Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy (What is The Difference?)

Fr. John Mahfouz is the pastor of St. Matthew Orthodox Church in Torrance, California.

Please support Roots of Orthodoxy AND receive early access to all new YouTube content through Roots of Orthodoxy Patreon:

Your support makes this channel possible!

Follow on social media:
Instagram: @RootsofOrthodoxy
Tik-Tok: @RootsofOrthodoxy

#orientalorthodox #orientalorthodoxy #copticorthodox #copticchurch #copticorthodoxy #ethiopianorthodox #easternorthodox #orthodoxchristianity #orthodoxchristian #easternorthodoxy

[NablisZeyared]

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit one God amen.

Ethiopian Orthodox here,

Father, thank you for sharing this with us but with a great humility I would like to say these.


1. Wouldn't it be unwise while referring to St. Anthony the great of Egypt but ignore the coptic chruch by saying she is not the church of Christ? Indeed she is. A church of Jesus Christ which was evangelized by St. Mark the apostle. Of course we are Apostolic!

2. The Orthodox Church (which we also are and is the church of Jesus Christ) hasn't never ignored that Christ has both human will and divine will when we say Christ is one nature. Indeed He has two wills. When we say one nature, it has to be clear that we are saying that Christ is of two natures that are united inseparable. Christ is one person that is fully God and fully Human. Will of Divinity and will of humanity is also united in Christ and they are not separable. When Christ is hungry, we don't say it's the human nature alone that feels the hunger or when He did miracles, the Divinity do the miracles, but we say Jesus Christ did the miracle.

3. Father with all kindness and humility again, the way you speak is not right when you address about our differences and the way we are seeing each other. You have said that the priest told to to take the communion with them by saying we are the same. That priest is wrong and you are wrong by attaching the mistake of the priest to out Holy church. Indeed we are not the same at this time and we can not partake the Eucharist eachother. We won't say 'let's focus only on what works!' And then you try to give some examples and this makes us look like fools and that we are not aware there is no problem between us and the solution to that is looking the good side only. We are Orthodox Christians also father and it's was not a good way of handling this issue in fact.

4. The reason you pointed out about the Excommunication is not sufficient at all and why on earth will our fathers ignore coming to the council and talk about the issue if there wasn't something really wrong around there that is aggravated also by the politics? Not sufficient father. I recommend us all to read more.

5. When also talking about ethnicity attachments, don't forget also separating russians and eastern orthodoxy is difficult. The reason why we don't became EO is not the ethnicity factor alone father. Don't make it seem like it is.

6. We also believe in deification through Theosis. Even though I know little about what the pope said (I will try to read), a pope is not a to remind you. If a pope or anybody rejects a doctrine, we will not be bothered by that if the Church accepts it. It is the church from where we get all our sources.

6. The last point I want to make is as father mentioned about the pious copts, both OO and EO church has pious saints which experienced the sweetness of Christ. Christ is not some sweet we buy and eat to make us feel good, He is a pure God who rests on the pure heart. Maybe there is something that is beyond both of our understanding right now but let us not talk harsh about one another for now.

May our Lord and Savior make us one, as He and His Father are one. Amen!!!

Again, thank you very much father.

[sereneorb]

Syrian Orthodox from india. Our community started since AD 52 when St. Thomas came to Indian subcontinent(Southern part) happy and extremely grateful to be Christian.

May God bless you and your loved ones. ✝️♥️

[nickdavila]

EO convert here. I love my Coptic and OO brothers!

[elizabethmansour]

I loved hearing about this Priests Journey and how the Coptic Church had an influence on him. As someone who is Coptic and went to an Eastern Orthodox High School, it was very sad to be told every mass I could not partake in communion. I never understood why till I was older but it did ignite a flame in me which is still very much alive today to understand why.
I pray for the unity of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit .

[The__Witnesses]

Greetings and much love from an Armenian Apostolic brother.

I yearn for the day when all Christians will be one together in Heaven with Jesus Christ our Lord. No more denominations or divisions, but unity of faith. Amen.

