Oriental Orthodox Explained in 2 Minutes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 янв 2025
- Oriental Orthodox churches include the Coptic and Armenian Churches. Often forgotten by those in the West, these churches have many distinct beliefs. This video tries to take the subject on in a measly two minutes.
Much love to my oriental brothers! ☦️
Much love to our EO brothers
Much love to you guys I hope one day we can reunite and be in communion!
The channel Coptic Orthodox Answers is a great place to learn about us ✝️🤓
As a coptic Christian I would love if you made separate videos for each oriental Orthodox Church. But I’m just happy and glad you made about us in the first place, thanks.
The pillar of the true Christian faith is oriental orthodoxy and its pillar is surely and undoubtedly the alexandrian school of theology . St Cyril is the pillar of the true faith..❤❤❤ .. it was the alexandrian see that help continue the true faith for the Syriac orthodox Church of antioch and also helped the malankara Church in the early 16th century. ❤
The channel Coptic Orthodox Answers is a great place to learn about us ✝️🤓
This is great being Coptic myself. I would love to see a longer video about the Oriental orthodox churches in general
As a coptic I too would love to see a longer video about Oriental Orthodox Church. But I would love it they each had their own separate videos.
Too many electronic gadgets in our local Coptic Orthodox church. Staten Island NY.... Too much socializing during services. Very rarely do people make the SIGN OF THE CROSS during Divine Liturgy and no more prayer books so the laity can participate in the Divine Liturgy.....these screens on the walls are annoying....taxing on the eyes.
@@Soyebakhtar0105 The Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit which appeared to the disciples during Pentecost. Stop twisting the meaning to fit your belief.
@@Soyebakhtar0105 quran is fake. Repent pagan.
Are coptic orthodox same as oriental orthodox?
I commented this on your suggestions request video, but I really think it would be fascinating to look at the growth of the Syriac Orthodox (an Oriental Orthodox group) among ethnic Mayans in Guatemala. Initially, these were followers of a Catholic priest who was excommunicated, who then followed him to Oriental Orthodoxy.
Fascinating! Didn't know about that. Reminds me of Jules Ferrette and the British Orthodox Church / Neo-Celtic Christianity movement.
Also, I can't help but notice that the Oriental family consists of very ancient civilizations. Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, India, Armenia. Some Syriac monks had also reached China (although they belonged to the Church of the East, as far as I remember). Maya Christians will fit just fine.
Where is this? The ones doing the outreach are Antiochian Orthodox, not Syriac.
@RudyCarrera its the syriac orthodox church.
@@Soyebakhtar0105 only eye witnesses are from the bible. Muhammad was not an eyewitness of jesus christ. Jesus was not a prophet. He was the Messiah.
@@Soyebakhtar0105 quran is fake. Jesus is the son of God. Your religion came 500 years after christ. Tell me, was Muhammad an eye witness of christ?? No. He never was.
I am Ethiopian 🇪🇹 orthodox tewahido christian member ☦️
You got The Bible THAT IS PERFECT! 67 Books.
@@dustinhellstern772881
@@dustinhellstern772881
Same
@@dustinhellstern7728 What is the other book, number 67? Thanks
Missed listing the Syriac Orthodox, probably the oldest one with the most influence and using a liturgical language that Christ spoke, for what that's worth. They have amazing theological poetry and actually not so many icons due to living with Muslims. 'Isaurians' led the iconoclasm. They heavily influenced the rise of Islam in various ways. To really understand Christianity, I think knowledge of Syriac language is invaluable, more so than Latin.
The Syrian and Coptic churches are about the same age (plus or minus 2 decades).
How did the Syriac Orthodox Church influence Islam?
@@fadikhoory5350 the following channels explain the origins of Islam, including the Syriac influence:
Islamic Origins
CIRA International
Pfander Films
Lloyd De Jongh
@@fadikhoory5350 the Qur'an strongly resembles Syriac hymns, and Syriac educated administrators, often while remaining Christian, worked as officials for the early Islamic empires that conquered them. Their language had long been a regional lingual franca and the brought in vast knowledge
@@fadikhoory5350
All the Aramaic hymns are using the Syriac tunes, some all most identical
The Oriental and the Eastern need to just put our differences aside and reunite
ALL Christians need to set aside our differences and reunite; for the Oriental and Eastern to do so would be a great first step.
Suppose you want to know the issue of Saints. I remember my bishop telling me how in the Coptic Church, they list all their saints during Divine Liturgy. Saints that Both Orthodox, Catholics, and liturgy Prod view as Heretics. They view the champion of our saints from that era as heretics.
Add to that the Catholics: Apostolic Churches unite!
@@HerveusGalli There is just a higher chance of Oriental and Eastern, because they have much more in common then they do with the Catholic church. However a full reuniting would be a dream
I pray we see it happen in our lifetimes but unfortunately engaging in the ecumenical dialogue right now that would be required for reunification is impossible with the current split between the greek and the russian churches.
This is very interesting, thank you. I have known of the existance of the Oriental Orthodox Churches but have never known much about them.
What's interesting is that the Catholic Church is making much more progress toward actual reunion with the Oriental Orthodox than with the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
That's because the Eastern Orthodox believe they are the only Church whereas the Oriental Orthodox and Catholics believe the Church subsists in their communions which leaves open the possibility of other communions where the Church also subsists.
We did temporarily halt it, however, because of political differences.
Because the RCC has no values and will literally do anything to bring more people under the Pope.
The biggest blockade to reunion at this time is the monks on Mount Athos. The churches go to take the time and agree on what really wasn't anything but a misunderstanding in linguistics, and the monks basically refuse to accept the agreement.
Not with the current heresies being commited by the Catholic Pope at the moment
The Oriental Orthodox Churches have been accused of heresy by the Eastern Orthodox Church purely because of one main issue being Nature Of Christ, of which Oriental Orthodox Church holds that both divinity and humanity are equally present within a single (hence the Greek prefix mia-) nature in the person of Christ. Christ in Human Form perfectly included humanity and divinity.
The Oriental Orthodox Church is most likley the true Orthodox Church, as we have never since past 2023 years ever changed Orthodoxy for one second.
I do pray and hope that the Churches all reconcile and form one Church, but arrogance & greed of humanity within all of our Churches will make that very difficult
Thank you for covering this topic. I think that it's very important to keep this family of churches in mind when we're talking about Christianity and its history. It's been the dominant notion for hundreds of years that the Church endured a schism in 1054, when the reality is that the Chalcedon controversy was not a small one. Dissenting Alexandria was a very, very big deal for the early Church. Even to this day, 60 million people is by no means a small group of people, even if we compare it to 220 mil in the Eastern Orthodox community (the "Oriental" family doesn't have its own Russia though). And moreover, can we really say, "dissenting Alexandria"? There were a lot of Greeks even in Constantinople who sided with them back in those days. To be honest, I came to the conclusion that effectively Rome was the main if not the sole reason why Christianity worldwide mostly shares the dyophysite/dyothelite language. Eastern emperors were willing to find common ground with Alexandria (Henotikon of Zeno and Typos of Constans, for example), but Rome and pro-Roman theologians, starting with Leo I, won by not willing to compromise and asserting their authority starting from that very era, which will later affect their relationships with Constantinople as well. So, thank you for educating your audience on this topic. I think a more in-depth exploration will be welcomed.
