1. If Chalcedon had fidelity to Ephesus I and St. Cyril, I have the following questions: A) why did the council explicitly avoid reading St. Cyril’s third letter with the 12 anathemas? B) why did the council call the letter of Ibas “orthodox” which stated that St. Cyril repented, and stated that Theodore of Mopsuesta was orthodox (someone St. Cyril wrote against for being Nestorian.) C) why did it declare Theodoret of Cyrus “orthodox” if his “repentance” was simply to state “I have always been orthodox and my fathers were always orthodox”. The one whose teachers were Theodore of Mopsuesta and Diodore. Theodoret was the one who vehemently opposed St. Cyril, wrote against St. Cyril’s 12th anathema stating “Christ did not suffer. The man assumed of us by God suffered”, and wrote a letter to Domnus rejoicing over the death of St. Cyril stating that now hell is being persecuted by St. Cyril. D) why did the tome of Leo condemn saying that Christ is one nature if St. Cyril made it dogma in anathema 3, and if St. Cyril repeats it in his post-Formula letters including his letters to Succensus I and II, Acacius, Valerian, Eulogius, and his book “That Christ is One” E) why does the tome of Leo state that the Word performs miracles, BUT the man accepts injuries and insults? Why does it show the Word to state “I and the Father are one”, BUT the man states “the Father is Greater than I”. Why does he separate in a dividing manner the actions of the Word and the man? Doesnt this violate anathema 4 of St. Cyril? Doesn’t the Word Incarnate do and say all things that He did, whether in the flesh or due to His divinity according to our theoretical contemplation, such as in 1 Peter 4:1 where St. Peter states “Christ suffered in the flesh”? 2. How did Flavian write a letter to Leo several months after Ephesus II if he was dead? In that letter why doesn’t he mention that he was attacked physically or injured by St. Pope Dioscorus, any bishops, monks, or clergy? Why are there about 9 different accusations of how Flavian died at Chalcedon? Why do some bishops repent of lying about the actions taken at Ephesus at Chalcedon 451? Why did Pulcheria align herself with Anatolius if he was not the rightful bishop of Constantinople? Why did Leo recognize Anatolius as the rightful bishop of Constantinople after Flavian’s death and not immediately after Ephesus II? Wasn’t Flavian, according to your history, killed at Chalcedon? Why is the Byzantine feast for Flavian several months after the end of Ephesus II? 3. Why did Constantinople II agree with Ephesus II in that Theodoret’s writings were unorthodox and that Ibas’ letter to Mari was heretical? Things Chalcedonians declared orthodox at Chalcedon, reversed in Constantinople II, but were already declared heretical at Ephesus II. 4. Why does St. Gregory Nazianzus state that there is one will in Christ in Oration 30, St. Basil states there is one will in Christ in On Christian Ethics? 5. If Chalcedon gave 2 mouthpieces to Christ in the tome of Leo, the Word says some things, but the man (homo is the word used by Leo) does others, could you please explain how that does not inevitably lead to Nestorianism? Doesn’t Leo state that the two natures or versions of Christ perform or act in an “alternating fashion” (Latin: invesum sunt)? Does Christ like switch work hats depending on the act? How does that work? Thanks
1. A) Didn't avoid, Eutychies never brought it in for his support afak B) Random bishop saying that it is orthodox doesn't make it orthodox C) One of the reasons why is because of previous councils and because of his works that he wrote after his repentance which are completely orthodox. D) They did not condemn Ephesian one nature, meaning one hypostasis, they condemned Eutychian one nature or one essence E) Because he was emphasizing two natures or essences in one and the same person or hypostasis. 2. Couldn't care less for the history of Flavian, all that I care is that he was martyred by someone. 3. Those specific writings are not orthodox but not all of his works are orthodox 4. He doesn't (you didn't cite the the sourse you just made a claim) 5. Two natures do what is unique to them, but natures are not the ones doing it but one and the same subsistence/person. ("For it must again and again be repeated that one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man") No problem.
