Thank you, fathers, for this God-loving presentation which is very beneficial for us all. You need to be on the channel more times in the future, and more often!
Looooved what Fr.Kyrillos mentioned at the end. Aristotelian terms are secondary to the basic concept of Christianity. How can one discuss complex words, without understanding the ABC's of the Christian faith. This was wonderful! So happy to hear our beloved fathers speak here. 🙏🏼❤️
Lions den streams are always so impressive but this was on another level! Please do more collaborations with our wonderful clergy. Greatful to God to be alive in the diaspora in such a time where the internet can connect us together and teach us. I am particularly thankful for my English speaking Fathers who will hand down the true Faith unshaken and undiluted to us and our Children who may have lost contact with our mother tongue or nation, but not our Church. The passion of Fr Kyrillos and the humility Fr Anthony are the epitome of our Orthodox faith. Thank you fathers - may you live and teach us.
What an incredibly edifying discussion. I am always blown away by the humility, charity, and conviction that Coptic leadership shows. Hope to see many more appearances by Abouna Kyrillos and Abouna Anthony!
Wow ✝️✝️✝️ Now we really knows what really happened. Thanks Holy father's and humble archdeacon Daniel. LONG LIVE THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH AND PEOPLE. AMEN ✝️✝️✝️
tbh the best thing abt all of this was the interaction at the very beginning between the fathers themselves and between them and subdeacon, it is enough for me to see this to know the truth of faith, I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said that that interaction is more important than the whole video, it is that love that made st cyril send many letters to nestorious bfr anathematizing him and even after he did that he wrote in his letters that no one loves him as he did, it is that love that led st Dioscorus to not read the tome and condemn leo at the moment, and even in chalcedon he never attacked those who were attacking him, but God led them to disprove themselves from their own mouth, and our fathers learned that love from who other than christ who died for his love for mankind, and they along with all of our fathers and saints followed his lead and became martyrs of love if not by blood, God bless you all, subdeacon and fathers, and may yall live long to teach us more, pray for me.
Loved this collab. I just found this channel trying to find the truth to Orthodoxy, after being called heretical by an Eastern church. Also found you because of Sam Shamoun. This was beautiful. I would love for you to do more of these.
But that interruption around the 1 hour mark was such a nuisance 😒 you’d expect people to know when it’s appropriate to ask questions that are irrelevant to the topic
Dear brother Daniel I have seen ur videos they r amazing don’t stop and I am hopping that u would start a series of the Coptic Orthodox Church histories and some youth teachings… May God be with u.
Appreciate the effort may our Lord bless you and your service. But unfortunately there will be no unity till the church gets shaken to the core by a universal persecution that will bring us all to Christ and then we will have no comfort in the world and will have a great need to support each other as Christians.
@1:31:00 Theodoret's Critique of the 12th Anathema has standard cult rhetoric within it. I'm a crippled cult survivor. I know this strange fruit when I see it.
this is the genius of the ecumenical councils, correcting the mess of theodoret's messy critique, and simply defining what is the Catholic faith that has been handed down to the fathers assembled in an ecumenical council. it is then defined as dogma, a definition of faith that everyone must accept. there were only 3 patriarchal sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, because they were all established by St. Peter. it was for this reason that Rome never accepted Constantinople nor Jerusalem until they were elevated and recognized at the council of florence. the discussion boils down to a question of obedience to the will of God. although councils may be convoked by an emperor, it has no effect if it is not confirmed by the successor of Peter. just as God handed the tablets of the Law to Moses, so too does the Holy Spirit communicate with the Church in a definitive manner through the successors of St. Peter and ecumenical councils for the benefit of all believers. "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
