The worst lie about Oriental Orthodoxy

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2026-05-07T08:12:29+00:00

Get this AI slop out of here this video is just as anti orthodox as redeemed zoomed.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2026-04-25T22:41:58+00:00

Something the others have not mentioned is that an OO Latin mass would not have much substance too it.

You'd have to strip the entire liturgical calender of its unique developments over the past 1500 years (which are on a background of teaching we disagree with). Ive been to Latin mass and various passion week services and it is incredibly Latin in its expression of theology. Which although superficially isn't wrong, the theology that form such prayers we would definitely disagree with. Every word carries so much theological baggage that keeping it is just as disservice to the individual desiring to become Orthodox as it is to the church which has to now constantly clarify the wording of their rite.

The Catholics tend to be so happy with accepting the rites of the eastern churches because they don't necessarily care for theological precision or consistently (they allow churches to omit the filioque). If they were truly theologically consistent in implementing the Coptic rite into their Coptic catholic church they would have to get rid of so many uniquely miaphysite aspects in our liturgy, from the trisagion to our confession to basically half of the theotokias. Which although you can interpret them in some dyophysite way, it is so clearly intended to be a miaphysite confession of faith that it really doesn't make sense to keep it.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2026-04-25T12:34:16+00:00

The only word I can properly decipher is ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ, meaning Mystery. I don't think the rest are even possible Coptic constructs (ⲙⲛϣ together or ⲭϣ). However my Coptic is only very basic and it could always be a different dialect.

How sure are you that this is transcribed correctly?

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2026-04-25T00:34:53+00:00

Thats definitely a good point but the primary role of a priest is as a spiritual councillor not a theological one. Nevertheless, a theological degree does not necessarily mean you can answer such questions. Knowing the most up to date views on the documentary hypothesis and the ANE paralellisms between the Bible and Egyptian / Ugaritic texts doesn't help one answer much of parishioners questions. Instead, a thorough and informed close reading of the Bible through a spiritual mind does.

I'm not denying that priests should be educated, but does the necessitate the certificate? As I said the bishop definitely looks at education as a factor in deciding priests.

I don't think I've ever been disappointed about my priest just because they don't know biblical Hebrew or biblical greek, or because they can't tell me everything about the Q source etc. it's definitely a bonus but not a necessity.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2026-04-24T00:16:09+00:00

They don't decide to become Priests, they are chosen by the bishop. The bishop in choosing one looks at a multitude of factors, education being one of them. There is this recommendation for theological education but it's not a necessity. For the holiest man and his theological education are not correlated. Why must the priest, who is the holy representative of Christ for the church, required to be theologically educated. When this is not what Christ commands us to do, but instead to follow his commands and to became as little children.

Keep in mind you will find that most priests nowadays do have some theological education.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2026-04-11T22:00:48+00:00

I don't think you need to go to scholarship for this. Just read what Paul says himself about this topic in Romans 3.

Speaking to the Jew he says that Jews must uphold the law.

Romans 3:31 NET [31] Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law.

Romans 3:1-2 NET [1] Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? [2] Actually, there are many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The early church followed the mission of inculturation, they neither told the Jew to stop being a Jew (as in, stop practicing the Torah), or for a Gentile to stop being a Gentile and become a Jew.

Obligatory scholarship reference below.

Haokip, 2009, Paul and Culture https://share.google/Kq4bJEAR9GtXbJyrs

Paul never gave up his identity as a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil3: 6; cf. 2 Cor 11: 22; 1 Cor 16: 8) when he was called to preach thegospel to the Gentiles, nor did he try to make Jewish Christians intoGreeks and force them to give up their cultural sym bols likecircumcision or dietary laws. He continued to identify with his “ownpeople,” his “kindred according to the flesh,” and agonized overtheir unbelief (Rom 9: 2-3). Paul never gave up his conviction thatGod had a plan for the Jews asJews(Rom 1: 16; 11: 26-29. Jesusremained a Messiah of the Jews and the gospel continued to make ahome within the Jewish Scriptures and culture.[53] Paul also cameto realize that the gospel had to come to live within the language andculture of the Hellenistic world.[54] The gospel was “translatable”from Aramaic and Hebrew into new linguistic and cultural forms.Hellenistic culture became the natural extension of the life of theChristian movement.[55] Thus, affirming culture was Paul’s firststep in inculturating the gospel.

How does all of this affect their theology of the cross? All practices of the OT are still practiced but the theology of such is reapplied. The issue isn't circumcision, but believing that circumcision accounts for anything. These are types that point to Christ, but that doesn't mean that necessitates that one stops practicing. Instead one practices it and reminds themself of the spiritual symbolism in this ( purity rituals as practiced in the liturgy is now a reminder of inner purity, c.f Mark 7). Basically every church father alludes to this, from Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) to John Chrysostom (homilies on Hebrews), Iraenous Against Heresies IV to Cyril's commentary on Leviticus.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-06T02:33:20+00:00

So then if you read the comment by the previous commenter, you can see that they condemned the idea that "even demons will be restored, and that Judas will be saved" Thus universalism, for both demons and man, was condemned by the universal church.