@@AA-ho7ru having tendencies doesn't make someone Nestorian. Cyril spoke of 3 types of actions, proper to human, proper to divine and middle position (or theandric). You've said -> Leo’s distinctions in the Tome, stating that the Word performs miracles while the man accepts injuries, suggests a functional separation. But Cyril in Thesaurus has also said something very similar as Word taught Man(Body) to not fear death. Quote: When the Savior is shown dreading death and saying, ‘If it is possible, let this cup pass from me,’ (Mt. 26:39) reflect again that, when it was in dread of death, the flesh that was borne by God the Word was taught to suffer this no longer. He said to the Father, Not as I will, but as You will.’ (Mt. 26:39) For He did not fear death as Word and God, but was eager to perform the dispensation to the end, for such was the will of the Father. He had as well a volition not to die, because the flesh of its nature deprecated death. Therefore, teaching the manhood to think these thoughts no longer but to seek the will of God, He says as Man, ‘Not as I will but You will’. So do you see that some action is proper to human essence while some to divine? Word doesn't fear death, body does. It's one and the same subject who does both actions, proper to human and divine essence. Even Cyril says this here quote: Things possessing the same operation and exercising the same natural powers must of necessity have wholly the same essence as well, for none of the things that exist will possess indistinguishably the same powers and operations as what is different in nature and different in essence. - Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, Chapter 8. PG 75. 105A-B
@@theeasternjourney "Word doesn't fear death, body does." This comment you made right here is actually where we differ significantly. St. Cyril indeed in letter 39 does state that theologians distinguish or divide the sayings pertaining to 2 natures, some human, some divine, some united. St. Cyril had been saying the same thing since the 4th anathema and the explanation of the 4th anathema to Theodoret of Cyrus. To divide the sayings in thought or theory is VERY different from saying that Christ acts in 2 divided natures. En theoria division means conceptually parting the union to examine the parts. En theoria alone we see two natures, but after our conception of the ineffable union, we recognize one composite nature of God the Word Incarnate. St. Cyril makes this clear using the analogy of one human nature being composed of soul and body, in his 2nd letter to Succensus which was written AFTER letter 39 which you refer to: "We perceive in him two natures: one that of the soul, a second that of the body. We divide then, though, MERELY IN THOUGHT, accepting the difference as simply residing in fine-drawn insight or MENTAL INTUITION; we do NOT separate the natures out or attribute a capacity for radical severance to them, but see that they belong to one man so that the TWO ARE TWO NO MORE and the single living being is constituted complete by the pair of them." And just a few lines before this statement, specifically addressing your type of heretical division, St Cyril states the one composite nature dogma of Ephesus I by stating "the objection is just one more attack upon those who affirm ONE incarnate nature of the Son; apparently aiming to prove the affirmation idle, they obstinately argue always for the existence of two natures." St. Cyril is not dividing the natures by saying flesh is taught by the Word. Indeed in the ineffable union, it is our human nature which is rehabilitated and renewed in His image. But this doesn't happen without the ineffable union. So when you say "Word doesn't fear death, body does", the Church utterly rejects this division. Why? Because the Word indeed feared death in His humanity. Otherwise, my humanity is not rehabilitated, and my salvation is broken. The Word was indeed spat upon, insulted, whipped, and slapped in the flesh for our sakes, on our behalf, and to reestablish our nature so that we could be partakers of the divine nature. Salvation doesn't happen otherwise.
It truly is surprising how little the EO community actually understands about history especially when it comes from the heretical teachings of Theodoret of Cyrus, John of Damascus , and Maximus the Confessor yet are venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy. Please everyone read the actual teaching of those individuals and contrast them with for example with St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa and then come to your conclusions. I pray every day for unity of the Orthodox faith as it is beautiful and has brought all of us closer to God, but I do especially find it hypocritical the way in which EOs proclaim they are the "True" Orthodox without investigation. Let us all reach the Truth through God by humbling ourselves and actually being open to the possibility of change instead of the knee jerk reaction of an "Us v.s Them" mindset. Thank you so much for making this video, the more we open the discussion the better we all end up.
I was all about the dialogue, gonna invite you on Sunday, but then you say we should be "open to the possibility of change." But this must go both ways. Are you willing to accept the possibility that Chalcedon is correct and that you'd be willing to submit to it if so? If so, I invite you to consider talking further. We have a live Q&A on Sunday. We don't bite and I think we're very polite. Firm, but polite. May God bless you.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Completely agree! whichever one is the TRUTH doesn’t need to change! I am eagerly awaiting your responses. And also again if you are so open to debate why delete my comment? Doesn’t seem that your words share your actions.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Truly I appreciate you communicating with me. Just as an FYI there might be an issue with the youtube comments but I did comment my reply under my original comment saying "If anyone else is interesting in learning more I strongly recommend watching @danielkakish and the Lion's Den channel" and that comment disappeared about 20 min after posting and is still not back. I apologize if that was not y'all but does seem like a logical conclusion from what transpired. My mistake if otherwise.