[King.Kaleb]

Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It's important to recognize that the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, while historical and doctrinal, are often deepened by misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

Firstly, the characterization of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the Coptic Orthodox Church, as not being part of "the Church" is a misunderstanding of our doctrinal position. The term "Miaphysite, " which we use to describe our Christological position, should not be confused with "Monophysitism." Miaphysitism, as articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, affirms that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human in one united nature, "the Incarnate Word of God, " without mixing, separation, or confusion. This is different from Monophysitism, which is often incorrectly attributed to us and suggests a single, merged nature.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which led to the schism between our churches, was rejected by the Oriental Orthodox not due to a rejection of the dual nature of Christ, but because we felt that the Chalcedonian definition could be interpreted in a way that divides Christ's natures too distinctly, which we believe risks Nestorianism. The definition of "two natures" can be seen as an overemphasis that potentially splits His unity, something we assert without negating His full humanity and divinity.

Furthermore, it's crucial to acknowledge that significant theological dialogues have been undertaken in recent decades to bridge these historical divides. These discussions have often revealed that much of the disagreement was rooted in linguistic and cultural misunderstandings. For instance, joint statements between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians have acknowledged that our Christological positions may be far more aligned than historically contested.

Regarding the assertion that Oriental Orthodoxy somehow contributes to theological "illness" or deviation, it is important to approach these discussions with a spirit of humility and reconciliation. As Christians, our focus should be on understanding and unity within the body of Christ. Our shared commitment to the core tenets of Christianity — the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the salvation of humanity — should guide us toward mutual respect and love.

It's also necessary to honor the deep, spiritual, and historical roots of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which have preserved the faith amid numerous hardships and persecutions throughout history. The Oriental Orthodox Churches continue to contribute richly to the global Christian witness through vibrant liturgies, deep theological reflections, and a strong emphasis on asceticism and holiness.

In conclusion, rather than focusing solely on historical divisions, it would be beneficial for us as followers of Christ to seek ways to heal these breaches, to emphasize our shared faith, and to work together to present a united witness to the world. Let us pray for unity in truth and love, remembering that we are called to be one as Christ and the Father are one.

[bostahome]

I am a Coptic Christian who lives in the US, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that we are not monophysites. As we declare in every liturgy that the divinity of Christ did not depart from his humanity. It was all politics and racism 1600 years ago and it is politics and racism now. Additionally, there are no monophysites in the world currently, the person who pointed this out to me is a Greek monk in Saint Gregory Plamas in Ohio it was a side note in a very brotherly conversation.
I am privy to the negotiations between the two Churches that took place in Pope Shenonda's era, and the reason we are not one Church yet is because the Greek side wanted us to remove the excommunications on the Greek side without guaranteeing that the same would happen from the Greek side which is unfair, and again shows the politics and racism. And If we are monophysites, why did the Greek Church sign an agreement with the Coptic Church to accept each other's sarment of baptism?

At any rate, seek Christ with all your heart, delving into ancient politics is not the best use of time.

Enjoy the upcoming Holy Week Xristos Anisitie


PS. Coptic Holy Week rituals are very pretty awesome :) check it

[MankinaZoomer]

St. Matthew’s is where I experienced my first Vespers and Akathist service. Fr. John instructed me on how to venerate icons. Their perish is truly an amazing place

[yenenehw]

