• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why the Copts are NOT Monophysites:

Maximus

Orthodox Christian
Jun 24, 2003
5,822
373
✟7,903.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

You know I can't argue here, which is why you are quoting me and posting your comments.

I know that Theodoret of Cyrus was Orthodox - despite the condemnation of some of his earlier writings - because he made a full confession of his Orthodoxy, repented of the appearance of Nestorianism in some of his controversy with St. Cyril, and was accepted by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon.

He was a holy and God-bearing Father of the Church who produced some valuable writings. That is why he is in fact known to the Orthodox Church as Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus.

Some of his early writing was dredged up and condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council as a concession to the Monophysites. I am not saying the written work in question was correct, but that was the reason behind dredging it up.

A letter allegedly written by Ibas of Edessa (he denied writing it) was likewise condemned, as were the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

All three men were long dead by the time their writings were condemned and had no opportunity to answer for themselves.

I do not deny that the council was right in recognizing what appears to have been heresy in the "Three Chapters," but it is nonetheless true that their authors were not around to offer any sort of defense or explanation.

Theodoret and Ibas are both recognized by the Orthodox Church as Orthodox. They were not Nestorians.
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
And you know I can't argue in TAW, which is why I'm posting here.

I'm sorry Maximus, but you are the first EO I here that confess that Theodoret and Ibas are saints. For there are many EO I know that disagree, and St. Cyril himself disagree. Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were also defended in Chalcedon and condemned in Constantinople. St. Cyril condemned Theodore before Chalcedon had to contradict it. These "three Chapters" are one of the MANY reasons why we as Oriental Orthodox do not accept your councils.

Chalcedon accepted these writings, and Constantinople rejected them.

As for debating, I wish that you debate. I do not want to act like manywho kicked me out and not share my views in the same thread.

May God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!

PS Why didn't you share these views with me in PM then? Why did you wait till I got everyone's attention?
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican


And yet you seem to not believe me if I condemn Eutyches.

He was a holy and God-bearing Father of the Church who produced some valuable writings. That is why he is in fact known to the Orthodox Church as Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus.


And later on "impious."

Some of his early writing was dredged up and condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council as a concession to the Monophysites. I am not saying the written work in question was correct, but that was the reason behind dredging it up.

Did St. Athanasius concede to the Arians or St. Cyril to the Nestorians? Obviously not! Concession only proves a weakness, not consistency in Orthodox defense.

A letter allegedly written by Ibas of Edessa (he denied writing it) was likewise condemned, as were the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Proof? I understood that Ibas and Theodore defended themselves very well, and are venerated with Nestorius by the Assyrian Church as "Orthodox."

All three men were long dead by the time their writings were condemned and had no opportunity to answer for themselves.

Neither did Origen defend himself. Yet he was condemned while being alive by the Alexandrian Patriarch at his time. So did Theodore and Ibas were condemned while being alive by St. Cyril. They had a chance to defend themselves, but in return, they condemned the Pillar of Faith.

I do not deny that the council was right in recognizing what appears to have been heresy in the "Three Chapters," but it is nonetheless true that their authors were not around to offer any sort of defense or explanation.

Therefore, you in actuality, without realizing it, reject the 5th "Ecumenical" Council. The same Orthodox Church have filled the sentence by condemning the three men as impious. Did the Orthodox fathers somehow "misunderstood" them? You can't defend that! For misunderstanding to you implies that they were not lead by the Holy Spirit. Unless, you confess that these fathers did "misunderstand" while the Chalcedonian fathers "never" misunderstood. You seem to choose who misunderstood and who didn't among your fathers, which contradicts consistency in Orthodox defence. If you want, I can do the same and try to prove to you that St. Dioscorus never misunderstood the "Chalcedonian Nestorians," but I know in my heart that he did, yet remained Orthodox in faith, and suffered under Imperial persecutions as a Confessor.

Meanwhile, Chalcedon never condemned St. Dioscorus for heresy, and yet you reject him without researching the facts.