And although the body endowed with a rational soul was not consubstantial with the Word, born of God the Father, with whom it was united (because in our thoughts we can imagine the difference of natures in things united), we nevertheless confess One Son, Christ and Lord, because the Word became flesh. So when we say “body,” we mean “man.” If we confess that after the union there is one Incarnate nature of the Son St. Cyril, II Letter to Success
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Ephesus never endorsed 2 Natures in Reality. There is only One incarnate Nature in reality from Two Natures (Fully God and Fully Man).
love how Eastern "orthodox" nestorians claims that the Oriental Orthodox are heretics even though the blessed Holy Mother appeared on top of OO churches 7 times this past century where millions of people saw her including muslims and converted to OO on that basis. The blessed Theotokos would never appear on top of a heretical church. What's weird though is the fact that she's never appeared on top of an EO church. hmmm maybe because you're the heretics.
@@copticfanatic I don’t doubt that something appeared but I highly doubt it was the Mother of God. You know the demons can appear as angels of light and basically any other form to draw people away from the Truth. The Roman Catholics have similar stories of Spiritual Delusion. Although The Theotokos has appeared to monks on Mount Athos telling them the enemy of my Son and me are coming, Referring to the RCs. How do we distinguish between a True Appearance and a False. You test the spirits to see if they are of God and you examine the Fruit they produce. In this case your Bishops are openly confessing Ecumenism. The heresy of heresies. The WCC is laying down the foundation for the One World Church of the Future. This is Antichrist.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Well it is us that deposed Nestorius at Ephesus. Nestorius himself accepted the Tome of Leo claiming it was what he taught all along. Now when it comes to Eutyches....what he confessed in synod of Constantinople 448 was Orthodox and we do have the minutes where he confesses Christ is one nature after the union and double consubstantiality. That's exactly what St. Cyril taught.
@@copticfanaticThe Theotokos has appeared (as well as so many saints before and after Chalcedon) and the Lord Jesus Christ himself, many times in Greece, Russia and other Orthodox countries, performed miracles, and shun the heretics. In the Holy Mountain this happens all the time. The Cross appeared clearly above an old calensarist church in 1925, and was witnessed not only by the faithful, but also by the police officers who were there to arrest them, following orders from the “church”. I literally don’t know where to start… Miracles are just part of our lives and our culture. Yet again, miracles according to the Church Fathers, happen to heretics and even non-christians. Papists also claim miracles by Mary (Fatima, Guadalupe, etc.). Protestants also claim miracles from God. The devil can appear as an angel of light, but he can never transform into a cross or do the sign of the cross. And when the he tries to wage war on God’s Church with heresies and schisms, he can never win. So if a miracle happens at that time to show which side God approves of, it’s from God, because the devil can never defeat him. And that is what happened at the Council of Chalcedon with st. Euphemia.
“We confess that he is the Son of God and God in the Spirit, and man in the flesh. **We do not confess that this single Son is two natures**, one to be worshiped and one not to be worshiped. **He is rather one incarnate nature of the Word**, and is to be worshiped, with his flesh, with a single worship. There are not two sons, one the true Son of God who is worshiped, and the other a man from Mary who is not worshiped, but who has become a son of God by grace in the way that men do.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens, Eighth Anathema
@@PrinceTheGreat42 Fascinating. Because it seems Chalcedon endorsed Ephesus. It's almost like you're claiming something the Fathers at Chalcedon don't believe. AH YES- Nestorianism, even though the Council condemned Nestorius and Eutyches, after the Latrocinium restored Eutyches.
When Cyril mentions he is to be worshipped with his flesh, the flesh is what exactly? The nature of a dog? A divine eternal substance? Or something else perhaps?