The priests implication that the "Oriental Orthodox (OO) never been a Miaphysite in 451AD" is a blatant lie. The truth however is during the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, the Eastern Orthodox (EO) along with the Roman Catholics, rejected St. Cyril's teachings of the *_“One Nature of God the Incarnate Word"_* and adopted the Tome of Leo which heavily *_leaned on the heretic Nestorius._* The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church's (OO) Miaphysite faith is based on St. Cyril of Alexandria's formula “One Nature of God the Incarnate Word." The Lord Jesus Christ is God Himself, the Incarnate Word who took to Himself a perfect manhood. His Divine nature is one with his human nature yet without mingling, confusion or alteration; a complete Hypostatic Union. Words are inadequate to describe this union. It was said, that without controversy, "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit - the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin's womb. As a result of the unity of both natures the Divine and the human inside the Virgin's womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Word" as St. Cyril called it. *_Isn't it ironic that the EO venerate St. Cyril while simultaneously dismissing his teaching on the "One Nature of God the Incarnate Word"?_*
*✝THE NATURE OF THIS UNION:*
The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Word". St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity. So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature within the Virgin's womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ. In fact, the expression "two natures" implies in itself division or separation, and despite your belief in unity, regrettably you admit separation by stating two natures existed in Christ following His birth. This fundamental divergence in understanding has been a significant factor leading to the schism between our respective churches. By "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature.
*✝THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNION BETWEEN IRON AND FIRE:*
St. Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire - an ignited iron. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man". In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement, but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire. Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Word is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well.
*✝THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNION BETWEEN THE SOUL AND THE BODY:*
This example was used by St. Cyril, St. Augustine and a large number of ancient and recent theologians. In this simile, the nature of the soul unites with the physical earthly nature of the body to form a single nature known as human nature (one nature). This united nature does not include the body alone nor the soul alone but both together are combined without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation. No transmutation occurs of the soul into the body nor of the body into the soul, yet both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one nature and one person. Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature?! Here I'd like to raise an important question regarding the One Nature and the Two Natures: Do we not all admit that the nature which we call Human Natures contained before the unity two Natures: the soul and the body? Yet, the EO who claim that there are two natures in Christ: a divine and a human, do not mention the two natures of manhood of Christ i.e. the soul and the body but consider them one. If we go into details we would find ourselves before three natures in Christ!!! the Divinity, the soul and the body, and each of them has its distinct entity and essence... Of course, this is unacceptable on both sides. *_When we accept the union of the soul and the body in one nature in Christ, and when we use the expression theologically, it becomes easier for us to use the expression “One Nature of Christ" or "One Nature of God the Incarnate Word" as St. Cyril taught us._* *_Just as we say that the human nature is one nature consisting of two elements or natures, we can also say about the Incarnate Word, that He is one entity of two elements or natures._* If the Divine nature is claimed to differ from the human nature, how then do they unite? The reply is that the nature of the soul is fundamentally different from the nature of the body, yet it is united with it in one nature, which is the human nature. *_Although man is formed of these two natures, we never say that He is two, but one person. All man's acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul alone or to the body alone. Thus when we want to say that a certain individual ate, or became hungry, or slept, or felt pain, we do not say that it is his body which ate, or became hungry, or got tired or slept or felt pain. All man's acts are attributed to him as a whole and not only to his body. Similarly, all the acts of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not to His Divine nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone._* The union of the soul and body is an intrinsic real union, a Hypostatic one. So is the union of the Divine nature of Christ with the human nature in the Virgin's womb. It is a Hypostatic union, self-essential and real and not a mere connection, then separation as Nestorus claimed. Though the example of the union of the soul and body in the human nature is inclusive, still it is incomplete as it does not explain how the soul departs the body by death nor how they reunite again in the resurrection. But as for the unity of the Divine and human natures of Christ, it is an inseparable union as the Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye.
*✝THREE MAIN REASONS WE REJECT THE COUNCIL OF CHACEDON (451AD):*
⛔Leo, the Bishop of Rome, stated in his famous Tome "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering" thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. EO accepted and voted for the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo. *_St. Dioscorus, however, firmly rejected the Tome of Leo and remained steadfast in his adherence to St. Cyril's formulation of "One nature of God the incarnate Word."_* Subsequent Ecumenical Councils of the EO later made amendments to the Tome of Leo, removing any Nestorian-like positions from it. This fact confirms, without dispute, that St. Dioscorus was correct in his stance.
⛔Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa had insulted St. Cyril of Alexandria by their deeds and writings and had supported Nestorius and his teaching, for which, they should have been characterized as heretics and excommunicated. But yet, they were accepted and were present at the Council without having renounced their Nestorian-like positions.
⛔St. Dioscorus of Alexandria, representing the OO Churches, made a request for the removal of the two heretics, namely Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, from the Council. However, his request was denied, leading to his decision to abstain from further participation in the Council. Nevertheless, in the EO Church's Fifth Ecumenical Council held in 553 AD, the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa was scrutinized, and their Nestorian-like and anti-St. Cyril writings were ultimately condemned. *_This indisputable fact confirms that St. Dioscorus was correct in his assessment during the 451 AD Council. Yet, it took the EO a century (102 years) to rectify the errors of the 451 AD Council and finally excommunicate the two heretics._*

In my forthcoming post, I will cite various Church Fathers who precede the Council of Chalcedon (451) and express their endorsement of the belief in "One nature after the union, " similar to the OO tradition. By presenting these historical references, I aim to refute the falsehoods propagated against the OO church. The Church Fathers this priest mentions are all post Chalcedon (451) and EO.

[ramzhamz]

Ethiopian Orthodox here. disappointing to see the EO side continuously and intentionally misrepresenting and belittling our position. I have started to think that maybe I should stay away from their content altogether.
Regarding Christology, It is not us who need to clear our position but you. Explain to us how you say you follow St. Cyril's teachings of the "One incarnate nature of the word incarnate" but then go on to say Christ is in two natures at the council of Chalcedon. As far as consistency we the OO have it. Belittling or misrepresenting us will not cover up the contradictions between Ephesus and Chalcedon, which you have to deal with.