You stated that "one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures." *_Basically, you've just declared that you acknowledge Christ in TWO natures after the Incarnation, implying the existence of Two distinct natures before and after the Incarnation._* I'm perplexed about what is united in Christ in your Christology? Contrastingly, St. Cyril, in his Second Tome against Nestorius, stated that so just as everything is spoken of the One person, *_for One Nature is recognized as existing after the union,_* specifically that of the Word Incarnate. St. Cyril's assertion contradicts your concept of acknowledging one and the same Christ in two natures after the Incarnation. Additionally, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his 1st Letter to Succensus 6, affirms that 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"._* St. Cyril's assertion again contradicts your concept of acknowledging one and the same Christ in two natures after the Incarnation. Finally. we do not describe Christ as God and Man, as you assert, but we express Him as *God as well as man,* or as *God at the same time Man* or as taught by St. Ephrem in Hymns on Incarnation 8:2, we say that He united the Natures like pigments, and an image emerged: *the God-Man.*
@@yenenehw a dogma is a definition. it was defined by an ecumenical council. that which is defined dogma can only be accepted by the church in the same manner christians accept the definitions given by nicea, constantinople, and ephesus. an example, as a form of analogy, of a definition is the parallel postulate in geometry. you simply accept this definition in order to make euclidian geometry work, otherwise subsequent theorems are not derivable. if you reject the the parallel postulate and try to make it work, then you create an entirely new geometry. try to let that logic sink in
@@yenenehw the definition of dogma should suffice, but to answer you more directly: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;" The Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, has only one nature, the divine God, before He was born of the Virgin Mary. After God the Son was born of the Virgin Mary and became man, He has two natures: God and man. the Messiah promised by God, Jesus Christ, is perfect God and perfect man, born without sin, and died without sin, and resurrected for our salvation, according to the scriptures. one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is the same Jesus Christ, God the Son, flesh and blood, soul, and divinity that you receive in communion. the saints no matter how holy they are do not guarantee truth. the Holy Spirit, speaking through the successor of St. Peter, and an ecumenical council, binds heaven and earth to guarantee what is true and what is to be accepted as the faith of the church.
@@jperez7893 Your Christology completely contradicts that of St. Cyril. The Christology you mentioned is primarily formulated by Leo, the Bishop of Rome, at the Council of Chalcedon and adopted by your church. Leo, whom you (EO and Roman Catholics) hold in veneration as a saint, asserted in his Tome that Christ is two: God and man, the one astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering. Below, I cite pre-Chalcedonian church fathers who opposed the belief that Christ is acknowledged in Two natures after the Incarnation. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Thus, *_God was born to take us into Himself, the Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will, 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. Though acts such as birth, suffering, death, and weakness are inherent 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: - 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. Cyril of Alexandria: - *_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: - 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. 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. 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. 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].
@@yenenehw I answered you very directly. the logic is impeccable. Leo and the ecumenical council of Chalcedon has defined a dogma. therefore, just as God handed Moses the tablets of the Law for men to believe without question, so too was Leo used by the Holy Spirit to define the dogma of Chalcedon that the church must believe without question. Like I said before, it is God Himself who ultimately defines what is the correct faith. God uses the successors of St. Peter acting in a council to define the faith. just as the Israelites, heard the voice of God from the mountain through the tablets of the Law handed by Moses, so too are you to hear the voice of God through the dogma handed by Leo through the council of Chalcedon. it is you who do not wish to listen and sit down to understand what is given to you by Leo and Chalcedon to believe.
Daniel, did you cover anything about Bishop Mar Mari? Orthodox friends keep calling him a Nestorian/heretic. Have you covered this topic at all? What is the conclusion?
@@SandraJM I don't think so - I haven't been active on Discord. If you watch our 8-part Sam Shamoun series, and general videos/livestream that mention "Ephesus" in the title, these are examples where we refute the Greeks as not being Orthodox.