Thank you Father for your content and, particularly, since you are tackling the non-Chalcedonians. A couple weeks ago I contemplated the non-Chalcedonian position but.. no, just no
Composite Person (As in composite hypostasis-as-person). St John of Damascus and others go over this. Patrick Craig Truglia goes over the sources in detail. orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/07/13/is-christs-hypostasis-composite-or-divine/
The intro to the video said: “If you want to know what people believe don’t tell them what you think they believe. Ask them and listen.” Clearly you haven’t.
I highly appreciate the enthusiastic 3-hour attempted refutation of our response to their priests and Sbdcn Daniel's patience with it. I might even watch more of it than I have. Feel free to invite Dioscorus to show up Sunday for our weekly live Q&A. We'd LOVE to talk to him.
Why do you call Bishop Enoch master? Christ specifically taught not to call any man master. This is not a Protestant argument, it's a biblical argument, appealing directly to Christ himself: "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." (Matthew 23:10).
But it is indeed a protestant argument (and an old and tired one at that) No one should be called teacher or father except God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the Father, because all things are from him. He alone is the teacher, because through him are made all things and through him all things are reconciled to God. But one might ask, “Is it against this precept when the apostle calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles? Or when, as in colloquial speech widely found in the monasteries of Egypt and Palestine, they call each other Father?” Remember this distinction. It is one thing to be a father or a teacher by nature, another to be so by generosity. For when we call a man father and reserve the honor of his age, we may thereby be failing to honor the Author of our own lives. One is rightly called a teacher only from his association with the true Teacher. I repeat: The fact that we have one God and one Son of God through nature does not prevent others from being understood as sons of God by adoption. Similarly this does not make the terms father and teacher useless or prevent others from being called father. - St Jerome, AD 420
@@jonathanbritt6418 But dismissing an argument because Protestants use it, is an Argument Ad Hominem fallacy, because the truth of a position is independent of the character of the one holding it. Jesus specifically instructed his followers not to call men masters. Do you agree with him? Yes or no?
@@TruthBeTold7The Sons of men and the Sons of God are not the same. Christ's warning against calling hypocrites father and teacher is not an absolute prohibition against using these terms, as some teach. These terms are applied to men many times in the NT, all of which usages are inspired by God. Teacher is used in Jn 3:10; Acts 13:1; 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11; and 2Ti 1:11. Father is used in Lk 16:24; 1Co 4:15; and Col 3:21. Since the very early days of the Church, bishops and presbyters have been called “father” not because they take the place of God, but because in their fatherly care for their flocks, they lead people to God, and they exercise fatherly authority within the community.
Should have Sebastian Brock on...of course he would not give u the time of day...your put of touch...you don't care....nor pastoral... Seraphim Rose would admonish you...know for a fact....he really would despise you..and confront you
Thought this was settled at Chalcedony...u guys writing new book...need money.....again to much time on your hands...man in the pew could not give a shit.....they don't....well at least it keeps u out of the bars......your fucked up
1. If Chalcedon had fidelity to Ephesus I and St. Cyril, I have the following questions:
A) why did the council explicitly avoid reading St. Cyril’s third letter with the 12 anathemas?
B) why did the council call the letter of Ibas “orthodox” which stated that St. Cyril repented, and stated that Theodore of Mopsuesta was orthodox (someone St. Cyril wrote against for being Nestorian.)
C) why did it declare Theodoret of Cyrus “orthodox” if his “repentance” was simply to state “I have always been orthodox and my fathers were always orthodox”. The one whose teachers were Theodore of Mopsuesta and Diodore. Theodoret was the one who vehemently opposed St. Cyril, wrote against St. Cyril’s 12th anathema stating “Christ did not suffer. The man assumed of us by God suffered”, and wrote a letter to Domnus rejoicing over the death of St. Cyril stating that now hell is being persecuted by St. Cyril.
D) why did the tome of Leo condemn saying that Christ is one nature if St. Cyril made it dogma in anathema 3, and if St. Cyril repeats it in his post-Formula letters including his letters to Succensus I and II, Acacius, Valerian, Eulogius, and his book “That Christ is One”
E) why does the tome of Leo state that the Word performs miracles, BUT the man accepts injuries and insults? Why does it show the Word to state “I and the Father are one”, BUT the man states “the Father is Greater than I”. Why does he separate in a dividing manner the actions of the Word and the man? Doesnt this violate anathema 4 of St. Cyril? Doesn’t the Word Incarnate do and say all things that He did, whether in the flesh or due to His divinity according to our theoretical contemplation, such as in 1 Peter 4:1 where St. Peter states “Christ suffered in the flesh”?
