Why the Copts are NOT Monophysites:

[minasoliman]

YES, exactly.

Sorry for the late reply, just came from a Church parent teacher meeting.

God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!

 

[sin_vladimirov]

O.k. now thank you for this.

One last question before I start digging in Patristics.

Apart for the XXV Bishop of Alexandria (I hope I am not mistaken Dioscuros I was XXV Bishop) which are other Saints of Coptic Church that were singled out?

 

[minasoliman]

The most popular Coptic Popes other than St. Dioscorus are the 26th and 27th Popes, St. Timotheos II (Timothy Aelureus) and St. Petros III (Peter Mongus) respectively. There were about 9 or 10 Coptic more popes during the controversy before the Persian and Islamic conquests, but the most popular and definately most condemned are Sts. Dioscorus, Timotheos, and Petros.

Other OO heroes that we revere that are not Copts are St. Severus Patriarch of Antioch and St. Jacob of Serug, where the Syrian and Indian Orthodox churches get the name "Jacobites" from.

Xrictoc anecti!

 

[sin_vladimirov]

Thank you for the information provided. It has shone so much light on the theme.

Now, it time for some more research.

Thank you again, and God bless!

Indeed He is risen, and among us!


sinner+

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Very interesting thread.

 

[minasoliman]

I'm going to add some articles to the list as a defense for us OO's.

I already provided an article about the times after Chalcedon.

I only skimmed this next article, but this seems like an interesting article "appealing" to those who, rightfully, are worried about the "Ecumenistic" problems of this age. This article, which like all articles I will show you, is written by Subdeacon Peter Theodore.

http://britishorthodox.org/107d.php

It is interesting to note that it talks about the "problems of the WCC" and its relativistic ideas. Sometimes I feel people like Maximus or Rick of Wessex are against us is because of this. They are, rightfully, being very cautious because of the ill deeds of their patriarchs to accept certain churches of different faiths, like the RCC, as a "sister church." But Subdeacon Peter insists that the EO and the OO (Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches) are UNIQUE. Both defend the same faith and yet have different "histories" that condemn the other church. This is why there is talk of a union between OO and EO because there may seem to be a spirit of misunderstanding while we have the same faith.

So what is the proof that people such as St. Dioscorus, St. Severus, and St. Timothy Aelureus were Orthodox in their doctrine and not Monophysites? Here are some more articles by Subdeacon Peter Theodore:

http://britishorthodox.org/108f.php
http://britishorthodox.org/109g.php
http://britishorthodox.org/110e.php
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article02.html
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article03.html

Please read, and I hope this can continually convince people we are not heretics.

Xrictoc anecti!

 

[minasoliman]

Dear Maximus,

I am saddened to see that you do not realize how Theodoret of Cyrus has fooled your Chalcedonian fathers as much as Eutyches fooled our Cyrillian fathers. I will share with you a disturbing letter that Theodoret wrote AFTER he was forced to accept Ephesus and condemn Nestorius at Chalcedon:

CLXXII. Letter of Theodoretus to Nestorius.

To the very reverend and religious lord and very holy Father, Nestorius, the bishop Theodoretus sends greeting in the Lord. Your holiness is, I think, well aware that I take no pleasure in cultivated society, nor in the interests of this life, nor in reputation, nor am I attracted by other sees. Had I learnt this lesson from no other source, the very solitude of the city2301 over which I am called to preside would suffice to teach me this philosophy. It is not indeed distinguished only for solitude, but also by very many disturbances which may check the activity even of those who most delight in them.

Let no one therefore persuade your holiness that I have accepted the Egyptian writings as orthodox, with my eyes shut, because I covet any see. For really, to speak the truth, after frequently reading and carefully examining them, I have discovered that they are free from all heretical taint, and I have hesitated to put any stress upon them, though I certainly have no love for their author, who was the originator of the disturbances which have agitated the world. For this I hope to escape punishment in the day of Judgment, since the just Judge examines motives. But to what has been done unjustly and illegally against your holiness, not even if one were to cut off both my hands would I ever assent, God’s grace helping me and supporting my infirmity. This I have stated in writing to those who require it. I have sent to your holiness my reply to what you wrote to me, that you may know that, by God’s grace, no time has changed me like the centipedes and chameleons who imitate by their colour the stones and leaves among which they live. I and all with me salute all the Brotherhood who are with you in the Lord.

​

He basically lied to your fathers, which is why he had to be condemned in the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Indeed, he was "impious."

I really hope you read this Maximus.

Xrictoc anecti!


​

 

[Yeznik]

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!

Ecumenism –means to promote unity, it is impossible to have “ecumenical councils” and not have a single universal church. Additionally, if members of these councils are not present, those councils are not deemed ecumenical.



Now, let’s say that everyone states that they are the true orthodox and catholic (universal) church and yet there are disagreements, ecumenical councils are supposed to resolve these inconsistencies, not to give ultimatums in doctrine and theology. It is a historical fact that the Armenian Church condemned the Monophysite heresy at the council of Dvin shortly of the battle of Vartanantz. So would the Byzantine Church and the Armenian Church be on the same page regarding the heresy? Yes. But, would the Armenian Church consider a council in which it did not attend ecumenical? No. Would the EO consider the RC councils it did not attend ecumenical? Again, no. For the same reason listed above.