P. S. Restored unity is very desirable. But if we dare to think about some providential benefits of this schism, this thing comes to mind: from the very beginning of Christian history, we've had those opposing hierarchies, eager to find some inconsistencies in each other's cannons, customs, church governance and so on. And yet, despite the issue of somewhat differing christological languages, the opposing sides still recognize the same Bible and mostly have more or less the same set of general beliefs, structure, etc., and thus we can definitely argue that Christianity (and the Bible, for that matter) is not just this Roman or Greek cultural endeavor and it's not made up.
The schismatic nature does provide more checks in a sense to heresy. So long as the gospel is maintained with the two primary commandments I think the rest are not irrelevant but less so than embodying Christ in this world to one another and to non-believers.
Several groups hold very different positions, so comparing eastern and oriental orthodox churches with catholic or Lutheran Churches would produce a very sharp contrast.
Some things are minor, granted, but many things are quite essential, such as who Christ is, or what did He accomplished on the Cross.
The good thing is that all those that truly believe in Jesus will be saved, in spite of what any given sect will claim.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47
We can have that assurance.
"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:9-13
ruclips.net/video/PffhcV-xBks/видео.html&pp=ygUndGhlIGJpYmxlIHdheSB0byBoZWF2ZW4gc3RldmVuIGFuZGVyc29u
Hi, thank you for the video. I would like to point out that you have missed the oldest church among the churches - the Syriac orthodox church which is today a part of the oriental orthodox church.
In Acts of apostles it is said-the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26) . The church that grew from this Antioch is today called as the syriac orthodox church . The first patriach of this church is St Peter, the apostle and by the grace of God has an unbroken succession upto the present patriach Mor Ignatius Aphrem II.
Kindly consider editing this video or adding a footnote so that history is taught accurately. Keep up the good work. May God bless you!
It’s my understanding, I think in part from your previous video, that the Coptic Orthodox have acknowledged all the Ecumenical Councils except the Fourth, Chalcedon. Leaving that and the “In” Essence rather than “Of” One Essence language keeping the two churches, Eastern Orthodoxy and Coptic Orthodox from reuniting more formally as the differences are practically indistinguishable and little more than the nuances between say the Russian Church and the Greek Church. I’ve been a member of two different Greek Orthodox parishes and each has fully served a reasonable number or Eritrean and Egyptian families. I pray this happens soon and that Mt. Athos will bend just a little to make it easier.
This isn't quite accurate. The (Miaphysite) Orthodox communion rejects not just Chalcedon, but everything that the Chalcedonian communion does afterwards as not part of her own Church history. As such, everything after Chalcedon matters no more than everything after the 11th century that the Latin church did from the perspective of Byzantine Chalcedonians.
Also, we as Orthodox do not speak of the union as "of essences" or that Christ is "an essence," because we believe the "one nature from two natures" is "one hypostasis from two hypostases" as the Holy Fathers pre-schism said. From our perspective, there is no reunion until both sides condemn saying "two natures after the union," and condemn the Tome of Leo as heretical.
@@thomascomerford9683 I apologize for my at best inarticulate attempt to suggest the Eastern Orthodox, my Church, is very similar to the Coptic Church. Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part to support my hopes that all the Orthodox could find a way to communion without becoming each other or God forbid something new. We serve many Oriental Orthodox families in the two Parishes I’ve been I. The in and of I got from an interview of a Coptic Priest, that is my Creed we say Of Once Essence with the Father and I thought he Said Coptic Creed recites In one Essence with the Father. The, other understanding came from recent talks between Coptic and Eastern Orthodox beginning in the 1960’s, and that there was a tentative agreement that the Coptic position on the 5, 6 and 7th was that there was nothing in them that they couldn’t live with and that the big force against the near solutions were from Mt. Athos, basically demanding no concessions from the Eastern side be considered including the excommunication of Eutyches, otherwise an understanding was very near a thing. But, if the nature of Christ, not God, that is how did God come to be amongst humanity is a deal breaker then cool. We all agree God sent His only begotten Son who was crucified and died and was resurrected on the third day. He was God and somehow died as human without shedding the Devine or as God or as some mystical combination of both is not a bridge too far to allow me to want cooperation so Orthodoxy can stand with some alliance against all that is attacking the Church today. God is Born, Glorify him.
@@SaltShack thank you for your response, from our perspective I'd say to prayerfully consider that if the Holy Fathers stated that the only way Christ can truly die for us, being fully God and fully man, is for Him to be of two natures/hypostases, resulting in one nature/hypostasis, and that it's fundamentally heretical to say that there endures after the union "two" natures/hypostases, then it is necessary for us all to reject two natures after the union and the Tome of Leo. Prayerfully consider the following:
The Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite or Ephesian Orthodox, since in the original languages we are called "Eastern Orthodox" while Dyophysites are called "Roman Orthodox") consider themselves the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The principal reason for the break in communion in the 5th century was that the Miaphysite Orthodox could not undo the teachings of the Council of Ephesus in 431, whose presiders rejected saying that Christ is two natures after the union yet did say that Christ is one composite nature from two natures. The 3 presiders who are relevant are Sts: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodotus of Ancyra, and Acacius of Melitene. They state (and this is a short list of examples):
"... let everyone be forced to publicly anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore: especially those who say two natures after the union, properly each one working. For of those who are in Germanicia I have found some experienced, indeed refusing to say two sons, but indeed not refusing to say two natures. Wherefore if it be granted, that it may be said and taught by them, that each nature worketh by itself, and this indeed is suffered, but that remaineth impassive, there is no other thing than to confess two sons again, and bring in the parts."
St Acacius of Melitene, Letter 1 to St Cyril
"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 40 to Acacius (Reply to the Letter of St Acacius of Melitene)
"You will not ascend to God, O man, unless you confess the descent of God. Paul says 'One is he who descended and he who ascended.' Not one and another, but the same is no longer divided, no longer considered two after the union. For 'He who ascended,' he says, 'is also He who ascended above men, so that he might fill all things.' The things once contemplated two, the economy made one. So then, no longer say two after the indissoluble union. What grace united, let thought not divide."
St Theodotus of Ancyra, Exposition on the Creed, 7
"How did he impoverish himself on our behalf? Let those who separate the manhood from God the Word, parting him who was united by mention of natures, who say Christ is 'two things,' introducing for their defense a merely invented unity - let them tell us."
St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Second Homily on Birth of Jesus Christ our Savior (Homily at Ephesus)
St Theodotus continues to speak about how "nothing is two" in Christ (despite Christ being "of two"), he then states:
"The flame in Babylon became dew and both are seen in the activity, for the three young men were cooled by the dew whereas the Babylonians were burned by the flame. There were not two things or two natures but what was seen was one and the same thing. The righteous bear witness: Ask not the mode of God’s miracles."