2. How did Flavian write a letter to Leo several months after Ephesus II if he was dead? In that letter why doesn’t he mention that he was attacked physically or injured by St. Pope Dioscorus, any bishops, monks, or clergy? Why are there about 9 different accusations of how Flavian died at Chalcedon? Why do some bishops repent of lying about the actions taken at Ephesus at Chalcedon 451? Why did Pulcheria align herself with Anatolius if he was not the rightful bishop of Constantinople? Why did Leo recognize Anatolius as the rightful bishop of Constantinople after Flavian’s death and not immediately after Ephesus II? Wasn’t Flavian, according to your history, killed at Chalcedon? Why is the Byzantine feast for Flavian several months after the end of Ephesus II?
3. Why did Constantinople II agree with Ephesus II in that Theodoret’s writings were unorthodox and that Ibas’ letter to Mari was heretical? Things Chalcedonians declared orthodox at Chalcedon, reversed in Constantinople II, but were already declared heretical at Ephesus II.
4. Why does St. Gregory Nazianzus state that there is one will in Christ in Oration 30, St. Basil states there is one will in Christ in On Christian Ethics?
5. If Chalcedon gave 2 mouthpieces to Christ in the tome of Leo, the Word says some things, but the man (homo is the word used by Leo) does others, could you please explain how that does not inevitably lead to Nestorianism? Doesn’t Leo state that the two natures or versions of Christ perform or act in an “alternating fashion” (Latin: invesum sunt)? Does Christ like switch work hats depending on the act? How does that work?
Thanks
1.
A) Didn't avoid, Eutychies never brought it in for his support afak
B) Random bishop saying that it is orthodox doesn't make it orthodox
C) One of the reasons why is because of previous councils and because of his works that he wrote after his repentance which are completely orthodox.
D) They did not condemn Ephesian one nature, meaning one hypostasis, they condemned Eutychian one nature or one essence
E) Because he was emphasizing two natures or essences in one and the same person or hypostasis.
2. Couldn't care less for the history of Flavian, all that I care is that he was martyred by someone.
3. Those specific writings are not orthodox but not all of his works are orthodox
4. He doesn't (you didn't cite the the sourse you just made a claim)
5. Two natures do what is unique to them, but natures are not the ones doing it but one and the same subsistence/person. ("For it must again and again be repeated that one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man")
No problem.
I haven't responded because @theeasternjourney's answer is great. Short and sweet.
@@AA-ho7ru having tendencies doesn't make someone Nestorian. Cyril spoke of 3 types of actions, proper to human, proper to divine and middle position (or theandric).
You've said -> Leo’s distinctions in the Tome, stating that the Word performs miracles while the man accepts injuries, suggests a functional separation.
But Cyril in Thesaurus has also said something very similar as Word taught Man(Body) to not fear death.
Quote: When the Savior is shown dreading death and saying, ‘If it is possible, let this cup pass from me,’ (Mt. 26:39) reflect again that, when it was in dread of death, the flesh that was borne by God the Word was taught to suffer this no longer. He said to the Father, Not as I will, but as You will.’ (Mt. 26:39) For He did not fear death as Word and God, but was eager to perform the dispensation to the end, for such was the will of the Father. He had as well a volition not to die, because the flesh of its nature deprecated death. Therefore, teaching the manhood to think these thoughts no longer but to seek the will of God, He says as Man, ‘Not as I will but You will’.
So do you see that some action is proper to human essence while some to divine? Word doesn't fear death, body does. It's one and the same subject who does both actions, proper to human and divine essence.
Even Cyril says this here quote:
Things possessing the same operation and exercising the same natural powers must of necessity have wholly the same essence as well, for none of the things that exist will possess indistinguishably the same powers and operations as what is different in nature and different in essence.
- Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, Chapter 8. PG 75. 105A-B
@@theeasternjourney "Word doesn't fear death, body does."
This comment you made right here is actually where we differ significantly.
