@@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
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.
@@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.
@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.
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
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.
There are several RUclips 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
@@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!
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.
Well actually Leos Tome cant just be interpreted Nestorian it is Nestorian he literally is in a complete contradiction with that what Cyrill taught in Ephesus which is canonized in Ephesus. Pope Leo literally said that the nature that said ,,The Father is greater than me" is not the same which said ,,I and the Father are one" so he emphasized that they are 2 Persons because he says that the natures do something you couldve actually change the natures say that with Christ and the Word said this. Its in complete contradiction with that what Cyrill taught and it absoluteley leads to Nestorianism
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."_
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
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!
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 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.
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….
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.
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
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
Saying the Orientals broke communion and set themselves apart from the rest of Christendom is simply false. Why didn’t the Eastern representatives correct the three Nestorians? The Oriental Orthodox churches refused to accept such formulas and stood firmly in what was the original understanding of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox set themselves apart from The Church, just as the Catholics did later. You can’t keep adding your own teachings and interpretations. The Oriental Church remains the original Church.
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 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
@@lacagoveranyting4455Your theology is wrong that is not at all what we believe. RUclips 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.
@@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
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
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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
@@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
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.
@@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.
@@liquidh5226 because natures always have an individualized subsistence so if you say 2 natures you are admitting 2 persons or hypostasis which is Nestorian. Christ is 1 person with 1 united hypostasis with 1 united nature/divine-human nature/ with 1 united will and 1 united energy in which there is no confusion nor alteration to each nature fully divine fully human one god-man that is how you can have a consistent Christology without it being Nestorian nor monophysite. That is why Miaphysite Christology is the most consistent Christology and the safest Christology to have as a Christian.
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.
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.
After listening to the Church of the East explain their Christology, i don't see how the Nestorians are Nestorian. All 3 branches Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East, along with the Church of Rome appear to have the same Christology. I think that we need to pay closer attention to what is being said. If the beliefs are the same, then WE are all the same. Grow up, people.
it sounds the same but miaphysitism is more consistent Christology since we don't affirm 2 natures like the e.o's and acoe. affirming 2 nature whether you like it or not will lead you to 2 persons which is Nestorian tho they want to have 1 person, we can't ever accept 2 natures of Christ after the union. he is from 2 natures but after the union he has 1 composite nature. and you are right why is Nestorius a heretic if he accepts 1 person 2 nature formula both e.o and acoe are dyophysites. acoe are open about there Nestorianism but not e.os. acoe are more consistent than e.os since they reject Ephesus and affirm chalcedon while we o.os affirm ephesus and reject chalcedon its the e.os that affirm both which is wild to me since the councils contradict each other. Ephesus was miaphysite condemning dyophysitism while Chalcedon was dyophysite that condemed miaphysites as monophysites. o.o and acoe are in agreement on this councils Christology but e.os don't know where to stand affirming both saying Chalcedon must be interpreted in an Ephesian way like bruh that's impossible lol.
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.
And done forget his human nature are as our, but if his divine and human nature are one, then our are not as his, because we done have a divine nature and human nature united as one
The only way 1 nature would not make sense is if Christ's divine nature mixed with his human nature then you can say Christ doesn't have the same nature as the father and the Holy Spirt but his natures are not confused or mixed that is why we call it composition. Christ has 1 composite nature having both the properties of the divine and human natures with out confusion or alteration with the other, that is why he is consubstantial with his father in his divinity and consubstantial with his mother in his flesh. After the union he has 1 composite nature that isn't simple but single like us. we humans also have a single composite nature made of 2 our soul and flesh but after the union we call our human nature 1 composite nature where our soul and body work together perfectly without confusion or alteration. If Christ has 2 natures then we also have 2 natures which means Christ has actually 3 natures 1 soul, 1 flesh and 1 divinity which becomes absolutely absurd that is why we affirm miaphysitism MIA/composite/ and physis/nature/. I do not accept Chalcedon because of 2 things tome of Leo which is Nestorian beyond belief and the exoneration of the condemned heretics Theodoret and ibas know for being more Nestorian than Nestorius himself deeming them to be orthodox out loud in the council itself after reading there letters. i mean come on how could a council lead by the holy spirt exonerate this heretics, its impossible unless it was a council of heretics. so after Chalcedon on the next council a 100 years later they read there letters again and condemn them to be heretics contradicting Chalcedon and to add gas to the fire Nestorius also believed in dyophysitism 1 person 2 natures but he was anathema but ibas and theodoret were proclaimed orthodox just like leo insanity bruh. After knowing all that its impossible to be chalcedonian with all the lies being told about us saying we are monophysites and believe in 1 simple nature as if Christ's divinity consumed his humanity. i just can't accept dyophysitism tho it wants the same thing we have 1 god-man Jesus Christ.