- ibid
"This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete."
St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus
"HERMIAS - Should you not therefore distinguish in any way?
ST. CYRIL - Certainly not. And especially not to speak of two after the union and conceive each of them separately. It is necessary to know, as a result, that the mind contemplates some distinction of natures, for divinity and humanity are certainly not the same thing, but at the same time to admit, concerning these concepts, the both coming together into union."
St Cyril, Christological Dialogue with Hermias the Priest
@@thomascomerford9683 Wow. Thanks for the lesson and your prayers. One question is Jesus created or has he always been? If the answer is, the obvious one, he’s always been then he is that which cannot be known. That’s not been refuted since Abraham, unless you…..we’ll never mind. Regardless, You gave examples of great Theologians and St. Cyril that in my mind are saying essentially what I’ve been taught, but your missing one critical fact when calling out heresy. The Church has a long History of dealing with Heresy and it’s always been settled the same way, by consensus proved over generations. Not unlike when when James and others schooled St. Paul about the necessity of becoming Jewish before being able to become Christian. Throughout Church history the opinions that have always mattered most are those of the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. One man is far more likely to error greater and more frequently than the group. That’s the Popes big Heresy. I’m glad you are zealous about your faith, you should be. It’s a wonderful powerful tradition, but it left the the Church, the Church didn’t leave it and as such it forfeited the opportunity to call itself the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You see it would be like if when Lee Iacocca left G.M. for Chrysler and he then named Chrysler G.M., nothing works like that. You can claim that St. Cyril was correct when he invented miaphysitism Christology, but you can’t claim that it was always the Chritology of the Church. It was the new thing and it doesn’t make it any more correct because the Chalcedon Council botch their affirmation of the previous Christology, consubstantial, fully Human Fully Devine Christology. Nothing new was created in Chalcedon. I’ll pray that we focus on our similarities rather than the insignificant minutia, that requires an entire language made up to explain differences that don’t really exists, on both sides, for the benefit of Christ’s Church. One final thing if my Church is heretical then why do Coptic and Ethiopian Bishops allow believers to receive the Sacrament? They may have a better handle on it than either of us.
@@SaltShack my priest does not allow me to take non-OO communion, nor would I want to because it's just a rule that we cannot have communion with those we aren't in communion with. There are many EOs who let RCs commune or vice-versa, that doesn't mean it's okay.
The determinant as to who left the Church is "who left the faith" and "who installed a parallel church structure." With both of these questions, it is seen that the Byzantine and Latin Christians left the Oriental Orthodox.
Very interesting and cool Christians who have been through a lot. Their icons are great too.
American Lutheran here. It's inspiring to me to learn about my Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, and their persistent presence as salt and light in the original homelands of Christianity, regions that have seen much trouble and even persecution over the centuries.
May Our Lord Jesus Christ keep and sustain you in the faith. ✝
You inadvertently did not mention the Syrian Orthodox, now under so much pressure in Turkey and elsewhere.
I am glad to see you bringing these to the attention of the West.
Ty for posting these.
*30 differences between COPTIC & EOTC*
Purpose: This was written to educate and give Ethiopian believers a BETTER understanding of the origin of their faith, history and tradition and answer why the EOTC is quite different from other orthodoxies. This should not to be interpreted in the wrong way, unity is important but so is transparency.
Author: As an Ethiopian Orthodox servant and having attended several Coptic liturgies, and from theological research on both churches, I can tell you we the EOTC have SO MANY differences.
✅ ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED!
*Dogma Differences*
1. We believe that Saint Mary was born without original sin
2. We believe that Saint Mary has NO fallen nature no sin or nature to sin after birth as well
*Jewish Practices*
Matt 5:17 - “I did not come to abolish the Law”
1. We have Ark Processions year-round
2. We abstain from all unclean food (Halal, pork, shrimp, crab, etc)
3. We do no enter church if we are unclean (men and women)
4. We wear all white shawls (Netelas) as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection and spiritual purity
5. We have a shoeless entry (not just during communion)
6. We abstain from any modern instruments (piano, guitar, etc)
7. We have 81 books in the Bible (Coptics have 74)
8. We go of Halachic Jewish Time (Fasting entry and exits are based of our sun and star movements (Twilight) and our hours are reversed (12=6, 9=3)
9. We observe Friday evening and Saturday as the Sabbath (in addition to Sunday)
10. Women after giving birth have to wait 40 days or 80 days to enter church. ( Lev 12)
*EOTC Belief System*
1. We abstain from any fish on fasting days (It is a meat - 1 Cor 15:39)
2. We eat starting at 3pm on fasting days
3. We fast 292 days of the year (including Tsige & Pagume Fast)
4. Women are not allowed to wear pants only ankle length dresses (Deut 22:5)
5. We never imprint (wear) icons of saints on clergical or any other clothes
6. We have a 2 or more priest liturgy system (Coptics have 1)
7. We close curtains during significant moments
8. To be a Deacon you must be a unmarried virgin
9. We have 14 liturgies (Coptics have 3)
10. We celebrate all 33 feasts for Saint Mary and all 18 feasts of Jesus with millions in attendance year round
11. We have Hymnaries (Mahlet) 4-10 hours short version and 24-48 hours long on Epiphany and Horologions (Sa’tat)
12. We perform year- round Subae’s (7 days of no food or water)
13. Believers have (Full Body - Holy Water) services year round for healing and forgiveness of sin
14. We do not eat bread inside church
15. Only men can pour Holy Water
16. The Holy Trinity Icon is always depicted (Coptics use mostly Jesus and the 4 creatures of the Gospel)
17. We have to fast 18 hours to take communion (3 days of no intercourse)
18. We prohibit any use of contraceptives or birth control (Genesis 38:6-11)
*Explanation:*
While we didn’t establish a church prior to Coptics, Ethiopia was and is historically known as the First Christian Kingdom and Civilization (Reference: Prophecy Psalms 72: 9-10 along with multiple Church sources shows that one of the three wise man has been confirmed Ethiopian, Acts 8 shows Christianity teaching existed in Ethiopia and Aksum Kingdom predates back to BC showing traces of Christianity prior to Armenian Church). And so while we the EOTC are labeled “oriental” with our sister churches, we are the only orthodox nation who incorporate 4000 year old Jewish customs (Judeo-Christianity) and Jewish forms of worship and tradition into our faith. The reason for this is because we were the only Orthodox country to convert from Christianity’s former faith so we hold very sacred information or the “original link” that drives our Christian faith to be more conservative or allows us to have more divine levels of worship (Ark Processions year round, Hymnaries (Mahlet), (Horologions (Sa’tat), Subae (7 days of no food or water), Year round Full Body Holy Water Services, all white clothing, shoeless entry, restraining from unclean meat and 292 days of fasting to name a few all makes our orthodoxy unique different and special in every way compared to all other oriental and eastern orthodoxies but most importantly and evidently seen is our love of Saint Mary. Ethiopia is in fact called the Land of Mary.
Thank you have a nice day.
