I'm Coptic Orthodox

Peace be with you and lets pray for Christian Unity✝️🕊

God bless you

wendeme don't belive a word of this video watch "daniel kakish the lions den" keza yigebahal

If a thousand Schisms separates us, we are still brothers ✊

What do you think about communion with the bishop of Rome?

@@killianmiller6107 papal infallibility is heresay

@@killianmiller6107We are fine with it. Us Syriac Orthodox call him Baba actually meaning father

@@killianmiller6107 communion with Rome at this moment is a big NO. Their Pope is leaning towards embracing secularism.

How so?

@@XD_.. that is not true. Voice of reason is confused himself. A refutation video will be coming soon

@@kidus_1010 Please sent the refutation video on this thread as soon as it is made. Bro really did no research and proceeded to get every single Christology wrong 😭😭

@@Teddy-ke6xh -------------------------------------- 1/2 ---------------------------------------------- It is important to acknowledge that the EO Church at the Council of Chalcedon opted to adopted a new Christological formula introduced by Pope Leo of Rome. Consequently, the notion that the OO broke away from the Apostolic Church and need to go back is misleading. *_The EO cannot present any quote from a pre-Chalcedon Church father that advocates for the Two natures in Christ after the union. In my forthcoming post, I'll provide evidence to illustrate the contrary perspective._* I'll present a brief two-part response to address the above points. *✝THREE MAIN REASONS WE REJECT THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451AD):* ⛔Leo, the Bishop of Rome, stated in his Tome "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering": a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. The EO fathers deviated from the teachings of the pre-451 Church Fathers, such as St. Cyril the great, the two St. Gregories, St. Ephrem, St. Hilary,...etc., who advocated for the "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate" and instead, they accepted the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo and persisted to this day in Leo's Dyophysitism. St. Dioscorus, however, firmly rejected the Tome and remained steadfast in his adherence to St. Cyril's formulation of "One Nature of God the Incarnate Word." We’re aware that 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 and removed. 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 millennium (102 years) to rectify the errors of the 451 AD Council and finally excommunicate the two. *✝THE NATURE OF THIS UNION:* The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church's 's Miaphysite faith is based on St. Cyril of Alexandria's formula “One Nature of God the Word Incarnate." To say this could not possibly mean or entail mingling, merger or anything of that kind, how could it? If we call the only-begotten Son of God become incarnate and made man ‘one’, that does not mean he has been ‘mingled’, as the EO suppose; the Word’s nature has not transferred to the nature of the flesh or that of the flesh to that of the Word-no, while each element was seen to persist in its particular natural character, mysteriously and inexpressibly unified he displayed to us one nature (but as I said, incarnate nature) of the Son. ‘One’ is a term applied properly not only to basic single elements but to such composite entities as man compounded of soul and body. Soul and body are different kinds of thing and are not mutually consubstantial; yet united they constitute man’s single nature (One nature) despite the fact that the difference in nature of the elements brought into unity is present in the composite condition. Christ's 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). Isn't it ironic that, the EO venerate St. Cyril while simultaneously dismissing his teaching on the "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate"? 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. *✝AN ANALOGY OF UNION BETWEEN IRON AND FIRE:* The concept of the union between iron and fire has been exemplified by both St. Cyril the Great and St. Dioscorus. When we consider ignited iron, we do not assert the existence of two separate natures, namely iron and fire; instead, we’re presented with one composite united nature describe as an ignited iron. Similarly, when we discuss the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Incarnate God, we do not employ the phrase "God and man." In the union of iron and fire, neither the iron transforms into fire nor the fire into iron. The two elements are united without any mixture, confusion, or alteration. Our intention is to emphasize that once the iron is ignited with fire, it retains all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire simultaneously. Similarly, the nature of the Incarnate Word is One Nature, encompassing both the Divine characteristics and the human attributes. *✝AN ANALOGY OF UNION BETWEEN THE SOUL AND THE BODY:* The example of the union between the soul and the body has been utilized by esteemed theologians such as St. Cyril, St. Augustine, and numerous ancient and contemporary scholars. In this analogy, the essence of the soul united with the physical earthly nature of the body, resulting in 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 united without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation. *_Given our acceptance of the unity between the soul and the body within one nature, it raises a pertinent question: Why do we not embrace the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature?_* It is worth highlighting that the one nature we refer to as human nature contained before the unity two Natures: the soul and the body. However, *_the EO, who assert the existence of two natures in Christ (divine and human), do not mention the two natures of Christ's humanity, namely the soul and the body, but rather consider them as one nature._* By acknowledging the union of the soul and the body within one nature in Christ and employing this expression theologically, it becomes more feasible to use the term "One Nature of Christ" or "One Nature of God the Incarnate Word," as taught by St. Cyril. Though man is comprised of these two natures, we never proclaim him to be two, but rather one. All of man's actions are attributed to this one nature, not to the soul alone or to the body alone. Thus, when we intend to convey that a certain individual ate, felt hunger, slept, or experienced 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 or his soul. Similarly, all of Christ's actions were attributed to Him as a unified whole, not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature in isolation. *In my next post I'll quote pre-Chalcedon Church Fathers in support the OO.*