 

[minasoliman]

Dear sin_Vladimirov,

Here is a list of websites I promised you on what some of our understanding fathers from both Orthodox families have agreed to do for the hopefully "upcoming" unity of our families.

1990 Pastoral Suggestions:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state03.html
1991 Youth Suggestions:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state08.html
1993 Lifting of Anathema Suggestions:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html

God bless.

 

[CopticGirl]

Mina,

You ever read any of the articles on OrthodoxInfo.com??? What a ridiculous site. They basically trash Copts, saying we are heretics, not Orthodox, and have invalid sacraments! Now I know where Maximus and Rick are getting their information from.

I read one article on there, in which they compare St. Mary's apparitions at Zeitoun to UFO sitings.

What a shame. No wonder they have so much hatred towards us with sites like that around.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

 

[minasoliman]

Ya...as a matter of fact, Maximus does nothing but quote from them. All the websites attack is the wording, but they never have attacked nor can they ever know how to attack the essence of the faith, that is no confusion or commingling.

As a matter of fact, it was St. Dioscorus at the Council of Chalcedon who explained his theology. He clearly says, "We do not commingle, nor change the natures, nor absorb one nature into the other, but we proclaim one nature without mingling, without confusion, without alteration. ANATHEMA to those who mingle, confuse, or change."

Where is the heterodoxy in this statement?

I will continue to refute and defend against statements starting the end of this week. I've been very busy lately.

Xrictoc anecti!

 

[minasoliman]

Just to quickly answer the latest comment by Maximus here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15554219&postcount=7

The Non-Chalcedonians reject all but the first three ecumenical councils and have a whole boatload of heresiarchs whom they regard as saints and Church fathers. Although much of their language sounds Orthodox, the totality of their Christology remains Monophysite and Monothelite, true to the teachings of their founders.

I have yet to understand where lies our heterodoxy, and where these "heresiarchs" have erred in the Orthodox faith.

The history of attempts at rapprochement with the Non-Chalcedonians is tragic and has produced a number of Orthodox martyrs. Beginning in the 20th century, the ecumenical movement spawned new efforts in that direction, most of them under the auspices of the World Council of Churches.

Do you neglect the number of Oriental martyrs on our side as well? If you want, I can give you a good list and a good number of "traditional" accusations against your holy Dyophysite fathers.

As for the WCC, I understand your frustration. But I tell you, BEFORE the WCC convened, there was already agreement between EO's and OO's, whom you wrongly call Monophysites/thelites. Please read carefully, and read the works not just of your fathers that condemn us, but of the works of our fathers that condemn you. Read our liturgies. Reply back to me with any heterodoxy you find in our traditions. This is my challenge to you. If you are not up to the challenge, then I will proceed to accusations of ignorance against you.

The efforts have been marked by the intransigence of the Non-Chalcedonians, who argue that they are "Orthodox" and hold the same Christology we hold while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the last four ecumenical councils and to give up allegiance to their heresiarch founders.

Because these founders are not heretics! Again, read their writings, and quote for me EXACTLY where they have erred in the Christological faith.

The dialogues have also been marked by the rise of liberal Orthodox clerics and theologians who are willing to second-guess the Orthodox Fathers in order to achieve some sort of apparent "unity."

Do you know how much it took from many in our side to "second guess" our fathers that called you Nestorians?

My own opinion is that we should not be in the business of negotiating with entire heretical sects as if the truth were a bargaining chip.

We should bring the Gospel of Christ to individuals.

If we convert them all, there will be no more non-Orthodox sects to worry about.

It is sad and quite ignorant for you to jump to conclusions that we are heretics. You blindly follow the faith of your fathers that we are heretics. Do you expect us to blindly follow the faith of our fathers, and try to convert you into Miaphysitism, you "Nestorians"?

May God have mercy on us all.

I'll pray for you Maximus.

 

[sin_vladimirov]

Thanks Minas,

Many mercies!

I have been reading the Orthodoxunity. Also, i have been reading Orthodoxinfo. I find them both very very informing. Orthodox infor does seem very militant, but (apart from personal disagreement with them on Oriental question) I do find it very informative.

I can not accept Oriental Orthodox as monophysites. Mya yes, Mono not.

Also, I can not but pray for soon and speedy solution to the issues dividing us.

I for one, am sick to the stomach of the injustice done towards my Coptic brethren by "Northern brethren".

Lord have mercy.

 

[CopticGirl]

Thanks Minas,

Many mercies!

I have been reading the Orthodoxunity. Also, i have been reading Orthodoxinfo. I find them both very very informing. Orthodox infor does seem very militant, but (apart from personal disagreement with them on Oriental question) I do find it very informative.

I can not accept Oriental Orthodox as monophysites. Mya yes, Mono not.