Blessings in Christ
Sources:
1. EOTC Sunday School Department Immaculate Conception - eotcmk.org/e/the-birth-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary-2/
2. M/r RODAS
ruclips.net/video/1i7DUmLkR_83/видео.html.
3. MAHBER KIDUSAN
ruclips.net/video/73ybOkqsM1I/видео.html
4. Dersane Gabriel Tahsas Ch. 21-22
5. Ethiopia’s 4000 year history
m.ruclips.net/video/pd1J_527Cxk/видео.html
6. Lika Likawnt Ezra - Promised Land Saint Mary
ruclips.net/video/V8vBa78tvMI/видео.html
7. Holy Synod’s published document titled “The Doctrine and Foreign Relations of the EOTC”
8. No Fish on Fasting Day (EOTC)
ruclips.net/video/l1Q2CvMebtQ/видео.html
9. Fetha Negest
10. Mesafe Kebur
11. Kebra Negest
12. The Didache Ch 6
I don't know who you are, but, the pouring of Holy Water by men is coming from ETHNIC belief that the woman will somehow have her menstrual cycle or have come to the holy water after milking a cow, touching cow dung, countryside work. I am the widow of a Priest and while I can't CREATE Holy Water, I can pour Holy Water to take home with me at the Tewahedo Church. Complete sinlessness belongs to Christ who came into the world to Take Away the Sins of the World. If she had been sinless from birth, St. John the Baptist would have received her at the Jordan and told her she needed no Baptism, or, she would have gone and saved all the women first from sin, or, she would have been conveyed to Paradise instead of to the Temple to live. It was only Christ Himself that made her conception OF HIM and birthgiving "sinless" for the female sex. He came to save all of us and that included taking her sin away too. She was the Mercy Seat, and even the mercy seat Moses created was not holy until God came down to rest upon it. As for the 3 Wise men, they were never Kings, they only advised Kings. They were Zoroastrian Priests who were educated in the prophecies of Daniel. Even their names are not Ethiopian. One was Iranian (Melchior), the other Arabian (Balthazar ) and the last was from India (Gaspar.) Also - it's 14 anaphoras, which are only part of The Liturgy, but with out the other parts, can't function as a Liturgy in and of themselves.
@@SS-qo3nt
I am sorry but this 100% wrong.
@@SS-qo3nt
If you claim that Baptism for the remission of sins is “cultural” than surely you are mistaken. All throughout the Old Testament, washing and cleansing were used as a metaphor for rescue from sin. Zechariah 13:1 for example says, "On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness."
Jesus even told the elder blind man to wash his eyes in the river to be healed.
Saint Mary’s sinless conception does not equate to being a God. Remember even Adam and Eve were born sinless.
What makes a god a God, is His Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresence attribute, not just His sinless nature. This divine nature is what qualifies God to take up the sins of mankind.
Please be more educated on what you decide to engage in.
@@SS-qo3nt Christ got Baptized by St John so does that make Him equal to Saint Mary, please please think before posting silly comments.
@@SS-qo3nt You surly don’t seam to be an EOTC.
Sadly and unfortunately all that you stated is all your own opinion and not reflective of the Churches ancient 3000 year teachings.
Take care.
I'm very proud of you making this video. We do believe Mary was sinless once the Holy Spirit was sent down upon her conception and 9 months of pregnancy - she was not sinless from birth, and she was the first to retain the Grace of the Holy Spirit after Christ's birth, and before Pentecost ever came. She is the Pride of the Human Race, but if she had remained sinless, there would be no need for Christ to come into the world with His sinlessness. "He" was designated to save us. The Oriental Orthodox agreed to make an unbreakable unity with one another after being abandoned by The East's political maneuvres at Chalcedon, so that they never would have to endure another cruel Schizm among themselves. And it's worked out just fine even up until this day; Brotherly Love (philia) in the example of the Holy Apostles (whom Christ forbade to quarrel among each other!). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is the norm, and the canons are extremely close and similar, with no heresy on our side. This, my friends, is AUTHENTIC EARLY CHRISTIANITY in its living form WITHOUT the need for Protestant reform of any kind.🥰
What kind of Christian are you?? It may differ from church to church but in the Ethiopian orthodox church we believe that Mary was sinless from birth hence why God chose her.
Don't forget the Syrian Orthodox church is also oriental orthodox. It was the church of Antioch. The Coptic Church was the church of Alexandria. Research St Samuel the Confessor and St Severus of Antioch. The significant churches of Alexandria (inc. Ethiopia), Antioch, Armenia all refused the roman empire (Constantinople [byzantine, eastern roman empire, eastern orthodox] & Rome [Western roman empire, catholic] supremacy rule of Christendom.
The oriental churches include: Alexandria (Coptic orthodox), Ethiopian, Antioch (Syrian orthodox), Armenia
These oriental orthodox churches are deemed as inferior to the other churches but actually this should not be the case. Alexandria was founded by St Mark. Out of this church came Origen, St Cyril (nature of christ), St Anthony (first monk), St Athanasius (Trinity defender, Nicene creed), etc
Armenia was the first country to make Christianity official, with King Aghbar having talked to Jesus through letters. The second was Ethiopia. And Ethiopia believes in Yahweh since Solomon like the Jews. But when the Christ came they believed in. The last king of Ethiopia Haile Selassie was a direct son of Solomon. Antioch was the same church that we read of in the new testament, where the apostles were first called Christians. It was also part of the pentarchy along with Alexandria.
These churches like the Coptic church suffered immense persecution and martyrdom by the hands of the chalcedonian roman "christians" for hundreds of years.
The Bishop of Alexandria was controlling alexandria, the bishop of antioch was controlling antioch, why should the bishop of Rome and Constantinople try to control these churches. These oriental churches didn't like Romans trying to control all of Christendom, including their own diocese, that was the reason of all the splits.
Research: St Samuel the Confessor
Can you make a video about the
saint thomas christian churches of india
thanks as usual for posting.
I'm a Greek orthodox all my life, I started reading about Coptics some years ago and was blessed to find a church near the military base I served. I have attended many times and I really consider them canon for the most part, the only thing that separates us from our coptic brothers is that we are not Egyptian. Our differences are a language thing, we say hypostasis, they say one nature, we mean the same thing faith-wise. If you can, just get your hands on an Agpeya, you'll find out that we even have the same Euchologion. I hope one day we'll be united once again ☦️
Great explanation, thank you. God Bless. 🙏🏻
this is the best explanation about EOTC
Great video brother keep it up,
One question Which one is the first and the most earlier church and I will except more details on Eritrea and Ethiopia orthodox basically they are the same but more details really appreciated and keep the good work🎉
@Ready to Harvest: Okay, great, as always, Josh! ...but I notice something:
*On the Eastern Orthodox:* The Russian Church, the Greek Church, etc., within Eastern Orthodoxy call themselves "churches" but also state that they are part of the "Orthodox Church." They share communion with one another, remember one another's patriarchs in their diptychs, etc. (At present this is _not_ true of the Russian and Greek churches, but we hope that schism will be temporary.) Josh, you've referred to this collective reality as, "The Orthodox Church." (Note the _singular_ usage: "Church.")