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

Maximus

Orthodox Christian
Jun 24, 2003
5,822
373
✟7,903.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Neither Theodoret nor Ibas are condemned or ever were condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Fifth Council condemned some of Theodoret's early writing but not his person. It condemned a letter allegedly written by Ibas of Edessa, but which Ibas himself denied writing.

The person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as his writings, were condemned by the Fifth Council.

Origen was also condemned at the same council.

Please understand: in the cases of Theodoret and Ibas, writings were condemned, not persons. Theodoret of Cyrus is regarded by the Orthodox Church as Blessed Theodoret, a righteous man and Church Father. Ibas made an Orthodox confession at Chalcedon and produced no more suspect writings.

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen were themselves condemned as heretics.

The Council of Chalcedon did not endorse the "Three Chapters." At one point the papal legates made the comment that they had examined the alleged letter of Ibas and had found it Orthodox, but that was their own opinion and not that of the Council itself; it never made it into the Council's dogmatic decrees.

It is the dogmatic decrees of an ecumenical council that are infallible, not every offhand remark made by every participant. If, for example, a bishop says, "I like banana splits," that does not mean tomorrow's headline should read, "Orthodox council endorses banana splits!" It simply means one bishop likes banana splits.

Besides that, if one reads the proceedings at Chalcedon, he will find that the papal legates said they had examined the letter and found him (Ibas) Orthodox. What they said cannot even be construed as an endorsement of the letter. Even if what they said was an endorsement of that letter, it still, as I said above, was only an expression of private opinion and not a conciliar decree.

Dioscorus made heretical statements at the Council of Chalcedon. He was anathematized as a heretic in subsequent councils. I have researched this subject very thoroughly.

Your thread here has inspired me to post a thread in TAW on the history of the Monophysite controversy. I will probably do so as soon as I have sufficient time. I am a school teacher and am currently very busy.
 
Upvote 0

CopticGirl

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2005
909
66
43
✟1,398.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Your thread here has inspired me to post a thread in TAW on the history of the Monophysite controversy. I will probably do so as soon as I have sufficient time.



I was wondering when you would start a thread on your EO board. I knew it was only a matter of time before you started one.

You seem to enjoy spreading mistruths.

I've never seen someone attack something that they are so similar to, the way you do. Doesn't really make that much sense. I guess some people like to criticize those they are closest to--they look to find fault in others to justify their own actions and shortcomings.


God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

Maximus

Orthodox Christian
Jun 24, 2003
5,822
373
✟7,903.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

Say what you will.

This is your forum, after all.
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
46
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
To the Eastern Orthodox who have posted in this thread I would say, please be careful to what you expose yourselves.

Be careful also to what you commit yourselves.

Maximus, thank you for your concern, and I mean that. I know that it is sincere. I take your warnings seriously and I have no problem coming to the same understanding you have. But frankly I am much more convinced that our Fathers of the council of Chalcedon misunderstood the Copts. What they condemned, they condemned rightly, but this does not seem to be what the OO were actually confessing, even if some heretics among them were indeed confessing heresies.

I have not "commited" myself to anything. I hope I have made it perfectly clear here (through past posts regarding this very topic) that I am willing and ready to believe otherwise... I used to be convinced of otherwise until I took a fair look at both sides... but I am of course by no means an expert and am willing to admit when I'm wrong.

John
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Dear Maximus,


I would like to know where Ibas denied that letter, and I would also like to know how these men are still venerated in the Orthodox Church. It comes as a surprise to me that you as an EO's venerate both Ibas and Theodoret still as blessed. For after reading many of Fr John Romanides' articles and the Agreed Statements, it gave me the impression that EO's in general condemn them in person as well as in writing. For example, this information seems to show a contradiction between Chalcedon and Constantinople II:

It was not until Nestorius had been condemned by the Council of Ephesus in [size=-1]AD

http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/mopsuestia_writings.shtml

Here, you see that St. Cyril wrote a book against Diodore and Theodore, and Theodore was hailed in Chalcedon as a doctor of the Church. I read in brief history of oca.org that strong Chalcedonian supporters were angered at Justinian's move in condemning those three theologians. While the writings have been clearly condemned, the persons also were implied in their condemnations. It is clear that the author of those three writings were considered NONSTOP "impious." I think this sentence of condemnation should enter the Guiness book of records for using the word "impious" the most in an ecumenical council.