@@Teddy-ke6xh ​ --------------------------------- 2/2 --------------------------------------- As quoted below, several Church Fathers prior to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD affirmed their belief in the "One Incarnate Nature of Christ after the union," which aligns with the position held by the OO Church. ✝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. Cyril of Alexandria: - We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, *_not Two Natures to that One Son,_* One Nature worshipped the other unworshipped, but *_One Nature of God the Word Incarnate worshipped with His flesh with One worship_* nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are. [St. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: St. Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore] ✝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: - *_Glorious is the Wise One Who allied and joined Divinity with humanity, one from the height and the other from the depth. He mingled (united) the Natures like pigments and an image (One Nature) came into being: the God-Man._* [Hymns on Incarnation 8:2]. The concept presented by St. Ephrem, wherein the two natures unite to form the One he referred to as the God-Man, stands in direct opposition to the belief held by Leo's (EO) concept that maintains the two natures unite but then again remain distinct and separate after the union within one person referred to as God and Man. ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: And, if I am to speak concisely, the Savior is made of elements (natures) 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 (unity), 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 (one nature) composed of two elements (natures)._* For that which assumed and that which was assumed *_combine (united) into A Divine being. The two natures compound (unit) into A unit (One nature); 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: - 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 (natures) are blended (united) into One, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity._* [Letter 101.5-6, to Cledonius] ✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - *_So how could the unity be separated into a duality (two nature), since no numerical distinction can be made?_* [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria] ✝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. Basil stands in direct opposition to the belief held by Leo of Rome who at the council of Chalcedon stated, “Christ is two: God and man. ✝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]. Leo (EO) on the other hand presents a division within Christ depicting one aspect of Christ performing awe-inspiring miracles such as raising the dead while another aspect endures suffering and humiliation. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, God had assumed our weakness... God chose to die of His own will…. since God died through the flesh._* [Book IX On the Trinity]. Leo (EO) expressed that Christ the man was born, assumed our weakness, suffered, and died. But, according to the teachings of St. Hilary, 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 acts such as birth, suffering, death, and weakness are intrinsic to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son within the One Nature of the Incarnate Word. ✝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.

@@Teddy-ke6xh ​ --------------------------------- 2/2 --------------------------------------- As quoted below, several Church Fathers prior to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD affirmed their belief in the "One Incarnate Nature of Christ after the union," which aligns with the position held by the OO Church. ✝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. Cyril of Alexandria: - We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, *_not Two Natures to that One Son,_* One Nature worshipped the other unworshipped, but *_One Nature of God the Word Incarnate worshipped with His flesh with One worship_* nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are. [St. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: St. Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore] ✝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: - *_Glorious is the Wise One Who allied and joined Divinity with humanity, one from the height and the other from the depth. He mingled (united) the Natures like pigments and an image (One Nature) came into being: the God-Man._* [Hymns on Incarnation 8:2]. The concept presented by St. Ephrem, wherein the two natures unite to form the One he referred to as the God-Man, stands in direct opposition to the belief held by Leo's (EO) concept that maintains the two natures unite but then again remain distinct and separate after the union within one person referred to as God and Man. ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: And, if I am to speak concisely, the Savior is made of elements (natures) 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 (unity), 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 (one nature) composed of two elements (natures)._* For that which assumed and that which was assumed *_combine (united) into A Divine being. The two natures compound (unit) into A unit (One nature); 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: - 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 (natures) are blended (united) into One, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity._* [Letter 101.5-6, to Cledonius] ✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - *_So how could the unity be separated into a duality (two nature), since no numerical distinction can be made?_* [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria] ✝St. Basil the great: - In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart *_for He was One, but in thought we take into account the nature of each._* Peter had not two in his mind when he said, "Christ has suffered for us in the flesh." [The extant works of St. Basil - Dogmatic] ✝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. Basil stands in direct opposition to the belief held by Leo of Rome who at the council of Chalcedon stated, “Christ is two: God and man. ✝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]. Leo (EO) on the other hand presents a division within Christ depicting one aspect of Christ performing awe-inspiring miracles such as raising the dead while another aspect endures suffering and humiliation. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, God had assumed our weakness... God chose to die of His own will…. since God died through the flesh._* [Book IX On the Trinity]. Leo (EO) expressed that Christ the man was born, assumed our weakness, suffered, and died. But, according to the teachings of St. Hilary, 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 acts such as birth, suffering, death, and weakness are intrinsic to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son within the One Nature of the Incarnate Word. ✝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.