*On the Oriental Orthodox:* The Eritrean Church, Tewahedo (Ethiopian) Church, Coptic Church, etc., within Oriental Orthodoxy call themselves "churches" but also...well, _don't_ they also state that they are the remaining faithful subsets of The Church, which is a single overarching reality? Don't they share communion with one another, etc.? Josh, you've referred to this collective reality as, "The Oriental Orthodox churches." (Note the _plural_ usage: "churches.")
Josh, is there some substantial _difference,_ some principled way in which the non-Chalcedonian churches _don't_ get to consider themselves One Church, even though the Russian and Greek churches _do?_ Or are they on more-or-less the _same_ footing, vis-a-vis unity?
If they're objectively on the same footing (that is: organizationally distinct, doctrinally very similar, and sharing communion), then, from a _principled_ standpoint, for consistency, mustn't we either say that there _is_ an Oriental Orthodox "Church" (in the singular, just like there's an Eastern Orthodox Church); or else, that there _isn't_ an Eastern Orthodox "Church" (since they're organizationally distinct and the standard we've applied to Oriental Orthodox implies that shared doctrines and intercommunion are _insufficient_ grounds to constitute unity)?
Or are we treating the Oriental Orthodox as "too distinct to constitute a Church" because they have more variation in their Scripture canon than the Eastern Orthodox do? (And...wouldn't that be rather Western/Protestant of us, to think that _that_ itself was the test of unity?)
Not trying to play "gotcha!" here, Josh. Your content is great! ...but this does seem to be an inconsistency and I'd love to hear you tease it out.
He have a longer video talking about those differences, this are more quick and simple and to talk about that would not made justice to the 2 min timer, go to the other video of him
These churches might not have the same ecclesiological outlook as the greco-roman world does. The sense of institutional unity is kind of more relaxed, as far as I understand. I think a regular Christian in Armenia rarely thinks of Ethiopia and vice versa. Moreover, Armenians don't consider Greeks or Russians to be that different. I would even say there's some "branch theory" thing going on, not in these terms, but it's in the air kind of. I cannot speak for people in Egypt and Syria though, considering the fact that there are alternative Greek hierarchies there, this might cause some sort of historical tention, but as far as I know all the recent wars in the Middle East have created a sense of shared struggles and deepened unity. I've read that intercommunion is becoming more regular.
I dont think this was a conscience thing. If you talk to a strict Oriental Orthodox person they will say they are a member of the one true church. But yeah these days many OO people believe in such innovations as branch theory and dont really see a difference between there church and the Eastern Church. Historically though Armenian monks prohibited the buying of icons from the Greeks and wrote polemics against them.
People may be more likely to say "churches" because each one in the OO Orthodox communion is quite distinct and there is little commonality besides christology. The Ethiopians are a good example of this. Officially they all believe they form the one true holy orthodox catholic church.
There isn't a schism between Russian and Greek Church. They only stopped their euchsrist communion
I think this inconsistency may have something to do with the hierarchy. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople is formally the first among equals. I think the Orientals lack anything so formal, although in actual practice, the Coptic Pope serves as first among equals. Since this hierarchical formality is lacking, that may be the explanation for calling them OO Churches rather than the OO Church.
Excellent as usual.
Could you do a video on the Mar Thoma Christians? They’re a *Reformed* Oriental Church.
lol, reformed? you left our church to the anglicans.
they are not reformed
The church with the true theology and correct understanding of Christian faith.❤
It would have been helpful to explain or have a video on the difference between a rite and a church. Churches participate in liturgical rites but rites are not churches.
The Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite or Ephesian Orthodox, since in the original languages we are called "Eastern Orthodox" while Dyophysites are called "Roman Orthodox") consider themselves the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The principal reason for the break in communion in the 5th century was that the Miaphysite Orthodox could not undo the teachings of the Council of Ephesus in 431, whose presiders rejected saying that Christ is two natures after the union yet did say that Christ is one composite nature from two natures. The 3 presiders who are relevant are Sts: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodotus of Ancyra, and Acacius of Melitene. They state (and this is a short list of examples):
"... let everyone be forced to publicly anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore: *especially those who say two natures after the union, properly each one working.* For of those who are in Germanicia I have found some experienced, *indeed refusing to say two sons, but indeed not refusing to say two natures.* Wherefore if it be granted, that it may be said and taught by them, that each nature worketh by itself, and this indeed is suffered, but that remaineth impassive, *there is no other thing than to confess two sons again, and bring in the parts."*
St Acacius of Melitene, Letter 1 to St Cyril
"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 40 to Acacius (Reply to the Letter of St Acacius of Melitene)
"You will not ascend to God, O man, unless you confess the descent of God. Paul says 'One is he who descended and he who ascended.' Not one and another, but the same is no longer divided, *no longer considered two after the union.* For 'He who ascended,' he says, 'is also He who ascended above men, so that he might fill all things.' The things *once contemplated two, the economy made one. So then, no longer say two after the indissoluble union.* What grace united, let thought not divide."
St Theodotus of Ancyra, Exposition on the Creed, 7
"How did he impoverish himself on our behalf? Let those who separate the manhood from God the Word, *parting him who was united by mention of natures, who say Christ is 'two things,' introducing for their defense a merely invented unity* - let them tell us."
St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Second Homily on Birth of Jesus Christ our Savior (Homily at Ephesus)
St Theodotus continues to speak about how "nothing is two" in Christ (despite Christ being "of two"), he then states:
"The flame in Babylon became dew and both are seen in the activity, for the three young men were cooled by the dew whereas the Babylonians were burned by the flame. *There were not two things or two natures* but what was seen was one and the same thing. The righteous bear witness: Ask not the mode of God’s miracles."
- ibid
"This objection is yet another attack on those who say that *there is one incarnate nature of the Son.* They want to show that the idea is foolish and so *they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.* They have forgotten, *however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level* which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why *the two are no longer two,* but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete."
St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus
"HERMIAS - Should you not therefore distinguish in any way?
ST. CYRIL - Certainly not. And *especially not to speak of two after the union* and conceive each of them separately. It is necessary to know, as a result, that *the mind contemplates some distinction of natures,* for divinity and humanity are certainly not the same thing, but at the same time to *admit, concerning these concepts, the both coming together into union."*
St Cyril, Christological Dialogue with Hermias the Priest
I'm a catholic, but in reality, i'm a Eritrean/Ethiopian Orthodox to the heart
what makes you say that? I love catholics❤we are one in christ❤this world is ugly.
Thank you for this wonderful video
I just want to emphasize that canonical differences, including scripture canon, as well al liturgical differences, do not affect the unity of the Oriental Orthodox Church. We are one united communion.
Thank you so much for your work God bless you
@The Moses Channel - yes and our unity in diversity is much more representative of the structure of the Church during the era of persecution, before the councils. The EO do have diversity, but they are all ultimately Greek - we have that kind of diversity within the Coptic and Syrian traditions alone. The Romans have the artificial diversity they’ve created - more like the Soviets and their satellites, and instead of ever Russifying, they are ever Romanizing.