The last sentence shows an interpretation that the council not only condemned his writings, but him in person.

Also, I see that there was an appeasement to the so-called Monophysites, but you seem to miss the point. St. Cyril himself condemned these men and in return, Theodoret decided to condemn him. In addition, Theodoret condemned Nestorius with MUCH hesitation, after cries of Nestorian against him, so that he may continue on in the council as an accuser against St. Dioscorus. How sneaky can you get? It's like asking Arians to come, renounce Arius, and accuse St. Athanasius.

Seeing that the legates of Pope Leo insisted that Theodoret and Ibas remain in the council, what do you expect from the successor of St. Cyril to do seeing that the same people he condemned were defended by Rome?

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen were themselves condemned as heretics.

I'm glad you said that because Theodore was hailed by Theodoret and Ibas, your saints along with many others in Chalcedon as "doctors." Keep that in mind.


Yet, these were the same people who examined Leo's letter to see if it was Orthodox. Plus, if "some" bishops did find it Orthodox as "their own opinion," then what are they doing to be part in the council. It's like allowing someone who considers Arius to be Orthodox take part of my Church. It doesn't make sense. Liking banana split is not like endorsing a heretical document. It's just as bad as endorsing premarital sex in an ecumenical synod. Why should I allow them to continue to be part of the synod?


I'm glad you admit this as well. For the papal legates REPRESENTED LEO. What they say is basically what Leo ordered them to say. If they endorse Nestorian documents, then Leo endorsed them as well. Do you still not understand why St. Dioscorus and many other bishops did what they did? Do you see why there's still a contradiction between Chalcedon and Constantinople (Chalcedon and St. Cyril as well)?

Dioscorus made heretical statements at the Council of Chalcedon. He was anathematized as a heretic in subsequent councils. I have researched this subject very thoroughly.

There is no proof. Actually, the exact opposite is proof. He basically was ready to condemn Eutyches and pray for his burning if it was found out that Eutyches lied to him and erred in the faith.

Your thread here has inspired me to post a thread in TAW on the history of the Monophysite controversy. I will probably do so as soon as I have sufficient time. I am a school teacher and am currently very busy.


I would rather you share it here, for I wish I would rather debate with you on these issues. Or you could have sent me a PM on your views. So far, I wished you would have brought these things up to me via PM, but instead, you claim that I'm "wasting my time."

God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!
[/size]
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Just before I come out misunderstood with my comments, my comments make a point, not that EO's were heretics and became Orthodox but my point is that EO's as well as OO's are humans, not God, and definately not infallible.

People make mistakes in history, and that is my point. We as OO's made mistakes for calling EO's Nestorian, and I'll admit that. But this should go well for EO's towards us, who call us Monophysites.

Therefore, I'm not condemning the councils of the Byzantines, but I'm pointing out mistakes that were made in them, which some "hardliners" don't want to admit.

Remember what St. Paul said, we are not the Church of Paul or of Apollo. We are the Church of Christ. I say in similar language, we are not the Church of Leo or Dioscorus, we are the Church of Christ. Christ doesn't care who you are or what schisms you cause. In His eyes, He still sees the Apostolic successions of both families maintain the true Orthodox faith despite the politics, misunderstandings, and mistakes towards one another. I will put forward as an example St. John Chrysostom, whose unjust excommunication was ignored by the Holy Spirit.

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone.

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I will continue to reply to other posts.

In this website:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1329160-orthodox-view-of-coptic.html&page=4

Maximus writes:

Miaphysite and Monophysite mean essentially the same thing: one who believes that our Lord Jesus Christ has but one nature.