@@tysongames2750 brother he totally misrepresented our church and the issue surrounding the schism. Don’t be so quick to declare your support just because he did the bare minimum of recognizing that we’re not Eutycheans.

​@@kidus_1010How did he misrepresent us? 🤔

@@tysongames2750 For one thing, he says that we think the word physis means Person which is totally false. He then builds his argument around this error which then makes anything he says afterwords completely wrong and thus a misrepresentation of our position and of the events surrounding Chalcedon.

​@@kidus_1010 What does physis means for oriental orthodox then?

@@kidus_1010 i'm genuinely curious since i've looked into the schisms, but have no knowledge of the languages. what did voice of reason say wrong?

language barrier is completely irrelevant to the issue

Look into the harrowing of hell

Yes. Christ also saved all the righteous who were born before Christ. It shows in Ephesians 4:8-9 when He proclaimed the Gospel in the lower parts of the earth (known as Abraham’s Bosom or paradise where the righteous were waiting) and led the captive of captivity to heaven.

That concept of us all being the same is condemned by the Syriac Orthodox Church. Please learn your faith before blindly agreeing with others.

​@@kidus_1010 what do you mean? Arent we of same species? What's the point? There are "sub humans"?

@@rubemartur8239 where did I say anything about subhumans? Do you know what the church and the Bible says about heretics? You are not to have anything to do with them. Scripture is harsher than even I am being. If you contradict the faith of Ephesus and the saints, you cannot be a part of the fold.

May God bless you for spreading the Truth

That's just splitting hairs if you ask me. Getting bogged down in minutia.

@@eddardgreybeard that's not minutia at all. According to Ephesus 431, it was extremely pivotal, because number inherently carries the force of division. To say that Christ is a duality after the union is to say that there is division after the union. Some people think that Arianism, Sabellianism, and other early heresies were just splitting hairs, but to the Holy Church these were very important metaphysical heresies.

@@dioscoros The entire point of the hypostatic definition is Christ is one person with two natures, meaning Mary have birth to the entirety of Christ, not just his human nature and is rightly deserving of the title the mother of God. Everyone agrees Christ is one man and not two. This is minutia. I absolutely agree that this is a language issue, were arguing about the sand and lost sight of the beach.

@@eddardgreybeard wrong, in the writings of St Cyril and the Ephesus 431 fathers, they speak about how the hypostatic union is a union of 2 hypostases into 1 hypostasis, which union abolishes us speaking of duality. I do, of course, agree that St Mary gave birth to the whole Christ and not just half of Christ, but if we were to entertain the erroneous Dyophysite paradigm, this would mean that St Mary gave birth to 2 natures, which means she gave birth to the human nature and to the divine nature. This will reduce in many absurdities, unless we accept that there is 1 nature/hypostasis from 2 natures/hypostases, the union abolishing all duality of the parts.

@@stephenler3850 it was actually a terrible explanation because almost everything he said was straight up false or he ignored the most significant things

This! 👏

@@Miguel-gx1so there will be no union in our lifetimes because the issue is deeper than what he tried to present it as in this video. He is speaking from ignorance

What he described is not what caused the schism. Voice of Reason is ignorant on this topic.

Tell me more about the prayer groups on hallow

@@shlamallama6433its actually an evil app! Its very broad and supports false religions. Look into it and whos funding it

What did Luther give you that God could not?

Lutheran..??why?… come back home.

You left Jesus in the Eucharist.

Also interested in why you went Lutheran.