Please do the Assyrian Church of The East next 🙏
I second this motion
It already exists!
@@christopher.96 I commented this before it was up
They are in heresy and The Assyrians accepted the theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia who was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople for his wrong teachings and Nestorius who was condemned, deposed, and banished Nestorius is regarded as one of the principal heretics in Christology, and the heresy traditionally linked with his name, Nestorianism, was formally condemned at the church councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).. His works were burned by imperial order in 436 in their wrong and fallacy teachings which was was wrong teaching because Nestorianism split Jesus in half and denied that he was both human and divine. they made this fallacy teachings
so the Assyrian church accepts nestorians teachings which is heresy and wronggggg teachings so don’t follow them!!!!
so that’s why they should repent, confess their sins and their wrong teachings and come back to the true church of Our Lord and Our God Jesus Christ and that is Oriental Orthodox🙏🏽❤️❤️❤️
Technically the 'Great Church' or, more fully, the 'Great Church of Christ' refers specifically to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It was originally a reference to Hagia Sophia, the cathedral of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which was the largest cathedral in the world for nearly 1000 years.
REALLY, SO THE OTHER Patriarchates were excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople? Where do you get your history from?
@@adolphCat I was simply pointing out that the term 'Great Church' wasn't being used in its proper historical context here, because it was not just Constantinople that anathematized and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria, rather this was it was done by the Council of Chalcedon which included the Churches of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus, in addition to the Great Church of Christ, i.e. Constantinople.
A conference of politicians called to make Constantinople the seat of Christianity is meaningless. What makes Constantine, who came from politics and Lyon, great? building?@@costakeith9048
I think you missed a huge member of the Oriental Orthodox family: The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.
And again I will point out Josh that your tendency to use the term Oriental Orthodox while referring to the Oriental Orthodox family and the term The Orthodox Church for Eastern Orthodox Church is totally wrong as the Oriental Orthodox church also considers itself The Orthodox Church and term Oriental was coined in 1960s for a conference to differentiate between the two the Orthodox branch families.
So please do be impartial in this regard.
Wait a minute, did you just name all the Oriental Orthodox Churches except for the Syriac Orthodox Church?
yes he did.
You didn't mention the Syriac Orthodox church
You have to mention the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch between the oriental churches.
It's the oldest of all.
You've missed it before as well.
The oriental orthodox curch you Forgot is the syriac orthodox church of antiochia an the syriac church in india Belongs to the syriac orthodox church of antiocha. The Patriarch of this Church is his holyness ignatius Afrem the second!!!
There is actually a third orthodox called church of the east (sometimes called nestorianism).
Yes - but they are not nestorians. Nestorianism specifically is the belief that Jesus did not have united human and divine natures. The church of the east apparently abandoned that heretical teaching a long time ago.
Just a comment on your explanation on the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Church. The church does not require male circumcision. It’s only done as a traditional practice. Baptism is the fulfilment of Old Testament’s male circumcision.
If ever there is to be a healing of one of the terrible schisms of the church, I believe it is with us and our oriental Orthodox brethren. As much as it pains me to say, I think it is a pipe dream that the East-West schism can be healed without one outright mass-converting to the other.
God Bless you @Sean Downey
This is good teacher l belive Ethiopian ortodox tewahdo cherch one of orental church is our cherch thank you.
Correct it. Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churchs doen't require circumcision. but circumcision is just a tradition. since we worship God even during Old Testament time. I am an Ethiopian Orthodox.
As an Ethiopian orthodox Christian I second this
The channel Coptic Orthodox Answers is a great place to learn about us ✝️🤓
-Coptic Orthodox Christian 💗
About the reunion of both oriental and eastern orthodox churches, I am coptic orthodox and we've had discussions with the greek orthodox in Egypt, allowing us to be in communion with the Greek Orthodox in Egypt *ONLY*, I've seen our pope tawadros II taking pictures with the pope of the greek orthodox in Egypt.
Jacobite syrian orthodox church in india under the apostolic of antoich. U didn't mentioned it.
well done well done short and focused we more academic types could not have done this well in volumes
The Christological difference appears to be more about differing interpretations of terminology rather than substantive doctrinal issues. Hopefully, this misunderstanding will be resolved officially on to the path to reuniting.
St. Athanasius the Great, a Copt, was the first Christian to identify the 27 books of the NT.
You missed the major one... The oldest syriac Orthodox church of Antioch
St Cyril of Alexandria compared the Miaphysite view to that of a burning coal - one nature from the union of two different nature.
St. Cyril's book, _That Christ is One,_ totally supports that the Oriental Orthodox have never deviated from what they had always believed prior to Chalcedon.
Another analogy I've seen him employ is to the union of body and soul in the human. Body and soul remain distinct, yet they join to form a united being.
100%
we ethiopian and eritrean oriental orthodox do not use circumcision as obligatory but it became our tradition....
Unless I am wrong about what you meant, the Immaculate Conception is just a way to say that Mary was personally sinless so...those two things are the same.
. Hierarchical structures that benefited the state that continues on beyond the state or monarchs are a fascinating phenomenon and church history.
Top down approach has benefits but it also prepares the way for certain corporate ideologies to piggyback upon.
Oddly it seems to do better when kept secular while the bottom up approach of Protestantism seems to do better when it is involved in the state.
Perhaps it's just how governments need individuals to be skeptical of it and hierarchy in general.
Whatever it is, it's clear and obvious when you look at the rise of modern nations and government structures and the relationships with denomational practices.
interesting but, what are you arguing?
@@keno77777 God moves through ,acts upon Any and all at his own discretion.
It would be wrong for anyone to assume that the Time and place needs and demands of the age didn't have God's grace behind it even though as improving the human condition throughout history changed such demands and needs of the church .
Currently in all feilds of study & life the spirit of God hovering over the waters of cosmos is in fact emerging energetic pragmatic actors in uk,Europe, Australia and its a revolution occurring very similar to classical America.
In America Its a Renaissance as we self sacrificed common sense pragmatism and was bodyslammed on humanistic orientation and direction in the all feilds of study and on European political scale that has plenty of prayer logic conservative vs cursed rationalism progressive interventionism but no common sense pragmatism
One could argue that out of compassion and care of displaced Europeans coming into America 1910s it best served the kids who through physical lawisms and works orientation and direction favored humanism to help them even at the expense of national hegemony likeminded majority American kids expense.
That the past 90 years allowed new nations borders to be drawn ,allowed all to dig up the past in archeology, all to study physics, biology totally funded to try and prove the humanism point of view but ultimately the horizon paradox demands repentance, re orientation & direction that by default creates pragmatism as a means of natural likeminded majority shared context
Fattama has nothing on millions of American 3rd grade kids predictions of or asking where is the code of life measure despite not being known or discovered, despite being in direct opposition to and contrast of darwins Babylonian evolutionary primordial soup models.
@keno77777 one can strongly argue that bad magicians always migrate to positions of power and authority .