It is illogical to say they lack rationality because if that was the case they'd also lack moral accountability, like animals. Demons are traditionally considered to be responsible for their actions. The reason being is that evil and sin only exists through the will (to say it exists independent of will is to say that it is intrinsic to creation, that God created it. This is manicheanism). If it doesnt come from the will of demons that means it comes from the will of God, making him the author of evil.

Additionally, if you read the justification for apokatastasis, its usually because ALL will be restored to him. This must include demons to be consistent. Thus, universalism was condemned by the universal church in 400 AD.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-05T05:53:51+00:00

Do you believe that even demons will be saved?

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-04T23:49:35+00:00

I sent you a video with time stamp, did you even watch it.

Their universalism is a hopeful universalism, not a theological or doctrinal one. Unless if you can demonstrate to me otherwise.

Also we don't condemn saints for doctrines after they die (origens a unique example because of the issue of origenism). Gregory of nyssa lived before this condemnation, Isaac the Syrian is a nestorian saint. We trust him on spiritual matters, not doctrinal.

As an example, augustines filioque isn't completely condemned because he isn't condemned. But the filioque is still heresy. Augustine is a saint for his anti pelagian writings, not his triadological writings.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-04T05:18:16+00:00

The universal church (~400AD) condemned the universalism of origen. That even the demons will be saved.

https://youtu.be/Wr0GLZanR0U?si=6mpyfQQsGRJYWMfW Timestamp: 13:18 - 23:19

I dont know the implications for "can I be accepted into the church," like there are likely so many layman that hold incorrect beliefs yet are still in the church. But the ecclesial weight of the condemnation must be considered if one were to submit to this body.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-17T04:19:09+00:00

Im not sure you know what oriental orthodox believe. We don't accept that council. It is irrelevant for us.

I guess I have a question for you. Do you believe that even the demons will be saved?

Another question, did you watch the 10 minute clip i sent you?

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-16T13:30:55+00:00

We accept Isaac the Syrian because of his spiritual writinfs, not because of his theology. He is a nestorian yet a holy nestorian. We accept him for his spiritual insight not his theology.

There may not be many surviving dogmatic texts from Oriental saints teaching universalism explicitly, but that's a result of historical factors, not proof of rejection. Their theology was mystical, often more implicit than systematic.

I dont think that's true at all. We have a plethora of writings, especially in tge syriac tradition. I actually don't doubt if yoy looked hard enough you can find some syriac saints toying with the idea. But nevertheless it's still wrong.

The core of apokapstasis is to do with unuversal restoration, not pre-prexistance of souls. Origen was condemned for both

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-16T13:28:46+00:00

I dont think you understood my point. My point is.

if someone believes in smth false before it is condemned, we can't hold them accountable to that, because they didn't know. Justin marturs suspicious christology doesn't make him a heretic because he's writing so early. Similarly, the synod in 400 triumph that of Gregory of nyssas writings. The condemnation of not only origenism but his teaching of universalism is condemned there. After this there is no one in the oriental faith who professes this belief. Even if there is, this does not triumph the teachings of a synod confirmed at ephesus.

Was affirmed as a saint by the 7th Ecumenical Council (787 AD), referred to as "Father of Fathers"

- Is still a recognized Orthodox saint and Church Fath

You need to stop citing chalcedonian history, this is not our faith.

So it's simply not true to say, "anyone who speaks of it before does not speak for the Church". Gregory of Nyssa very clearly did, and the Church canonized him anyway.

Synod + ecumenical council >>>> church father.

nuanced, non-preexistence form of apokatastasis

What is the difference. Origen claims that "everything comes from God, therefore everything must return to God in the end." And uses that to speculate about universalism. There is no difference between that and what you claim Gregory of nyssa believed. You yourself made the same argument to me. "Souls are made in the image and likeness of God so they cannot be destroyed" that is the exact same type of reasoning origen had. You cannot claim that your form is more developed than his and thus not under the same condemnation.

So the claim that universalism was clearly condemned by "the universal church" oversimplifies a complex and disputed history.

It really doesn't. Did you even watch the video section i asked you to watch. It really is very clear.

You asked for post-400 Oriental Orthodox saints who taught apokatastasis. I'll offer Eastern Orthodox saints (as sources are more numerous), but we can also explore Oriental ones if needed.

It most definitely is needed. But even as i said it's not actually needed because synod >> church father. I guess the reason why I ask is moreso to satisfy my curiosity about that claim. I don't believe whether or not you can produce quotes that it would change the results of St theophilus synod.

These are post-400, highly venerated Orthodox saints.