As I have said before, St. Cyril defended and adored this term: Mia Physis to Theo Logo Sesarkomene which has the obvious meaning, "one nature of the Word of God Incarnate." We simply love to take St. Cyril's term "Mia Physis" and defend it. He defended it saying clearly "without change" and "without seperation." A full human with soul, spirit, and body, and full divinity consubstantial with the FAther and the Holy Spirit. Even orthodoxinfo.com had to admit that St. Cyril interpreted this in an Orthodox manner. Miaphysis is NOT heresy. Monophysis is! Essentially, they are different. Mono means "only" or "single," which implies ONE nature, either divinity, humanity, or an adulterated hybrid. Mia means "one," but used in a sense to mean a "composite" one. St. Cyril's choice is wise, but that did not end the controversy, for he had to defend himself on what exactly he meant by the term. Just as St. Cyril defended himself, so will I. And I've said this many times. To say that Miaphysis is a heresy means that you are condemning St. Cyril as a heretic. You must attack what is it in Miaphysis that you don't agree with.


As I mentioned before, the spirit of misunderstanding always occurs. We also condemn Monophysitism and Monotheletism. What we confess is "Mia" both, that is the implication of two natural wills united in harmony towards one another.



This is ridiculous. Are you saying we're liers? You condemn us for following the Eutychian heresy, and yet Timothy Aelureus condemned him right after St. Dioscorus died violently from exile. This was called the Third Council of Ephesus. Read about it, and see where we have erred from the faith. Keep in mind, 500 bishops attended this council.

Like I said before, Holy Fathers does not mean they are Holy Gods or Holy Christs. Holy Fathers defend the true faith. Misunderstanding people is different from erring from the true faith. Your fathers are not heretics, but they misunderstood us just as they were misunderstood by us. If I were to have this same attitude, that I was to look for "everything" you Diophysites believe in, then you would probably be justified in seeing ignorance in me, for I only catch the things that are out of context to make you look Nestorian and not to investigate objectivity in your Orthodox beliefs.


It is Non-Chalcedonian, not Orthodox.


This is not only something mentioned by Maximus, but also by Rick of Essex. Which would you rather want, the true faith or the true fathers with the faith? It would be nice to appreciate the fathers with the faith, but St. Cyril did not care about forcing acceptance of Ephesus to John of Antioch if he sees John agreeing with Ephesus without actually accepting it.

I don't know of any Eastern Orthodox Church that has said officially that the Non-Chalcedonians left the Church because of mere "semantics."

Neither do I not know of any Oriental Orthodox Church that has officially said the same to you. All these writings and all these meetings are unofficial, and it is only made official with a mutual union. Until then, Leo is still condemned as a heretic, and you are still Nestorians. That doesn't mean I agree, but I agree that we must have a mutual union, i.e. that you should not condemn Dioscorus, Timothy Aelureus, Severus, etc. for something they did not believe in. In return, we will lift anathemas against Leo, Flavian, etc. etc.

Now to get to the accusations on the meetings. An accusation against Metropolitan Paulose Mar Gregorious is what he said here:



First, I like to make out that dialogues do not mean they are dogma, so long as some statements can be corrected. I have here writings from Metropolitan Bishoy, who is a Coptic Metropolitan active in these ecumenical meetings. He wrote articles on the interpretation of the meetings with the Byzantines and showed how open-minded he is more than this quote. The dialogue was there to correct some misunderstandings. Fr. John Romanides and others admit the fact that one quote of the Tome of Leo was EXTREMELY vague. But also defended themselves that this was not Leo's intentions. Here, we see an admittance of faults. Here, also, Metropolitan Paulose talks about the hypostatic will, aka the personal will. When he reads the quote from Leo, he interprets that and the Sixth Council as confessing two Hypostatic wills (which implies two hypostases) or two prosopic wills (which implies two prosopa). Again, where is the heresy in this?