Currently you can witness many boomer humanist that used such input and perimeters that created woke who is themselves hi jacking and useing those horizon paradoxes to some guiding rulers advantages. 3 degrees of motion/ separation = physically mystified minds cogs in the wheel useful idoit victims.
If You would do a Literature review about the two orthodox churches that would be great.
Ok, I think it would be interesting to see the theology behind he Ethiopian Church abstaining from pork and practicing circumcision!?
We practice circumcision because of Genesis 17:10-14 in which Abraham is told to circumcise every male child. The pork part is because of Deuteronomy 14:8 and Leviticus 11:3 in which says animals that have a split hoof completely divided and do not chew the cud are unclean and should not be eaten
As an Ethiopian Orthodox I had no idea other Oriental Orthodox churches didn't believe in the immaculate conception. I'm pretty curious about that.
You are wrong in some important details related to the Oriental Orthodox Communion.
The failed to mention the Syriac Orthodox Church which is the second most important church in the communion but you included the Malankara Orthodox Church which lacks universal recognition.
Actually the Standing Conference of the Oriental Orthodox Churches recognise the Syriac Orthodox Church in India headed by Catholicos Baselios Thomas I as the legitimate church of India.
Second most important? I've never heard talk before of the churches being more important than each other.
I didn't realize that Oriental Orthodox has nothing to do with East Asia. Name is very misleading. I assume it's due to the word Oriental not being used to refer primarily to East Asia until after it was used for the denominations.
They really only started even using the term "Orthodox" to describe themselves in the last 100 years.
I’d argue that “Oriental,” then and now (to the extent that it’s still used), just means “eastern” or “Asian.” Oriental rugs or Orientalism and many other remaining uses actually refer to western parts of Asia.
@@StamfordBridge But when I and probably most people hear "The Orient," they think of the geographical region of Tibet, Mongolia, and Korea on the North end, and everything from Thailand along the Indian Ocean coast to Malaysia, and back up to China on the Southern end.
Oriental just means eastern, historically it almost exclusively was used to refer to the eastern Mediterranean going maybe as far east as Persia (as opposed to, say, Eastern Europe), at least until the 19th century when it started to also be used to refer to the far east.
The Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite or Ephesian Orthodox, since in the original languages we are called "Eastern Orthodox" while Dyophysites are called "Roman Orthodox") consider themselves the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The principal reason for the break in communion in the 5th century was that the Miaphysite Orthodox could not undo the teachings of the Council of Ephesus in 431, whose presiders rejected saying that Christ is two natures after the union yet did say that Christ is one composite nature from two natures. The 3 presiders who are relevant are Sts: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodotus of Ancyra, and Acacius of Melitene. They state (and this is a short list of examples):
"... let everyone be forced to publicly anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore: especially those who say two natures after the union, properly each one working. For of those who are in Germanicia I have found some experienced, indeed refusing to say two sons, but indeed not refusing to say two natures. Wherefore if it be granted, that it may be said and taught by them, that each nature worketh by itself, and this indeed is suffered, but that remaineth impassive, there is no other thing than to confess two sons again, and bring in the parts."
St Acacius of Melitene, Letter 1 to St Cyril
"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 40 to Acacius (Reply to the Letter of St Acacius of Melitene)
"You will not ascend to God, O man, unless you confess the descent of God. Paul says 'One is he who descended and he who ascended.' Not one and another, but the same is no longer divided, no longer considered two after the union. For 'He who ascended,' he says, 'is also He who ascended above men, so that he might fill all things.' The things once contemplated two, the economy made one. So then, no longer say two after the indissoluble union. What grace united, let thought not divide."
St Theodotus of Ancyra, Exposition on the Creed, 7
"How did he impoverish himself on our behalf? Let those who separate the manhood from God the Word, parting him who was united by mention of natures, who say Christ is 'two things,' introducing for their defense a merely invented unity - let them tell us."
St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Second Homily on Birth of Jesus Christ our Savior (Homily at Ephesus)
St Theodotus continues to speak about how "nothing is two" in Christ (despite Christ being "of two"), he then states:
"The flame in Babylon became dew and both are seen in the activity, for the three young men were cooled by the dew whereas the Babylonians were burned by the flame. There were not two things or two natures but what was seen was one and the same thing. The righteous bear witness: Ask not the mode of God’s miracles."
- ibid
"This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete."
St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus
"HERMIAS - Should you not therefore distinguish in any way?
ST. CYRIL - Certainly not. And especially not to speak of two after the union and conceive each of them separately. It is necessary to know, as a result, that the mind contemplates some distinction of natures, for divinity and humanity are certainly not the same thing, but at the same time to admit, concerning these concepts, the both coming together into union."
St Cyril, Christological Dialogue with Hermias the Priest
thx for your video
Oriental orthodox here , love my estern orthodox brothers ❤️
Are there schema monks in the Oriental Orthodox Churches?
This is how Leo "congratulated" Dioscorus on becoming Pope of Alexandria. You choose which narrative you want to believe from this point forward. The one that slanders him or the one that doesn’t:
"For since the most blessed apostle Peter receives the apostolic primacy from the Lord and the Roman church continues the traditions he established, it is wrong to believe that his holy disciple Mark, who first ruled the church at Alexandria, formulated decrees with other provisions than those handed down to him. For the single spirit of the disciple and the master was unquestionably from the same source of grace, nor could the one consecrated hand down something different from what he received from his consecrator."
You did miss the Syriac Orthodox Church in your listing of churches… which the Malankara’s split from.
The Malankara Church didn't split from the Syrian church lol..the Malankara Church was an independent church from the very beginning of St. Thomas arrival. The syriac church tried to put the Malankara Church under its ecclesiastical colonial rule and bring it as it's slave. The malankara church is a completely independent church and always has been
@@realzhella6817 correct
@@realzhella6817 lol the Malankara orthodox litrelly splitted from Jacobite 😂 they practice the same Syraic litrugy
@@stephin1612 how can u say a indeginous church split from a church that came to it 1600 years later
@@realzhella6817 go learn history before yapping
How did you miss the Syriac Orthodox Church! Besides that nice video.
Does there exist an Occidental and/or Western Orthodox church if there is an Eastern Orthodox AND Oriental Orthodox church?
Slight correction about the schism: 451 is when the Council wrapped up, but the real reason there is a textbook distinction between "Eastern" and "Oriental Orthodox" is because of the Islamic conquests. Up through the 7th century, the See of Alexandria was monophysite... but so was the Patriarch of Constantinople, frequently. In both patriarchates there were Chalcedonians and monophysites among the clergy, accepting and rejecting come of the universal councils inconsistently. The main difference is that the "Oriental Orthodox" were on the outskirts of the empire, and eventually their civilizations fell to the Muslims, so they fell out of the larger Christological dialogue that had been going on since Arius. After the 7th century, this Christological dialogue ceased at least on the imperial front because, for one, the "empire" looked very different than before and there was the Muslim threat. The Coptic/Syriac apologetic self-consciousness as being officially anti-Chalcedonian as a tenet of faith (and thus, to many, officially heretical) is a recent (post-middle ages) phenomenon, and was not felt strongly--and probably is not felt strongly by most of them.