Anyone who cannot comprehend miaphysitism does not comprehend the humility of God. The One who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant made His divinity ineffably one with His humanity without mingling, confusion, alteration, or division. Without this salvific oneness and unity of ineffable composition, our salvation is broken. If the unity did not occur, my human nature is not rehabilitated in Him. If the unity did not occur, I cannot partake of the divine nature in Him. Dyophysitism breaks your salvation. If the Word did not suffer in the flesh, He did not suffer for my human nature. If the Word Incarnate was not one with the Father, my human nature cannot be restored to the image of God. Saying like the tome of Leo, that the Word performs miracles but the man accepts insults is an unacceptable insult to the economy of salvation. Miaphysitism is defended extensively by the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I and the 12 anathemas, St. Cyril’s letters to Acacius, Succensus (2 letters), Valerian, Eulogius, and the book “That Christ is One”, and is defended at the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II. If you willingly choose to ignorantly state that miaphysitism cannot be defended without understanding these works, you are putting your hands on your ears and burying your head in the sand. I encourage you to adopt the spirit of seeking God and actually look at these inspired texts for the sake of your own salvation.
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?
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
Saying the Orientals broke communion and set themselves apart from the rest of Christendom is simply false. Why didn’t the Eastern representatives correct the three Nestorians? The Oriental Orthodox churches refused to accept such formulas and stood firmly in what was the original understanding of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox set themselves apart from the Church, just as the Catholics did later. You can’t keep adding your own teachings and interpretations. The Oriental Church remains the original Church.
As a oriental orthodox i am glad that people know that we exist
yes brother, and we pray for a full communion with you ❤️🇻🇦
@@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
fr@@shkor321 😂
@@shkor321me too 😭
Of course we know. One day will be in communion again hopefully.
I have Coptic background (Catholic) so thanks so much for sharing this! Miaphysite all the way!
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.
@@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.
@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.
@higgs5528 Not sure what you mean by "not simultaneous" though.
@@higgs5528This is wrong
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’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
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.
There are several RUclips 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
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.
Read The Case for Catholicism by Trent Horn
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.
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.
God bless you for all you do. Keep up the faith, good fight
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.
Xristos Anesti 🗣️ anen
@@keya3005 alithos o kirios amen 🙏🙏🙏
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
Here a proud Oriental orthodox chrstian from ethiopian i watch many videos but our eastern brothers always judge us by falsifying
Thanks😊
T
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
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
@Gottlieb Grübber why do they think we're heritics.
Whats a schismatic*
@@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.
@@gottliebgrubber92No, we view them as heretical schismatics
@@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.
Thank you brotherfor the clear clarification on the Schism
Armenian Orthodox
Coptic Orthodox
Syrian orthodox and
Tawhedo Orthodox
Long live Oriental Orthodox Christianity and miaphysitism
😅
I thank you very much for the Video and the explainetion much love from an oriental orthodox ❤
Wassup brother here from TikTok, fan of your work spreading awareness and knowledge on our beautiful Catholic faith
What a great video ❤❤
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!
Let us pray for unity☦✝⛪🕯🙏
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.