One of the contexts of this letter is who the bishop of Alexandria was at the time, John I (not John Talaia around the same time), who was the first man to be chosen as bishop of Alexandria from among the monks. The choice of Dioscorus as one of the priests makes me wonder if this is the same Dioscorus would become Dioscorus II of Alexandria in 516. At this time also, Pope Anastasius II of Rome was known to be a man who sought peace and willing to discuss issues of the past. Sadly, his papacy was short-lived, and in fact the see of Rome would not even venerate him as saint. His death even lead to an internal schism in Rome. His memory would be tainted by calling him a traitor (although proponents of papal infallibility have been backtracking on this). Some people even believe that the Anastasius in the sixth circle of hell in Dante’s inferno was Pope Anastasius II of Rome. The other context is the Acacian schism as you briefly mentioned. The question during this time is can one allow veneration of Chalcedon and Leo without condemning the anti-Chalcedonians and their venerations, and vice versa. This is the same question asked by the Joint Commissions since the 1960s. It is a question that needs to be openly discussed, perhaps after we hash out our respective theologies. One wonders if Pope Anastasius II lived long enough, how this would have turned out for the Catholic Church. Finally, if one was to study Pope Leo, what is one to think of Augustine? As we know Augustine was the foundation of Orthodoxy for the West even until today. As much as Fr. John Romanides was hated for his extremist approach, perhaps he was on to something to try to approach Augustine, saintly as he may be, with skeptical lens of this theology. Not trying to condemn him, but to say perhaps some of his theology is not exemplary, and his use is probably what lead to a certain downfall in Rome, especially maybe in Christology, like with Pope Leo. How are we to discuss the Augustinian implications of Leo (especially since the Tome was written by one of Augustine’s staunch disciples) if we are to have fruitful honest and truthful dialogues. EDIT 30 minutes later: I forgot to mention, the possibility of mistranslation of the Tome of Leo was broached by Leo himself in his letter to the Palestinian monks (letter 124). It’s interesting how Alexandria is trying to give the benefit of the doubt concerning this. Perhaps, some of the Miaphysite monks in Palestine shared this letter to Alexandria later on to use this as a careful and sensitively diplomatic approach to discussions with Rome.
Thank you, fathers, for this God-loving presentation which is very beneficial for us all. You need to be on the channel more times in the future, and more often!
Thank you for this! God bless you!
Brilliant.... full of Truth, charity, wisdom and Orthodoxy... love you fathers and Daniel
Looooved what Fr.Kyrillos mentioned at the end. Aristotelian terms are secondary to the basic concept of Christianity. How can one discuss complex words, without understanding the ABC's of the Christian faith. This was wonderful! So happy to hear our beloved fathers speak here. 🙏🏼❤️
@The Lion's Den This was a real blessing, brother. I shed tears at the last paragraph. Pray for me!
Lions den streams are always so impressive but this was on another level!
Please do more collaborations with our wonderful clergy.
Greatful to God to be alive in the diaspora in such a time where the internet can connect us together and teach us. I am particularly thankful for my English speaking Fathers who will hand down the true Faith unshaken and undiluted to us and our Children who may have lost contact with our mother tongue or nation, but not our Church.
The passion of Fr Kyrillos and the humility Fr Anthony are the epitome of our Orthodox faith.
Thank you fathers - may you live and teach us.
What an incredibly edifying discussion. I am always blown away by the humility, charity, and conviction that Coptic leadership shows. Hope to see many more appearances by Abouna Kyrillos and Abouna Anthony!
Thank you Lord for our priests and fathers.
Love this collab between Lion's Den & clergy from Coptic answers! God willing more collabs are to come.
When Abouna said, “we remember Peter” 🥹
Wow ✝️✝️✝️ Now we really knows what really happened. Thanks Holy father's and humble archdeacon Daniel. LONG LIVE THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH AND PEOPLE. AMEN ✝️✝️✝️
Kakish is a prideful heretic
@@icxcnika3429
Lol.
How do you back this claim of heresy?
Go on...
tbh the best thing abt all of this was the interaction at the very beginning between the fathers themselves and between them and subdeacon, it is enough for me to see this to know the truth of faith, I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said that that interaction is more important than the whole video, it is that love that made st cyril send many letters to nestorious bfr anathematizing him and even after he did that he wrote in his letters that no one loves him as he did, it is that love that led st Dioscorus to not read the tome and condemn leo at the moment, and even in chalcedon he never attacked those who were attacking him, but God led them to disprove themselves from their own mouth, and our fathers learned that love from who other than christ who died for his love for mankind, and they along with all of our fathers and saints followed his lead and became martyrs of love if not by blood, God bless you all, subdeacon and fathers, and may yall live long to teach us more, pray for me.
Thank you, our fathers and sub deacon Daniel.❤
Loved this collab. I just found this channel trying to find the truth to Orthodoxy, after being called heretical by an Eastern church. Also found you because of Sam Shamoun. This was beautiful. I would love for you to do more of these.
Long awaited collab! God willing there is many more. 🙏❤
God bless you Abounas and Sub Dcn. Daniel! Blessed collaboration and God willing we will see more collaborations with clergy!