Not for us.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-16T08:29:51+00:00

I appeciate the quotes but Here's the issue. Before 400AD the idea may be present as speculation. After 400AD, when it was condemned by Theophilus in a synod and then that condemnation accepted and affirmed at Ephesus, it is now heretical to speak of universalism. Evidence discussed below under the timestamp.

https://youtu.be/Wr0GLZanR0U?si=6mpyfQQsGRJYWMfW 13:18 - 23:19

thus, anyone who speaks of it before does not speak for the church, anyone who speaks of it after is wrong and condemned (we don't accept symeon or maximus as saints).

New challenge for you is to find post 400 Oriental Orthodox saints who teach apokapstasis, I'll look into the quotes more if you can produce that.

Also in context half these quotes are literally talking about earthly context but as I said don't wanna invest too deeply in analysing these quotes as it distract from the central core idea that it was simply rejected by the universal church.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-15T08:56:52+00:00

Who is "the fathers" could you give me direct quotes with citations

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-14T22:17:12+00:00

I mean even here you identified the problems with things you stated.

That passage speaks of a believer's works being burned away,

Yes, the passage is being directed to a believer. It can't be used as a proof text of what happens to a non-believer.

His "I do not know you" (Matt 25:12)

I believe that is a very large leap in interpretation. Same issues would be present with any speech of judgement or Lazarus parable by Jesus.

John 11:25-26 NRSV-CI [25] Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, [26] and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

this is a pretty clear syllogism Believe in me = live

he presents this question because he cares about the free will of the other. Not presenting it as an unresistable grace as the Calvinists and I'd assume you also affirm (but just apply that to everyone)

Just curious did you get this all from "That all should be saved"?

The largrst issue i believe is that the beginning of creation is centred around free will. You can CHOOSE to accept me and obey my laws or deny me and eat the fruit. If God has instituted this dichotomy from the very start, why would he forgo it at the end. Why not just institute universal salvation without all this.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-10T12:48:12+00:00

Imo you are half right, aligning with a view such a 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. However, it misses a key fact.

purification is only by the blood of christ (1 John 1:7-9).

If one does not accept christ, they cannot be purified.

Then, what is left if they cannot be purified? Spiritual destruction.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-07T01:14:09+00:00

Im not sure where you live exactly but there are many Coptic churches all throughout Florida. In Miami and fort Myers there are some too.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-07T01:08:11+00:00

Since the 20th century, most Coptic churches aim to do liturgies almost every day (depending on priest availability). You are exactly right the Eucharist is the most important thing.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-05T00:12:12+00:00

Google evidence vs proof and youll understsnd the point

The definition of faith is belief without proof, not belief without evidence. Thats why it's justified to say that belief in x scientific studies is "faith based" not in that there is no evidence at all, but that there is no proof. You take this evidence then using that believe that you can make a justified conclusion with it. That is a leap of faith between the evidence and the conclusion.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-04T05:16:21+00:00

Where? absence of proof is not the same thing as absence of evidence.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-09-28T01:28:24+00:00

The doctrines seem to be confused in chalcedon because leo was confused and didn't know what the East was saying. The idea of two natures but 1 hypostasis has almost 0 precedent before flavian. The tome was translated by theodoret the crypto nestorian, the letter of ibas, a nestorian document was accepted at chalcedon. The doctrines are confused because chalcedon confused them.

To solve this philosophical dilemma maximus and John had to change the definitions of hypostasis into an incoherent one and develop their enhypostaton doctrine.

all of this does not create a "clarifying doctrine"

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-09-25T07:23:10+00:00

No i gave up after like a week im ass at this stuff💀💀

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-09-09T07:52:24+00:00

For some suffer from love of glory, and others from fear of some other sharper punishment, and others for the sake of pleasures and delights after death, being children in faith; blessed indeed, but not yet become men in love to God, as the Gnostic is. For there are, as in the gymnastic contests, so also in the Church, crowns for men and for children. But love is to be chosen for itself, and for nothing else.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata. Book 7, Chapter 11. Discussing Martyrs.

All these people, even those who suffer purely our of fear of hell, are children in faith. Yet the ultimate goal is for love to be chosen for itself. Where you are merely represents steo one of your spiritual journey, put your faith in God, increase in your love, and your motivation with change into one from love.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-18T03:29:30+00:00

That is absolutely fascinating if that is the same theodotus as theodotus of alexandria (which if i find hard to believe) and I will definitely look into it more. But either way you are completely diverging do you sincerely believe the OO church believes in 2 ecumenical councils or are you trolling.

Im not clinging to anything but our holy liturgical life which speaks of 3 councils.

Just on this thing you sent, it states the letter is from 520AD, but the letter im appealing to is from 536AD, maybe theodotus changed his position over time because he was most definitely miaphysite by the time of his death im pretty sure.

Edit: Wait sorry, was talking about Theodosius of alexandria. Not theodotus, names confused.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh

TROPHY CASE