dyophysitism since the natures are distinct.

Why didn’t the Orthodox Church rejoin the Catholic Church when they understood the mistake?

@finnharper5202

Жыл бұрын

because oriental orthodox are still nearer to eastern orthodoxy than roman catholicism

@finnharper5202

Жыл бұрын

@@kiroshakir7935 i mean papal infallibility is a core catholic doctrine that you oppose, you have a different life after death and the filioque is a pretty huge deal considering you have a different trinity to them.

@finnharper5202

Жыл бұрын

@@kiroshakir7935 i am eastern orthodox not catholic but i live in the west so have a developed understanding of catholic doctrine, do not worry i would never argue for papal infallibility. you having a different trinity, afterlife and completely different doctrine concerning your pope is quite a huge difference.

@finnharper5202

Жыл бұрын

@@kiroshakir7935 we take genesis literally but some believe that our theology is compatible with genesis on a deeper dive into the symbolism behind God’s actions however we do not debate wether he fashioned woman from man’s rib because he did. it’s essentially split into two parties being those believe that aspects of evolution are compatible but then there is a group that reject science in its entirety however they are i would guess i minority. i must infrom you i am but a catechumen however, approaching my baptism as i am i cannot help you too much with education on eastern orthodox holy mysteries in comparison to orientals as i myself have not participated in any yet

@yoadaadaoy1338

11 ай бұрын

@@kiroshakir7935when we use original sin we don’t view the same way the catholics do we just happen to use the same term are original sin is much closer to ancestral sin doctrine in Eastern Orthodoxy

Stop lying please I’m an oriental Orthodox Christian from Ethiopia and What you should have wrote on your thumb lane instead should have been The difference between the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church because the only difference between the two churches is only one thing and that is Our lord and our God Jesus Christ's nature that was caused on The council of Chalcedon in 451 AD because of heretical issues caused by Nestorian’s so That’s why we do not accept the Chalcedon council there fore we are non Chalcedon there fore we believe in Miaphysitism which is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the "Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one 'nature' (physis)."[2] It is a position held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches and differs from the Chalcedonian position that Jesus is one "person" (Greek: ὑπόστασις) in two "natures" (Greek: φύσεις), a divine nature and a human nature (Dyophysitism). and the Please try to read and understand more because you are talking off of something you don’t have no clue about The first thing is An oriental Orthodox Church are only 6 churches The Oriental Orthodox Churches are composed of six autocephalous churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (Jacobite Syrian Christian Church), the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.[1] They consider themselves to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission, and that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles. And they

@petermilo477

6 ай бұрын

Why would you go back to Rome when they are in heresy with the EOC and the EOC is in line with the OOC except for the human and divine nature of Christ.

@liquidh5226

5 ай бұрын

Why 1 nature being fully human and fully divine would be truer than 2 natures being human and divine at the same time?

@stevenirizarry9427

3 ай бұрын

@@liquidh5226does it really matter? They believe Christ is God and Man. The incarnation is a mystery, for any side to say they have the incarnation fully figured out seems prideful.

You guys may be try to understand oriental orthodox you got as wrong 😢😢

Chalcedonian Christology is not miaphysite. It is dyophysite. Dyophisitism is not Nestorianism.

@AssyrioChaldean

Жыл бұрын

Miaphtsitism and Dyophisitism are the same Christology just in different words

@adanho8310

Жыл бұрын

Myaphisitism The Faith of the Oriental Orthodox Churches Rather than using the wording established at the Council of Chalcedon (451) that Jesus is one "person" (in Greek ὑπόστασις hypostasis) in two "natures" (in Greek φύσεις physeis), a divine nature and a human nature, they hold that Jesus, the "Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one physis." retaining the characteristics of both after the union. Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature" ("physis"), without separation, without confusion, without alteration and without mixing where Christ is consubstantial with God the Father. Never mix it up with Monophysitism which is a Christological term derived from μόνος monos, "alone, solitary" and φύσις physis, meaning "nature". It is defined as "a doctrine that in the person of the incarnated Word there was only one nature-the divine". Miaphysitism is the official doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, who hold that the one hypostasis of Christ is fully divine and fully human, so that Christ became a real and perfect Man in body, mind, and soul without ever ceasing to be God.

@natej8888

9 ай бұрын

@@AssyrioChaldean not true

Sorry, I don’t believe the schism happened because of translation. The Churches all knew Greek and were fluent in it. Don’t forget they met for councils before and had a common language. The council of Chalcedon was not ecumenical and was later called ecumenical and it taught Nestorianism because Nestorian the former patriarch of Constantinople supported the council and the Christology it came up with from exile in Persia.

I hope they reunite

are you familiar with the dark souls series of video games? they are a series of roleplay games in which you are an underdog sort of character that is prophesied to become a new leader of where the games take place. in these games though, there are false gods that exist for the sole purpose of furthering the plot/lore of the games. (ie certain boss fights, items ingame that reference these gods) i like to play the games but i wonder if the existence of these false gods make these games not permissible in catholicism. does the bible say that i should not relate myself at all to these pagan deities even if they exist solely in ingame universes and are not meant to be worshipped literally?

@fatjoshua664

7 ай бұрын

It is fiction as long as you don't actually believe it is alright. I play bloodborne a game similar to dark souls and I just need to remember it's fiction and that's all it is

If only st cyril was alive during chalcedon the heretical eos wouldnt exist

Hoping some sort of reunification happens in my lifetime. If we all dont cooperate in 100 years if birthrates continue only Mormons, Amish and Ethiopians will be left in a world of Islam.

Egypt is in Afrika, NOT the so called middle east