We are unable to say what this council says when it affirms "two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him"....



Here, they mention the vagueness of the Sixth Council. "I don't know whether it affirms two natural wills in thought or two personal wills in actuality and divisively." I am sure here, the Byzantines had to teach us what the Sixth Council meant for assistance.


We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord.


Here, you see again how we don't like to see "two" in Christ, although two "in thought" is confessed and implied. Here again, we talk about the choice taken by the hypostasis/person, and not the confusion of two natural wills.



Again, taken out of context, you should be careful with what was the reply from the Byzantines. Something interesting that Metropolitan Paulose teaches here, which is not heterodox, is harmony of the two wills. "The human nature is as "natural" to Christ the incarnate Word as is the divine. It is one hypostasis who now is both divine and human, and all the activities come from the one hypostasis" Here, there should be no disagreement. The human nature as well as the divine nature belongs to Christ, and it is Christ who wills. "My will" Christ says. He never said "My wills." Christ never said "My human will and my divine will" but "My will," my own personal/hypostatic will, which stems from my unconfused and indivisible divine-human will. I suffered through my humanity, and I was glorified through my divinity. This is the language that we take, that we always like to give to describe Christ. In thought, there are two natural wills, but there is only one prosopon, one prosopic choice/will.

 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In addition, every meeting ends with a conclusive statement, or "agreed statements." You can see both official and non-official "Agreed Statements" here:

http://www.textfiles.com/occult/orthodox.txt

It is here where I get one of my favorite Orthodox quotes that justifies my cause to unite with Byzantines:

"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike." (St. Athanasius)

I dearly do we think alike. All the arguments that I read about are just "words" not "faith." We have the same faith expressed in different words, and some hardliners still want to keep us divided. St. Athanasius, the Apostolic and one of the greatest pillars of faith, pray for us.

In Geneva 1970, where the quotes of Metropolitan Paulose were used, the most important agreed statement is such:


These men have done the research to make sure that the agreements were not merely word or mouth, but they studied liturgical and canonical practices and are SURE that we are Orthodox not by tongue, but by practice that have always existed since the split. Regardless of what anyone accuses me of, I am confident and peaceful that my Church upholds the right faith as many on the opposing side in conclusion to this convention has given us. Regardless of the dissentions here, knowing that I am confident in my own faith, I can choose to discontinue, but I decide not to because I love my fellow Orthodox and I wish to show them we have never erred.

In Aarhus 1964, two important agreements I want to quote from:


This is obviously self-explanatory. In Bristol 1967, two key agreements IMO:


Again, self-explanatory. Nothing in this that I did not say or express to you, my beloved. In Corinth 1987, and many other official and non-official meetings afterwards, this is decively Orthodox:


Therefore one will or two wills, one nature or two natures, we in fact say the same thing. I hide nothing from you. Neither am I condemning anyone. I am only defending myself while showing you we believe in the same thing.

To continue answering posts, Maximus writes:

Attempts at reunion and compromise with the Non-Chalcedonians have been made a number of times. They have always resulted in confusion, schism, and tragedy.

I will answer to this with the Oriental interpretation of history with some objectivity to it another time.

May the Lord spare us from such efforts at false unity.


I TOTALLY agree. Rest assured, so far, I see nothing "false" between OO's and EO's.

As for the other post against us on Monotheletism, I think I exhausted the situation enough.

Finally, for today, I will reply to a good point that "Rick of Wessex" made:

What's wrong with what Arius or Nestorius or Sabellius said? Could these guys be right? Perharps their views were misrepresented, too? Perhaps the Church Fathers were a bunch of ignorant man who did not know what they were dealing with?

Arius, Nestorius, Sabellius are CLEARLY heretics through their writings. Show me, however where we erred in the faith, and I will either defend myself or admit fault. Our writings may not be clear to you, but they confess no confusion, alteration, division, or seperation. I am sure these are very familiar Chalcedonian terms. On top of that, there is something called "the Confession" that the priest sings at the end of every Liturgy. It is very beautiful. I will share it with you and then end my discussion.