St. Cyril indeed in letter 39 does state that theologians distinguish or divide the sayings pertaining to 2 natures, some human, some divine, some united. St. Cyril had been saying the same thing since the 4th anathema and the explanation of the 4th anathema to Theodoret of Cyrus. To divide the sayings in thought or theory is VERY different from saying that Christ acts in 2 divided natures. En theoria division means conceptually parting the union to examine the parts. En theoria alone we see two natures, but after our conception of the ineffable union, we recognize one composite nature of God the Word Incarnate.
St. Cyril makes this clear using the analogy of one human nature being composed of soul and body, in his 2nd letter to Succensus which was written AFTER letter 39 which you refer to:
"We perceive in him two natures: one that of the soul, a second that of the body. We divide then, though, MERELY IN THOUGHT, accepting the difference as simply residing in fine-drawn insight or MENTAL INTUITION; we do NOT separate the natures out or attribute a capacity for radical severance to them, but see that they belong to one man so that the TWO ARE TWO NO MORE and the single living being is constituted complete by the pair of them."
And just a few lines before this statement, specifically addressing your type of heretical division, St Cyril states the one composite nature dogma of Ephesus I by stating "the objection is just one more attack upon those who affirm ONE incarnate nature of the Son; apparently aiming to prove the affirmation idle, they obstinately argue always for the existence of two natures."
St. Cyril is not dividing the natures by saying flesh is taught by the Word. Indeed in the ineffable union, it is our human nature which is rehabilitated and renewed in His image. But this doesn't happen without the ineffable union. So when you say "Word doesn't fear death, body does", the Church utterly rejects this division. Why? Because the Word indeed feared death in His humanity. Otherwise, my humanity is not rehabilitated, and my salvation is broken. The Word was indeed spat upon, insulted, whipped, and slapped in the flesh for our sakes, on our behalf, and to reestablish our nature so that we could be partakers of the divine nature. Salvation doesn't happen otherwise.
It truly is surprising how little the EO community actually understands about history especially when it comes from the heretical teachings of Theodoret of Cyrus, John of Damascus , and Maximus the Confessor yet are venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy. Please everyone read the actual teaching of those individuals and contrast them with for example with St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa and then come to your conclusions. I pray every day for unity of the Orthodox faith as it is beautiful and has brought all of us closer to God, but I do especially find it hypocritical the way in which EOs proclaim they are the "True" Orthodox without investigation. Let us all reach the Truth through God by humbling ourselves and actually being open to the possibility of change instead of the knee jerk reaction of an "Us v.s Them" mindset. Thank you so much for making this video, the more we open the discussion the better we all end up.
And if anyone has questions and want more depth, I would strongly recommend @danielkakish and the Lion's Den Channel
I was all about the dialogue, gonna invite you on Sunday, but then you say we should be "open to the possibility of change." But this must go both ways. Are you willing to accept the possibility that Chalcedon is correct and that you'd be willing to submit to it if so? If so, I invite you to consider talking further. We have a live Q&A on Sunday. We don't bite and I think we're very polite. Firm, but polite. May God bless you.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Completely agree! whichever one is the TRUTH doesn’t need to change! I am eagerly awaiting your responses.
And also again if you are so open to debate why delete my comment? Doesn’t seem that your words share your actions.
@@joshuaibrahim5242 I didn't. I see it just fine.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Truly I appreciate you communicating with me. Just as an FYI there might be an issue with the youtube comments but I did comment my reply under my original comment saying "If anyone else is interesting in learning more I strongly recommend watching @danielkakish and the Lion's Den channel" and that comment disappeared about 20 min after posting and is still not back.
I apologize if that was not y'all but does seem like a logical conclusion from what transpired. My mistake if otherwise.
We only need one term for those heretics: non-Chalcedonians. "Nuff said.
Holy Council of Chalcedon Rejecters
And although the body endowed with a rational soul was not consubstantial with the Word, born of God the Father, with whom it was united (because in our thoughts we can imagine the difference of natures in things united), we nevertheless confess One Son, Christ and Lord, because the Word became flesh. So when we say “body,” we mean “man.” If we confess that after the union there is one Incarnate nature of the Son
St. Cyril, II Letter to Success
You keep quoting St Cyril but the Holy Council of Chalcedon endorsed St Cyril, so you're getting nowhere.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics if Chalcedon endorsed Cyril wouldn’t they endorse his Christology ?