This session was amazing, im sad that I missed it live, but I’m looking forward to more content with these abounas
But that interruption around the 1 hour mark was such a nuisance 😒 you’d expect people to know when it’s appropriate to ask questions that are irrelevant to the topic
Great stream God bless you all! Can't wait for more!
Dear brother Daniel I have seen ur videos they r amazing don’t stop and I am hopping that u would start a series of the Coptic Orthodox Church histories and some youth teachings… May God be with u.
God bless❤ the COA collab was long awaited
thank you so much Daniel.
i love all ur videos but this is by far the best one! ik you’re all busy, but please do this as frequently as possible
Appreciate the effort may our Lord bless you and your service. But unfortunately there will be no unity till the church gets shaken to the core by a universal persecution that will bring us all to Christ and then we will have no comfort in the world and will have a great need to support each other as Christians.
I love yalls style of icons where can I buy some.
Great stream. Where can we find the letter? Which book is this in? Thanks again for this!
@1:31:00 Theodoret's Critique of the 12th Anathema has standard cult rhetoric within it.
I'm a crippled cult survivor. I know this strange fruit when I see it.
this is the genius of the ecumenical councils, correcting the mess of theodoret's messy critique, and simply defining what is the Catholic faith that has been handed down to the fathers assembled in an ecumenical council. it is then defined as dogma, a definition of faith that everyone must accept.
there were only 3 patriarchal sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, because they were all established by St. Peter. it was for this reason that Rome never accepted Constantinople nor Jerusalem until they were elevated and recognized at the council of florence.
the discussion boils down to a question of obedience to the will of God. although councils may be convoked by an emperor, it has no effect if it is not confirmed by the successor of Peter. just as God handed the tablets of the Law to Moses, so too does the Holy Spirit communicate with the Church in a definitive manner through the successors of St. Peter and ecumenical councils for the benefit of all believers.
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
You stated that "one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures." *_Basically, you've just declared that you acknowledge Christ in TWO natures after the Incarnation, implying the existence of Two distinct natures before and after the Incarnation._* I'm perplexed about what is united in Christ in your Christology?
Contrastingly, St. Cyril, in his Second Tome against Nestorius, stated that so just as everything is spoken of the One person, *_for One Nature is recognized as existing after the union,_* specifically that of the Word Incarnate. St. Cyril's assertion contradicts your concept of acknowledging one and the same Christ in two natures after the Incarnation. Additionally, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his 1st Letter to Succensus 6, affirms that 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"._* St. Cyril's assertion again contradicts your concept of acknowledging one and the same Christ in two natures after the Incarnation.
Finally. we do not describe Christ as God and Man, as you assert, but we express Him as *God as well as man,* or as *God at the same time Man* or as taught by St. Ephrem in Hymns on Incarnation 8:2, we say that He united the Natures like pigments, and an image emerged: *the God-Man.*
@@yenenehw a dogma is a definition. it was defined by an ecumenical council. that which is defined dogma can only be accepted by the church in the same manner christians accept the definitions given by nicea, constantinople, and ephesus.
an example, as a form of analogy, of a definition is the parallel postulate in geometry. you simply accept this definition in order to make euclidian geometry work, otherwise subsequent theorems are not derivable. if you reject the the parallel postulate and try to make it work, then you create an entirely new geometry. try to let that logic sink in
@@yenenehw the definition of dogma should suffice, but to answer you more directly:
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;"
The Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, has only one nature, the divine God, before He was born of the Virgin Mary.
After God the Son was born of the Virgin Mary and became man, He has two natures: God and man. the Messiah promised by God, Jesus Christ, is perfect God and perfect man, born without sin, and died without sin, and resurrected for our salvation, according to the scriptures. one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is the same Jesus Christ, God the Son, flesh and blood, soul, and divinity that you receive in communion.
the saints no matter how holy they are do not guarantee truth. the Holy Spirit, speaking through the successor of St. Peter, and an ecumenical council, binds heaven and earth to guarantee what is true and what is to be accepted as the faith of the church.