Well actually Leos Tome cant just be interpreted Nestorian it is Nestorian he literally is in a complete contradiction with that what Cyrill taught in Ephesus which is canonized in Ephesus. Pope Leo literally said that the nature that said ,,The Father is greater than me" is not the same which said ,,I and the Father are one" so he emphasized that they are 2 Persons because he says that the natures do something you couldve actually change the natures say that with Christ and the Word said this. Its in complete contradiction with that what Cyrill taught and it absoluteley leads to Nestorianism
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."_
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
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!
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
He made a video on purgatory on this channel. Give it a watch. God bless and be not afraid.
@@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.
@@eduardo-bx4hw how is his blood not enough to purify us?
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….
I’m Syriac orthodox I love east orthodox and chatolics 3 different churches same Will !
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.
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
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
Saying the Orientals broke communion and set themselves apart from the rest of Christendom is simply false. Why didn’t the Eastern representatives correct the three Nestorians? The Oriental Orthodox churches refused to accept such formulas and stood firmly in what was the original understanding of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox set themselves apart from The Church, just as the Catholics did later. You can’t keep adding your own teachings and interpretations. The Oriental Church remains the original Church.
The tome of Leo is Nestorian. To say two natures or two hypostasis is inherently Nestorian.
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.
Nature is the essence(ousia) NOT hypostasis. CHRIST HAS ONE HYPOSTASIS - Do not misinterpret the language used by St Cyril
@@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
@@lacagoveranyting4455Your theology is wrong that is not at all what we believe. RUclips 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.
@@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
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!
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
✨✨✨✨👏👏👏👏
Hi , I am Catholic.Could you please help me with the interpretation of Colossians 2:18-22
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.
If only st cyril was alive during chalcedon the heretical eos wouldnt exist
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.
Why didn’t the Orthodox Church rejoin the Catholic Church when they understood the mistake?
because oriental orthodox are still nearer to eastern orthodoxy than roman catholicism
@@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.
@@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.
@@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
@@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
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.
Why 1 nature being fully human and fully divine would be truer than 2 natures being human and divine at the same time?
@@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.
@@liquidh5226 because natures always have an individualized subsistence so if you say 2 natures you are admitting 2 persons or hypostasis which is Nestorian.
Christ is 1 person with 1 united hypostasis with 1 united nature/divine-human nature/ with 1 united will and 1 united energy in which there is no confusion nor alteration to each nature fully divine fully human one god-man that is how you can have a consistent Christology without it being Nestorian nor monophysite.
That is why Miaphysite Christology is the most consistent Christology and the safest Christology to have as a Christian.
No. This is not correct. It wasn't over translational issues. It was over the novum of Leo's christology (nominal nestorianism) vs miaphysitism.
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.
Chalcedonian Christology is not miaphysite. It is dyophysite. Dyophisitism is not Nestorianism.
Miaphtsitism and Dyophisitism are the same Christology just in different words
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.
@@AssyrioChaldean not true
You guys may be try to understand oriental orthodox you got as wrong 😢😢
After listening to the Church of the East explain their Christology, i don't see how the Nestorians are Nestorian. All 3 branches Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East, along with the Church of Rome appear to have the same Christology. I think that we need to pay closer attention to what is being said. If the beliefs are the same, then WE are all the same. Grow up, people.
it sounds the same but miaphysitism is more consistent Christology since we don't affirm 2 natures like the e.o's and acoe. affirming 2 nature whether you like it or not will lead you to 2 persons which is Nestorian tho they want to have 1 person, we can't ever accept 2 natures of Christ after the union. he is from 2 natures but after the union he has 1 composite nature.
and you are right why is Nestorius a heretic if he accepts 1 person 2 nature formula both e.o and acoe are dyophysites. acoe are open about there Nestorianism but not e.os. acoe are more consistent than e.os since they reject Ephesus and affirm chalcedon while we o.os affirm ephesus and reject chalcedon its the e.os that affirm both which is wild to me since the councils contradict each other.