@@Joshua_Burdono Because it had already been endorsed at Ephesus I.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics so miaphysitism was professed at Ephesus which contradicts chalcedon
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Ephesus never endorsed 2 Natures in Reality. There is only One incarnate Nature in reality from Two Natures (Fully God and Fully Man).
love how Eastern "orthodox" nestorians claims that the Oriental Orthodox are heretics even though the blessed Holy Mother appeared on top of OO churches 7 times this past century where millions of people saw her including muslims and converted to OO on that basis. The blessed Theotokos would never appear on top of a heretical church. What's weird though is the fact that she's never appeared on top of an EO church. hmmm maybe because you're the heretics.
I love how Miaphysites call us "Nestorians" even though we're the ones that deposed him and they're the ones that restored Eutyches
@@copticfanatic I don’t doubt that something appeared but I highly doubt it was the Mother of God. You know the demons can appear as angels of light and basically any other form to draw people away from the Truth. The Roman Catholics have similar stories of Spiritual Delusion. Although The Theotokos has appeared to monks on Mount Athos telling them the enemy of my Son and me are coming, Referring to the RCs. How do we distinguish between a True Appearance and a False. You test the spirits to see if they are of God and you examine the Fruit they produce. In this case your Bishops are openly confessing Ecumenism. The heresy of heresies. The WCC is laying down the foundation for the One World Church of the Future. This is Antichrist.
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics Well it is us that deposed Nestorius at Ephesus. Nestorius himself accepted the Tome of Leo claiming it was what he taught all along.
Now when it comes to Eutyches....what he confessed in synod of Constantinople 448 was Orthodox and we do have the minutes where he confesses Christ is one nature after the union and double consubstantiality. That's exactly what St. Cyril taught.
@@copticfanaticThe Theotokos has appeared (as well as so many saints before and after Chalcedon) and the Lord Jesus Christ himself, many times in Greece, Russia and other Orthodox countries, performed miracles, and shun the heretics. In the Holy Mountain this happens all the time. The Cross appeared clearly above an old calensarist church in 1925, and was witnessed not only by the faithful, but also by the police officers who were there to arrest them, following orders from the “church”. I literally don’t know where to start… Miracles are just part of our lives and our culture. Yet again, miracles according to the Church Fathers, happen to heretics and even non-christians. Papists also claim miracles by Mary (Fatima, Guadalupe, etc.). Protestants also claim miracles from God. The devil can appear as an angel of light, but he can never transform into a cross or do the sign of the cross. And when the he tries to wage war on God’s Church with heresies and schisms, he can never win. So if a miracle happens at that time to show which side God approves of, it’s from God, because the devil can never defeat him. And that is what happened at the Council of Chalcedon with st. Euphemia.
“We confess that he is the Son of God and God in the Spirit, and man in the flesh. **We do not confess that this single Son is two natures**, one to be worshiped and one not to be worshiped. **He is rather one incarnate nature of the Word**, and is to be worshiped, with his flesh, with a single worship. There are not two sons, one the true Son of God who is worshiped, and the other a man from Mary who is not worshiped, but who has become a son of God by grace in the way that men do.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens, Eighth Anathema
Ok! So why not accept Chalcedon?
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics because Chalcedon clearly contradicts Ephesus
@@PrinceTheGreat42 Fascinating. Because it seems Chalcedon endorsed Ephesus. It's almost like you're claiming something the Fathers at Chalcedon don't believe. AH YES- Nestorianism, even though the Council condemned Nestorius and Eutyches, after the Latrocinium restored Eutyches.
When Cyril mentions he is to be worshipped with his flesh, the flesh is what exactly? The nature of a dog? A divine eternal substance? Or something else perhaps?
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologeticsChalcedon accept Ephesus , the same way Muslims believe and love Jesus. (lip service). I hope you get it!
Can you kindly consider a joint podcast with coptic answers? It would be beneficial to see dialogue
If they're up for it we'd do a joint stream.
Thank you Father for your content and, particularly, since you are tackling the non-Chalcedonians. A couple weeks ago I contemplated the non-Chalcedonian position but.. no, just no
More coming, God bless you
You have no idea what the Non-Chalcedonian position is.
@@kidus_1010 well, that's correct !
@@kidus_1010 Do Non-Chalcedonians accept Chalcedon?
@@Juan-gd1wd I believe it's that they reject Chalcedon
Couldn't know who's in the wrong when you hear how they talk about the other person
The easiest way to know who's wrong is to focus on facts, not personalities
Father: is the hypostasis of Christ a composite or a non-compoaite hypostasis?