@@jperez7893 Your Christology completely contradicts that of St. Cyril. The Christology you mentioned is primarily formulated by Leo, the Bishop of Rome, at the Council of Chalcedon and adopted by your church. Leo, whom you (EO and Roman Catholics) hold in veneration as a saint, asserted in his Tome that Christ is two: God and man, the one astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering. Below, I cite pre-Chalcedonian church fathers who opposed the belief that Christ is acknowledged in Two natures after the Incarnation.
✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Thus, *_God was born to take us into Himself, the Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will, 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. Though acts such as birth, suffering, death, and weakness are inherent 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: - 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. Cyril of Alexandria: - *_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: - 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. 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. 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. 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].
@@yenenehw I answered you very directly. the logic is impeccable. Leo and the ecumenical council of Chalcedon has defined a dogma. therefore, just as God handed Moses the tablets of the Law for men to believe without question, so too was Leo used by the Holy Spirit to define the dogma of Chalcedon that the church must believe without question.
Like I said before, it is God Himself who ultimately defines what is the correct faith. God uses the successors of St. Peter acting in a council to define the faith.
just as the Israelites, heard the voice of God from the mountain through the tablets of the Law handed by Moses, so too are you to hear the voice of God through the dogma handed by Leo through the council of Chalcedon.
it is you who do not wish to listen and sit down to understand what is given to you by Leo and Chalcedon to believe.
Daniel, did you cover anything about Bishop Mar Mari? Orthodox friends keep calling him a Nestorian/heretic. Have you covered this topic at all? What is the conclusion?
He is excommunicated since 2014, and he also venerates Nestorius
We covered him months ago, showing that both Mari Emmanuel and all Chalcedonians (Greeks Russians etc) are Nestorian heretics.
@@dioscoros thank you! Is it you who been replying to my discord messages?
@@dioscoros also can you post the title of the video where you address this - specifically why the Greek Orthodox Church is heretical.🙏🏽
@@SandraJM I don't think so - I haven't been active on Discord. If you watch our 8-part Sam Shamoun series, and general videos/livestream that mention "Ephesus" in the title, these are examples where we refute the Greeks as not being Orthodox.
One of the contexts of this letter is who the bishop of Alexandria was at the time, John I (not John Talaia around the same time), who was the first man to be chosen as bishop of Alexandria from among the monks. The choice of Dioscorus as one of the priests makes me wonder if this is the same Dioscorus would become Dioscorus II of Alexandria in 516.
At this time also, Pope Anastasius II of Rome was known to be a man who sought peace and willing to discuss issues of the past. Sadly, his papacy was short-lived, and in fact the see of Rome would not even venerate him as saint. His death even lead to an internal schism in Rome. His memory would be tainted by calling him a traitor (although proponents of papal infallibility have been backtracking on this). Some people even believe that the Anastasius in the sixth circle of hell in Dante’s inferno was Pope Anastasius II of Rome.
The other context is the Acacian schism as you briefly mentioned. The question during this time is can one allow veneration of Chalcedon and Leo without condemning the anti-Chalcedonians and their venerations, and vice versa. This is the same question asked by the Joint Commissions since the 1960s. It is a question that needs to be openly discussed, perhaps after we hash out our respective theologies. One wonders if Pope Anastasius II lived long enough, how this would have turned out for the Catholic Church.
Finally, if one was to study Pope Leo, what is one to think of Augustine? As we know Augustine was the foundation of Orthodoxy for the West even until today. As much as Fr. John Romanides was hated for his extremist approach, perhaps he was on to something to try to approach Augustine, saintly as he may be, with skeptical lens of this theology. Not trying to condemn him, but to say perhaps some of his theology is not exemplary, and his use is probably what lead to a certain downfall in Rome, especially maybe in Christology, like with Pope Leo. How are we to discuss the Augustinian implications of Leo (especially since the Tome was written by one of Augustine’s staunch disciples) if we are to have fruitful honest and truthful dialogues.
EDIT 30 minutes later: I forgot to mention, the possibility of mistranslation of the Tome of Leo was broached by Leo himself in his letter to the Palestinian monks (letter 124). It’s interesting how Alexandria is trying to give the benefit of the doubt concerning this. Perhaps, some of the Miaphysite monks in Palestine shared this letter to Alexandria later on to use this as a careful and sensitively diplomatic approach to discussions with Rome.
A long journey to come home back to The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. We pray.
We are it Lol😊