Without proof, it's just a cool myth.
Anyone from India here?♥️
You forgot to mention Syriac Orthodox Church. Thank you for the explanation.
Great Video
Thank you
Just did not mention the “Syriac Orthodox Church” I mean the one in Syria not the one in India.
Thank you again
I want to try and tempt you away from your regular topic... you do a great job at categorizing and keeping neutral and so I think you should do a somewhat detailed history of the church video
Well said!!
100% Accurate!
You left off the Syriac Orthodox Church from your list.
Notable omission is Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch one of the oldest Christianity.
You missing the Syrian Orthodox Church patriarchate of antioch
You forgot the Syriac Orthodox Church but included the Malankara Church that split from the Syriac Orthodox Church
You forgot the Syriac Orthodox Church
In all the Oriental Orthodox churches, there are also no protestant distinctives...nor in the "Great Church."
So where was or were the early churches which protestant reformers claim to be reviving? Are they reviving, reconstructing or conjecturing?
Born as Syrian orthodox my Lord bless me and my kith to be in this faith till the time your second coming 🤲🏻🤲🏻🤲🏻
Let us practice circumcision Ten commandment kosher meals and abstinence from worshipping idols and images as our Lord Jesus and his disciples had religiously practiced
Full intercommunion between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox is lacking, but there is _some kind_ of intercommunion. I have been a member of both Greek and Carpatho-Russian parishes, and in both, Oriental Orthodox believers are welcome to take communion. I was told that "they" were working on an agreement on intercommunion, but that it never got finished, with the result that Oriental Orthodox could receive Eastern Orthodox communion, but not the other way around. The question is, who are "they"? Obviously, it's a group of bishops from both the EO & OO Churches--but how widespread is this agreement? Is it worldwide? Or is it limited to the USA? Or some other possibility?
I dont know about the US but mixed couples from coptic and greek churches are allowed to.partake in eachothers sacraments.Thr intercommunion is even stronger between the patriarchate of antioch and the syriac-jacobite church which allowes priests a d faithful independent of denomination to celebrate the divine liturgy together if there is a lack of priests
I'm Coptic Orthodox Christian and taking communion in the eastern Orthodox churches (Russian,Greek,etc) is still not allowed at least in Egypt but I hope one day in the future it will be allowed
But I still want to know more about this intercomunnion agreement
Just curious: Was not capitalising "oriental orthodox" deliberate (at 0:09)?
Let’s see a video on the Church of the East and Chaldean Catholics!
0:35 Is Roman Catholic (and orthodox Protestant) doctrine still dyophysitist?
Its not the malankara syrian ortodox church. Its the Syriac Ortodox church form Syria and Turkey. The Malankara Church is the indian church and it came from the Syriac Church
I am Coptic Orthodox and I can confirm that we do not believe that St Mary was sinless. The best human being that humanity had and will ever have to offer, yes! But not sinless. God alone is without sin, but St Mary said when Archangel Gabriel announced the Good News to her in Luke 1:46-47, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit has rejoices in God my Savior". Logically, we know that God alone is sinless and if St Mary were sinless, why would she need a Savior?
In summary, we believe that St Mary was the greatest non-divine human that ever lived, but she was not completely sinless, that title is reserved exclusively for The Father, His Son and His Holy Spirit.
I was born in Egypt, grew up coptic orthodox (oriental). It is not true what you say that we view St. Mary without sin... She is the Thoekos mother of God, she died and her body assended to heaven. She wasnt immaculately born, she was born from Joachim and Hanna and given to serve in the temple when she was 3 years old. She needed Salvation just like the rest of us. Luke 1:47 "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour".. We venerate her more than the cherubim or the Serfeim, more than the hosts of Angles, and the 4 incorbial creatures mentioned in revelations, more than all the saints. She is 2nd in heaven to God, and we have a whole coptic month before Christmas dedicated to her, hymns and daily priases.. she had many apparitions in Egypt during which people were healed and miracles occurred. Even without apparitions we see daily impossible miracles in her churches in Egypt. Yes, miracles do happen where there is strong faith and poor people that don't have any other means but to cry out to Jesus and ask the intercession of his Mother. We don't see this in society where there is advanced medicine and lukewarm hearts
Hey im going to a coptic orthodox church this Saturday go for the first timem I there anything I should know?
You forgot to mention the syriac orthodox church of Antioch
You have missed Syriac orthodox Church
Syriac Orthodox Church as well.
Great video, I would just like to correct one mistake. I don’t know if you misspoke or you did not know. I am Coptic Orthodox, and I know, for a fact we believe in the Virgin Mary’s immaculate conception, in fact, we actually believe not only in the immaculate conception, but we believe that Mary never had any other children after Jesus’s birth. Since, we believe that her womb could not carry anyone else after the Light of Light - the Son of God.
Immaculate Conception means Mary was born without Original Sin. Most Coptics don't believe this, though they do affirm Mary's perpetual virginity as you say. See, for example: www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=509&catid=203
Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria said "We do not set her apart from the human race by assuming that she was born without original sin (immaculate conception), as if she was born of no human seed. Thus, the Church makes a distinction between St. Mary’s life before and after the moment of Divine Incarnation." www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/marilecture1.pdf
@@ReadyToHarvest Thank you for the clarification.
where is the syrian orthodox ( idk its full name)
You should do a video on World Mission Society Church of God.
Coptic orthodox also require circumcision for new born males ( not for converts) as was recommended by St. Peter and in the council of Jerusalem
Is it not a requirement for men to be circumcised in the Coptic church?
Wait, isn't the Syro Malankara Church under the Catholic order?
I'm so confused. I need to do a lot of reading.
The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church split away from the Oriental Orthodox Church in the early 20th century. The Syro-Malankara Catholics are in communion with Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church.
The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church should not be confused with the Malankara Orthodox Syriac Church. The Syro-Malankara are eastern Catholics, while the Malankara Orthodox are an Oriental Orthodox group.
So oriental Orthodox and eastern Orthodox are different group not the same?
Correct.
Where is Syrian Orthodox church ???
I cannot see how they can not believe in the Immaculate Conception (i.e., that Mary was conceived without tainted by the original sin) and believe that Mary was sinless. That seems contradictory to each other.
The "taint of original sin" is a peculiarly Western doctrine that was articulated by Saint Augustine. Eastern Christians generally don't believe in it. That's not to say that they don't have the doctrine of the Fall and Man being under the curse of Adam. It just means that they didn't pick up this accretion about humankind being culpable of the sin of Adam. Without the "stain" of original sin, and also without the doctrine of total depravity, it becomes possible for an especially pious individual to never personally commit a sin. This is the idea with the Theotokos, that she was uniquely situated, and developed such a character and strength of will that she always resisted the temptation to sin. Finally, before you ask some question about what she needed salvation for if she was naturally capable of not sinning, like I said before, though she never personally sinned, she was under the curse of Adam, born estranged from God. She needed the Savior to overturn the curse and reunite her to God.
Do your research properly... you missed Syriac orthodox Church of Antioch