Composite Person (As in composite hypostasis-as-person). St John of Damascus and others go over this. Patrick Craig Truglia goes over the sources in detail. orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/07/13/is-christs-hypostasis-composite-or-divine/
At 43:00 you seem to agree with the Christology presented by the fathers, so why dismiss them as heretics?
Counter-question: If we agree on Christology, why don't they accept Chalcedon?
@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics.For linguistic reasons
The Oriental Orthodox seem to be making the same emotional appeals as the Muslims do.
C’mon man please please please refer to ecumenist documents so you don’t have to refer to us by our heresy
How so?
@@buckledcrane9639 I think @RemnantRus summed it up
It is the same Christology in essence
no, I'm sorry
The intro to the video said: “If you want to know what people believe don’t tell them what you think they believe. Ask them and listen.”
Clearly you haven’t.
I feel comfortable assuming we (a) heard everything and (b) responded.
ruclips.net/user/liveeAzkJ2yJFwU?si=_ao_uDvfjboXLZd6
Here a full refutation on the false premises
I highly appreciate the enthusiastic 3-hour attempted refutation of our response to their priests and Sbdcn Daniel's patience with it. I might even watch more of it than I have. Feel free to invite Dioscorus to show up Sunday for our weekly live Q&A. We'd LOVE to talk to him.
Why do you call Bishop Enoch master? Christ specifically taught not to call any man master. This is not a Protestant argument, it's a biblical argument, appealing directly to Christ himself: "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." (Matthew 23:10).
But it is indeed a protestant argument (and an old and tired one at that)
No one should be called teacher or father except God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the Father, because all things are from him. He alone is the teacher, because through him are made all things and through him all things are reconciled to God. But one might ask, “Is it against this precept when the apostle calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles? Or when, as in colloquial speech widely found in the monasteries of Egypt and Palestine, they call each other Father?” Remember this distinction. It is one thing to be a father or a teacher by nature, another to be so by generosity. For when we call a man father and reserve the honor of his age, we may thereby be failing to honor the Author of our own lives. One is rightly called a teacher only from his association with the true Teacher. I repeat: The fact that we have one God and one Son of God through nature does not prevent others from being understood as sons of God by adoption. Similarly this does not make the terms father and teacher useless or prevent others from being called father.
- St Jerome, AD 420
More need not be added than the above, Jonathan!
@@jonathanbritt6418 But dismissing an argument because Protestants use it, is an Argument Ad Hominem fallacy, because the truth of a position is independent of the character of the one holding it. Jesus specifically instructed his followers not to call men masters. Do you agree with him? Yes or no?
Does St Paul agree with Him? 1 Corinthians 4:15
@@TruthBeTold7The Sons of men and the Sons of God are not the same.
Christ's warning against calling hypocrites father and teacher is not an absolute prohibition against using these terms, as some teach. These terms are applied to men many times in the NT, all of which usages are inspired by God. Teacher is used in Jn 3:10; Acts 13:1; 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11; and 2Ti 1:11. Father is used in Lk 16:24; 1Co 4:15; and Col 3:21. Since the very early days of the Church, bishops and presbyters have been called “father” not because they take the place of God, but because in their fatherly care for their flocks, they lead people to God, and they exercise fatherly authority within the community.
U give me a headache
What are you crying about?
@@Unseen_warfare.the Monophysite cries when you criticise him
Should have Sebastian Brock on...of course he would not give u the time of day...your put of touch...you don't care....nor pastoral... Seraphim Rose would admonish you...know for a fact....he really would despise you..and confront you
Lol
Brother Herman, you are more than welcome to join a livestream to air your grievances. I sincerely disagree with everything you are saying.
Send us your guy's info, we'll make time.
Your a dime a dozen
A serious response, finally!
Thought this was settled at Chalcedony...u guys writing new book...need money.....again to much time on your hands...man in the pew could not give a shit.....they don't....well at least it keeps u out of the bars......your fucked up
Language please.
Agreed, profanity is not becoming a religious channel.
Who REALLY CARES!!!!!!!!!!!
Followers of Christ care deeply about preserving the Truth.
You do, obviously
@@Jeem196Jeem !
Me