Ephesus was miaphysite condemning dyophysitism while Chalcedon was dyophysite that condemed miaphysites as monophysites. o.o and acoe are in agreement on this councils Christology but e.os don't know where to stand affirming both saying Chalcedon must be interpreted in an Ephesian way like bruh that's impossible lol.
i love my oriental orthodox brothers but monophysiticism is hersey
Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysite (Eutichian) we condemn that belief as heresy.
I love my Chalcedonian brothers but Nestorianism is heresy.
I am from ethiopia
orthodox tewahido ...
tewahido = miaphysite
Let me ask a Roman Catholic about someone else’s history
I hope they reunite
Egypt is in Afrika, NOT the so called middle east
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.
And done forget his human nature are as our, but if his divine and human nature are one, then our are not as his, because we done have a divine nature and human nature united as one
The only way 1 nature would not make sense is if Christ's divine nature mixed with his human nature then you can say Christ doesn't have the same nature as the father and the Holy Spirt but his natures are not confused or mixed that is why we call it composition.
Christ has 1 composite nature having both the properties of the divine and human natures with out confusion or alteration with the other, that is why he is consubstantial with his father in his divinity and consubstantial with his mother in his flesh.
After the union he has 1 composite nature that isn't simple but single like us. we humans also have a single composite nature made of 2 our soul and flesh but after the union we call our human nature 1 composite nature where our soul and body work together perfectly without confusion or alteration.
If Christ has 2 natures then we also have 2 natures which means Christ has actually 3 natures 1 soul, 1 flesh and 1 divinity which becomes absolutely absurd that is why we affirm miaphysitism MIA/composite/ and physis/nature/.
I do not accept Chalcedon because of 2 things tome of Leo which is Nestorian beyond belief and the exoneration of the condemned heretics Theodoret and ibas know for being more Nestorian than Nestorius himself deeming them to be orthodox out loud in the council itself after reading there letters. i mean come on how could a council lead by the holy spirt exonerate this heretics, its impossible unless it was a council of heretics. so after Chalcedon on the next council a 100 years later they read there letters again and condemn them to be heretics contradicting Chalcedon and to add gas to the fire Nestorius also believed in dyophysitism 1 person 2 natures but he was anathema but ibas and theodoret were proclaimed orthodox just like leo insanity bruh.
After knowing all that its impossible to be chalcedonian with all the lies being told about us saying we are monophysites and believe in 1 simple nature as if Christ's divinity consumed his humanity. i just can't accept dyophysitism tho it wants the same thing we have 1 god-man Jesus Christ.
Anyone who cannot comprehend miaphysitism does not comprehend the humility of God. The One who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant made His divinity ineffably one with His humanity without mingling, confusion, alteration, or division. Without this salvific oneness and unity of ineffable composition, our salvation is broken. If the unity did not occur, my human nature is not rehabilitated in Him. If the unity did not occur, I cannot partake of the divine nature in Him. Dyophysitism breaks your salvation. If the Word did not suffer in the flesh, He did not suffer for my human nature. If the Word Incarnate was not one with the Father, my human nature cannot be restored to the image of God. Saying like the tome of Leo, that the Word performs miracles but the man accepts insults is an unacceptable insult to the economy of salvation. Miaphysitism is defended extensively by the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I and the 12 anathemas, St. Cyril’s letters to Acacius, Succensus (2 letters), Valerian, Eulogius, and the book “That Christ is One”, and is defended at the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus II. If you willingly choose to ignorantly state that miaphysitism cannot be defended without understanding these works, you are putting your hands on your ears and burying your head in the sand. I encourage you to adopt the spirit of seeking God and actually look at these inspired texts for the sake of your own salvation.
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?
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
Saying the Orientals broke communion and set themselves apart from the rest of Christendom is simply false. Why didn’t the Eastern representatives correct the three Nestorians? The Oriental Orthodox churches refused to accept such formulas and stood firmly in what was the original understanding of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox set themselves apart from the Church, just as the Catholics did later. You can’t keep adding your own teachings and interpretations. The Oriental Church remains the original Church.