@@PatrickSteil I did not agree with some of the things in doctorine of catholic church. And I also had cultural problems with them. Plus, lutheran theology is way better for me, cuz It's simple and true

It was an out of context clip. Reason and theology clarified because it was actually out of context

@@danis4157 many Catholics today are realizing that they actually agree with the things Nestorius said so they are now backtracking and claiming he was misrepresented by St. Cyril. Obviously this would mean the ecumenical council of Ephesus supposedly led by the Holy Spirit was wrong in condemning his Christology which would in turn make the Papist church false.

@@RJDJ__ where

@@danis4157 it was on his instagram a while ago like 1 or 2 months ago

Alex doesn’t know anything. He completely misrepresented the OO position

Net.God just cleared him actually

Catholic

Catholic

Oriental

OO is the Truth.. Study Church History

@@Teddy-ke6xh bro yall still live in the fifth century, meanwhile the Catholic Church have evangelize and baptized the world

Formerly Methodist, Catholic revert. Also in DFW area :)

@@PatrickSteil You weren't Methodist then

@@jesusholy4344 What in the world does that mean? lol

@@PatrickSteil You were just Methodist because your parents are Methodist

You are in wrong church my bro

Well, as a start, you can make sure that everyone understands that sin is not a something. Instead, sin is a withholding of a something that should be there, such as love, or trust, or obedience, or knowing God as a greater good than the thing that I turn to instead of God. In turn, sin diminishes the sinner's ability to engage with reality, in any and actually in several of many senses. From there, you can make sure that everyone understands that grace is God's supply of His own goodness and faithfulness and love to someone who needs it, has no claim to it, and cannot do anything without it. From there, you can point out that this grace must be freely received. The degree of reception of grace is commensurate with the freedom and the fullness of that reception. From there, you can show that sin diminishes the ability of the sinner to receive grace. From there, you can show that a diminished ability of a sinner to receive grace diminishes the degree of grace the sinner is able to receive, relative to his initial potential. From there, you can show that a sinner cannot be full of grace. From there, you can show that Mary, who is declared to be full of grace, must be without sin.

@@gregorybarrett4998 Thank you! This is very helpful! God bless

@@AlwaysCatholic Oh, I'm glad, Always. And I hope it proves as helpful to your dialogue partners as you find it. God bless you.

Precisely. Also, this guy completely misrepresented our Faith. He made it sound like we don't believe Christ is only one nature from two natures, when it is absolutely the case that our profession is that there is only one nature after the union of 2 natures. It is all throughout our patristics in Ephesus 431 and after Chalcedon 451.

Exactly

I have done the research. And sorry, I don't think there's a fundamental difference. When I read Oriental Orthodox writings on Christology, the only thing I disagree with is their misconception of Chalcedonian Christology. 🤷🏽

@@junicornplays980 did you know that Oriental Orthodox teach that the union of Christ consists out of 2 hypostases specifically? That's a tenant that many Chalcedonians openly disagree with. There are 3 hypostases of the Trinity, and we say that 1 of these hypostases (the Logos) composes Himself with the human hypostasis taken from St Mary. These 2 unite into 1 composite hypostasis, and all duality whatsoever is abolished.

@@dioscoros Hmm, that doesn't sound right. I've been in this situation plenty of times, were Oriental Orthodox give conflicting information on what they believe. The Coptic Orthodox Answers channel just came out with an excellent video about what they believe and that's who I'll listen to.

The church fathers taught the filioque, Dwong videos is the best on this issue out their

@@gunshotlagoon922 with respect, we OO do not feel the same way about the controversy because Voice of Reason has completely misrepresented us. There is a substantial difference in our Christology and they are not compatible.

Basically the Athos communion is oppose to communion as they feel inter alia that a 1600 years split cannot be resolved in a couple of years

@@mspme19 So Jesus can forgive a thief on the Cross immediately but we can not humble ourselves and forgive each other unifying His Church?

@@MrAwak3tbf youre comparing an infallible person to fallible human beings.

@@meina0614 I guess you’re right but that was not my intention. I was trying to use Christ’s example and show it’s not being followed.

@@mspme19I am an Eastern Orthodox and honestly I would have to tell you that we are always the reactionary ones to the point of being childishly stubborn, rigorous and obstinate to the very extreme. I have almost never ever heard a Catholic say anything harshly against us but the Eastern Orthodox will hurl insults upon insults on the Catholic. Mostly the young men, the hot heads. On the other hand I have been to Athos twice, we had Catholics with us and they weren't treated very differently. Mind you, it's best to not have a T-shirt with the papal insignia on. In essence, if everybody just calms down and stop chasing our own tails we can all have a charitable discussion. In today's culture on the internet everything seems to be at war with something else. Crete 2016 made us look really bad because all could not show unity, not even sit down at the same table. That's a childish way for men to behave.