Amen! Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and unto the ages of all ages. Amen!

Xrictoc anecti!

If I have offended in my posts, please forgive me.
 
Reactions: Irish Melkite
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, in answer to the history of reunion attempts, I give you Father Subdeacon Peter Theodore's article of the British Orthodox Church. I cannot write anything better than him.

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article01.html

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

sin_vladimirov

Not anymore
Apr 18, 2005
1,110
54
✟1,549.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I have been reading about these problems last 2 days and I have to tell you that now, atleast I know how big the mountain is... it is like Himalayas... I will by studying have to get to the top of Himalayas in order to get somewhere... and now... I am walking towards Himalayas from.... South Africa... so there is a lot of reading and prayer to go before I can even formulate some sort of oppinion on the matter.

For now, I think that the problem ultimately lies in 'other' four ecumenical councils. I do not see the solution, but it seems to me that it is impossible for Orthodox Church and for Coptic and Oriental Christians to be in any REAL communion without Orthodox Church negating last four councils (GOD FORBID!!!) or Coptic and Oriental Christians accepting them (I know what Coptic and Oriental Christians are saying right now)...

So, that is it.
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Dear Sin_Vladimirov,

The solution according to the Agreed Statements is neither. The only change is that rather than "Ecumenecity" we treat the last four councils as "Local" councils. There are so many local councils that haven't been accepted by the Universal Church. If we trully believe that the Universal Church continued to exist between Orientals and Easterns, the last four councils are not "ecumenical" but local, and you may continue to keep the faith of the last four councils. We already accept the faith, but its decrees require condemnation of our fathers, and we can't accept that. "Lifting of anathemas" is not uncanonical, and those councils can continue to be accepted even if anathemas are lifted.

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

sin_vladimirov

Not anymore
Apr 18, 2005
1,110
54
✟1,549.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I do see what it is meant.. It does seem like a great idea. This is a point worthy of more explanation, not for now though.

I would've never thought of that... damn... my deduction goes into a wind again.


I really do not know much apart that I do feel a great respect for Coptic Christians for the great martyrdom that they have suffered and indeed still suffer for Christ.

Something does seem illogical though. And if I can ask, I would like to do it now:

minasoliman said:
....We already accept the faith, but its decrees require condemnation of our fathers, and we can't accept that. "Lifting of anathemas" is not uncanonical, and those councils can continue to be accepted even if anathemas are lifted.

You say that you already accept the faith (does this mean that you already accept the faith of these councils or am I missing the point),
and if so how then but its decrees require condemnation of our fathers?

This is illogical... or what did you actually mean?


Indeed HE is risen!
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
41
Visit site
✟24,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I mean that the faith the of councils we accept, but in these councils they condemn St. Dioscorus, St. Timothy Aeulureus, and later on St. Severus, etc. as "haters of God." This is something serious, and we cannot accept that.

But we believe in two natures (although we have different terminology), we ALREADY condemned Origen through a local Alexandrian council and tradition, we believe in two natural wills (although we have different terminology), and we believe in the veneration of icons in the Church. What we don't believe is that our fathers were heretics.

Xrictoc anecti!

Mina
 
Upvote 0

sin_vladimirov

Not anymore
Apr 18, 2005
1,110
54
✟1,549.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
OK, I see the point. It is a very decent one at that.

So, let me be stupid and define this again in simplest terms so that there is no confusion.

The THEOLOGY (the EXPRESSION, DEFINITION, CONCRETION of FAITH in ALL DOGMATIC POSTULATES) of the IV, V, VI and VII ecumenical councils IS acceptable but NOT anathemas in regard to Alexandrian Coptic Fathers such as Diosocrus I (I am not able to mention others as I have not introduce myself to ther views) of Alexandria, the XXV Pope of in the see of Alexandria?

Would this be a fair statement?
 
Upvote 0