[Avyboy]

6th from Long Island NY 🇺🇸 greetings my fellow Orthodox family! God Bless

[novowsss]

This video has inaccurate information about the Coptic Orthodox Church

[yomama]

St Cyril of ALEXANDRA is miaphysite yet he is a saint in your church?? yet you state the miaphysite position is not the true orthodoxy. C'mon man

[MrEgyPete]

I am shocked by a priest who lived so closely with Copts and whose mother attended the Coptic church claims the Copts are monophysites!!

First, please read the common statement of orthodoxy signed by EO and OO in 1990.

Second, just by logic, how a church of st Cyril who formulated the Christology of the third council be heretics. We are sticking to the same formulation till today!

I pray for my brothers and sisters in EO to stop dividing the body of Christ like this.

[petal]

As an oriental orthodox Christian this video really helps me understand that weird shade and discrimination that I receive from some lesser enlightened eastern orthodox people. At least he was able to clarify something for me!

[tims]

I am Oriental Orthodox. WE ARE NOT READ OUR FATHERS AND HYMNS, IT CANNOT BE CLEARER!

[joeyoussef]

We believe in one will from two wills or one composed will we didn't deny the human will of Jesus Christ and Pope Shenouda did not reject deification, but he rejected an extremist concept of deification, that we are God by nature, not by grace.

And we believe in theosis like eastern orthodox churches

[williamticknor]

Thank you, Father, for your beautiful and moving testimony and instruction on the faith. I found your reasoning on focusing on the problems in order to heal the errors (like at a hospital) to be particularly compelling. I pray that you and all of your parishioners at St. Matthew's have a blessed final week of Lent.

[tonton]

I hear about two devout Copts in this video: St. Anthony, the father of all monasticism and the one to whom the monastery spoken of is named after, and your grandfather. These two were not blind or lost. To claim that the Coptic church is blind and not part of the truth is very shortsighted.

“You will know them by their fruits” — the riches, the saints, the miracles, the martyrs all under the Coptic faith stand as witness of the genuineness of the Coptic faith and God’s acceptance of our ancient and strong church.

”In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border. Then the Lord will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to the Lord and perform it…whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people.“
‭‭(Isaiah‬ ‭19‬)

[minaammonius]

Someone once said to me that many of the Eastern O are like " the Taliban of Christians ". While I disagree with him, I came to understand why he said that after listening to some of them like the one in this video, so divisive and full of themselves. There only argument is that the other side does not follow them so the other is " not Christian ", ' not a church "or " not Orthodox ". As if he consider his throne to be above that of The Most High.

Notice the classic tactics of a pathetic argument, devoid of logic and even honesty.

1- The repeated use of blatant lies most notably calling the Oriental O, Monophysites. No they are not and never were. That is a heresy according to the Oriental O theology and in fact according all Christians.

2- Deliberately omitting important facts including but not limited to;
- The oriental orthodox did not change the formula about the nature of the Christ as stated by the ecumenical councils in Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.
- St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Anthony and many others of the early church fathers who wrote extensively about faith and theology were Copts and Coptic Orthodox church again never changed any of the doctrine of the ecumenical councils or the early church fathers. The eastern O are those who deviated and made the changes, so using there logic, Eastern O are actually not orthodox.
- The council of Chalcedon was NOT an ecumenical council by definition. Saying that it was one is simply falsification. Furthermore, the sole purpose of that council was to assert the dominance of the bishops who are close to the emperor. That sin resulted is division of The Body Of The Christ and that same sin resulted in their later division and the formation of the catholic church. Remember it was the same very first sin, the one resulted in falling of the lucifer.
- Non of the Oriental O has officially said that they are " one and the same " or " have the same doctrine" as that of the Eastern O. The truth is that a recent joint commission of theological dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 80s concluded that the differences in the Christology between both sides are matter of semantics, with a signed declaration. It is now increasingly evident that the main stumbling block against the unity of faith is the politics, bigotry and arrogance rather than theology.
- The eastern O have blood on their hands. Remember the history, the persecution and massacres that the adherents of Oriental Orthodoxy have suffered under the Byzantines. While Christians must forgive, this matter should be addressed and an adequate apology from the Eastern O should be offered. That is not a personal matter, it is about our Christian faith and values.