Why would he waste his time on that lying heretic

Look brother, I'm a Copt too, and I get that, but that's not where this guy is going with this video. It was actually a very pro-Oriental video and one I think we should appreciate. At least it's a step in the right direction. I get your frustration, but we can't move towards unity if we only focus on what divides us 😕. God bless.

@@tysongames2750 it’s not pro-Orthodox. he mischaracterizes our position, mischaracterizes the position of the Assyrian Church of the East, all to push a false narrative that we share the same christology. Nothing is wrong with ecumenical dialogue, but no dialogue is going to be successful if we just ignore our differences. The christology of Ephesus, which has been preserved in the Oriental Orthodox Church, is not the same christology that was professed at Chalcedon, and that needs to be addressed.

just to be clear the agreed statements were not meant to be a rejection of Chalcedon it was understanding that the reason for their schism was due to a language barrier between OO and EO and it is still very difficult to come to unity saying '' you guys were wrong before ''. how will the EO accept that please do your own research don't just say what feels right for you✌

@@henokmarkos3124 Second Agreed Statement of 1990: The Oriental Orthodox agree that the [Eastern] Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone". The Tome of Leo: Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person … The faith we agreed to in 1990 was not the faith that was accepted at Chalcedon.

Very informative to read I usually see the Nestorian position get butchered and people then go on “so there’s 4 in the trinity?” And creates confusion without need. You should make video essays 🙏

False. There’s evidence from at least the fifth century of them having contact with both Antioch and Alexandria.

Break off due to confusion. Priests can’t bless the union, only individuals.

@@Songmyz it’s not due to confusion. Individuals coming together to receive a union from a priest is not substantially different than the priest blessing the union. Additionally, why would such a statement even need to be made or written by the Pope since nobody has ever denied that a priest can bless a man who struggles with same sex attractions.

One nature is heresy. He was already one nature before his incarnation

Believing in monothelitism (1 will) is rejected by both all of the churches including the Oriental Orthodox.

Actually that's incorrect. The Syriac "parsopa" means person. The Syriac word for hypostasis is "qnuma" and for nature is "kyana". So physis in the oriental sense is person and not hypostasis. However, that was not the issue of the split. The split was due to the chalcedonian statement that Christ has two kyane (natures) rather than one nature where the divine and human natures are fully united

@@mspme19 I think you’re confusing Syriac and Greek because I’m not really seeing the relation in what you said. Physis is a very ambiguous word that can be used to mean different things but nobody in history has ever used it to mean person. That is why Nestorius when he said Christ is in two hypostases he’s actually saying He’s in two natures (physis) and not two persons.

@@mspme19kyana and physis means an individuated essence. Physis does not mean parsopa/prosopon as this would imply Cyril believed in a prosopoic union.

I hope he listens to the truth from God (Scriptures), not just by NeedGod as a person. NeedGod is just an instrument to speak forth the truth which is the Bible.

@@jwong5682 Jesus gave us the church so it could be the normative authority here on earth. Without it, anyone can interpret the bible for themselves and it creates division just like it has with many different denominations. If individuals that are baptists, oness pentecostals, and mormons, all claim to interpret the bible because they have the holy spirit, they are wrong because they all contradict each other.

Sweet dreams you seem to have. 😅

@@Philosophy.T With God all things are possible.

@@jaymoret7418 well, there is no possibility of us acknowledging the Pope as infallible. We never did in history, and will never do so. The primacy of honour is all throughout the councils that is no issue. Infallibility, never. As for Christology, there is a difference, and Chalcedon for us is non-negotiably always rejected. Or we may press, why not accept Ephesus II? Why us to Chalcedon?

@@Philosophy.T I understand you have your reasons. I believe you think they're justifiable. It seems as though you've replaced your idea of papal infallibility with a different idea/form of infallibility that suits you and your church. I will refer you, and all Christians of good faith, to the Gospel of John. All "Christians" that talk of dis-unity with no intent of attempting re-unification seem to be going against Our Lord's wishes that we be one. This is why pride is the mother of all vices. But God can overcome this. It will take strong leadership on all sides and a desire to pursue Our Lord's wishes over ours. No talk of "winners" or "losers"...just Him. God Bless.

@@jaymoret7418 I am not against reunification at all. Rather I am in favour of it. But the problem is, there never was a time in our Syriac, Ethiopian, Coptic or any OO church that taught the infallibility of the Pope, thus the teaching isn't universal and we never acknowledged it, and for this reason alone (among other reasons) it doesn't apply to us to “submit to the Pope” So one thing if the Catholics don't want to contradict their dogma of the Pope is, they can say while the Pope in theory has all that, he can only exercise it in the RC's jurisdictions and leave the OO churches to their own exercise of their jurisdiction, thus without contradicting, having nominal infallibility, but only applicable to the RC jurisdictions in exercises. As for Christology, there is a real difference, the question is can we sort it out? Maybe, maybe not? God willing we may do so. I am not against a reunion, but I am against it if under the pretence of linguistics, as the video implied and many scholars did imply and even say explicitly all the time. And the other question is, for us since Ephesus II was before Chalcedon, and since we reject Chalcedon, and we accept Ephesus I and II, there is no possibility of us accepting the heretical Tome of Leo and Chalcedon, as all our theologians had said in the dialogues we had with RCC and EO. Even our previous St Pope Shenouda had said, that possibility is a closed case, no acceptance of Chalcedon. God bless.

@@kidus_1010 All you do is whine and complain and slander with no arguments or explanations behind your anger. Is that why you made a KZfaq account?

same here. im eastern Orthodox btw

Jesus built a Church upon Peter (Matthew 16:18) Ask Jesus why he built his own Church

If the dyophysite position is heretical, then how do you explain the 1988 Joint Statement on Christology signed by both the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church? If your position is correct, that means that the Coptic Orthodox Church affirmed a heretical Christology.

@@arucaneshurtugal1523 show me the documentation or something from this joint agreement that affirmed the doctrine of Miaphysite Christology to be synonymous with Dyophysite Christology. I promise you the Joint agreement was about something else.. or else we would reunite with the EO’s faster than the Catholics. No where does it say that the natures are the same. So we don’t believe in the Same thing.. we believe in the same aspects regarding to his humanity and divinity of Christ but not the same nature and until we can come into a resolution regarding that we will never reunite.

@@arucaneshurtugal1523 the Coptic Orthodox Church abandoned this agreement when the Roman Catholics turned around and agreed with the Assyrian Church of the East (classical Nestorians). The Pope of Alexandria who signed that, HH Pope Shenouda, had a more determined view of the fact that the Christologies are different toward the end of his service on Earth. The Coptic Orthodox refutation of Dyophysitism and the modern-day agreements is in "Christology and The Council of Chalcedon" by Father Shenouda Ishak, commissioned by the Pope of Alexandria.

@dioscoros Do you have an official statement of where the agreement was rejected? The most I can find online are statements that it is "threatened" by the 1994 joint statement with the Assyrian Church. Regardless, the 1994 statement confirms that "his divinity and his humanity are united in one person," which is clearly not the Nestorian heresy. There is nothing in the statement that should have cause the Copts to doubt that it was professing the same Christology that they had agreed to 6 years prior. In fact, it seems to me like the Copts rejected the Assyrian declaration that they held to "one person, two natures," which is the Chalcedonian formula (Chalcedon was later affirmed by the Assyrian Church) and is expressly affirmed in the 1994 statement, in favor of claiming that the Assyrians believed in a different "two persons" Christology and then imputed that Christology onto the Chalcedonian formula (which is, in fact, exactly what your explanation does by demanding that two natures means two persons). That's an illogical position. But you still haven't answered my question - if dyophysitism is a heresy, then surely you must condemn the Pope of Alexandria that signed that original 1988 joint statement right? As well as all the previous agreements from 1973 onwards. Even if they later changed their minds, you would have to hold that the entire Coptic Church cooperated with a heretical Christology for two decades.

@@arucaneshurtugal1523 bro respectfully, you have no clue what you’re talking about. Any joint statement means absolutely nothing as it’s purpose is to merely proclaim what we already have in common. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics can sign an agreement stating that there is 1 God and 1 Christ but that wouldn’t mean that all of a sudden the Roman Catholic church agrees with Arianism.

Don't be disrespectful brother, we are all Christians here.

Shut up heretic.

His response was really poor. He's saying things like Baptism is a work. Making it seem optional.

Thats nice brother but protestants teaches some wrong things so stay within the church that came from yhe Apostles the Orthodox and Catholic church