Also, I can not but pray for soon and speedy solution to the issues dividing us.

I for one, am sick to the stomach of the injustice done towards my Coptic brethren by "Northern brethren".

Lord have mercy.

Thank you for your kind words!

It makes me so happy when someone understands our beliefs and sees for themselves that we are not a heretical group of monophysites.

God Bless you!

 

[minasoliman]

Don't get me wrong.

Orthodoxinfo.com is a wonderful website except the part where they accuse us of Monophysitism. When reading it, they either take things out of context or they just argue that we should dump our terminology.

The thing is their logic: If they are Orthodox in Christology, why don't they accept the councils? This is the question that bugs many Orthodox who think we're heretics. But I tell them this...

How can I accept councils that FALSELY accuses my fathers? How can I accept councils that didn't represent the Church? Does it make sense to EO's to accept a Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Council if they only Church present was Rome?

The fact of the matter is, and they shouldn't deny it, the Church stopped becoming "Catholic" after Chalcedon. After Chalcedon, the Byzantines and Romans failed to make the Church Ecumenical because God knows the innocent blood and accusations against us.

Lord have mercy!

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I have not read the articles on the monophysism in orthodoxinfo.com but I, althoguh I do recognize some good stuff there, don't like the site as it tends to make it seem as if their POV is the only EO POV and there is no other way around it.

 

[minasoliman]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15691639&postcount=17

In this, Maximus made an interesting comment, of which he didn't think of before he submitted:

One of the reasons I think Nestorian groups are so small - besides the depredations of the Muslims and the Mongols - is that many of them realized their error and were able to accept the Chalcedonian Orthodox Christology. They saw that Chalcedon said what they really meant all along, that Christ has two natures but is really one divine Person.

That's really an interesting faithful observation there Maximus. But then you go on to write this:

Hopefully, the Non-Chalcedonians will come to that realization, too.

First of all, I don't know whether he calls us liers or idiots who don't know anything about our own fathers. Second of all, we can examine the statement before this about why Nestorian groups are so small. It just so happens that the Non-Chalcedonian groups are HUGE, especially in Egypt. In Egypt, there exists two Orthodox Churches, the Coptic Church and the Greek Alexandrian Church. The Coptic Church holds about 7 million faithful, and probably much much more, maybe even some underground converts from Islam. The Greek Alexandrian Church holds barely 10 thousand in Egypt, probably less than "all Nestorian groups combined."

According to Maximus, the Greek Alexandrian Church is probably so small because "many of them realized their error and were able to accept the [Cyrillian] Orthodox Christology" as opposed to the Nestorian Chalcedonian one (since, according to Maximus the Nestorian groups are SO SMALL).

What an insensitive and an unthoughtful comment!

May God forgive you Maximus.

Mina

 

[CopticGirl]

Maximus just posted that today? Gosh, he really does keep up his average of one post per day criticizing the Non-Chalcedonians.

According to him, if the Nestorians realized that Chalcedonian "said what they meant all along"---i.e. a misunderstanding...maybe due to language/wording/semantics...then maybe he'll see what we have meant all along!

God Bless,
Elizabeth

 

[erinipassi]

They [Nestorians] saw that Chalcedon said what they really meant all along, that Christ has two natures but is really one divine Person.

What a theological dangerous and heretical statement said by Maximus. What he is saying is that the Holy Fathers, including the Eastern Orthodox Holy Fathers, at the third Ecumenical Councils have made a mistake. He is also saying by this statement that the Nestorian Heresy wasn’t a Heresy but it was theologically sound and that the interpretation of the Holy Church Fathers in the third Ecumenical Council of the Nestorian Heresy was wrong. If you trying to say that Maximus, not only have you condemned your Church Fathers understanding but you are saying that they can be wrong. In that Case, as Elizabeth said, your Eastern Church Fathers understanding of the Coptic Orthodox Miaphysitism is also wrong, since they made a mistake before, they are also making the same mistake now. By siding or showing any partiality with the Nestorian Heresy, you have deemed yourself a heretic since this heresy was condemned in the third Ecumenical Council.

Misunderstandings happens easily, but the choice of correct terminology is important. Since St. Cyril who headed the third Ecumenical Council taught us never to use the two nature terminology as it indicates a lack of the unity of the two natures, we as a Coptic Orthodox will never Change such terminology to suit peoples fancy. The Coptic Orthodox Church is zealous and protective of preserving what was passed down. And if the Eastern Orthodox Church chose to change this Terminology that was passed down by St. Cyril that’s up to them, but we will never change this terminology that was passed down. Regardless of what the Eastern Orthodox Church chooses, we have a great respect for them and we will never call them heretical. But as for you Maximus, you are in danger of being disobedient to your Own Eastern Orthodox Teachings.

May God have mercy on us all. May we pray for all our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters and may we also be blessed by their prayers for us.

Love and blessings
erini

 

[CopticGirl]

The Orthodox doctrine, as expressed at the Holy Council of Chalcedon, is that Christ has two natures inseparably united in one divine Hypostasis (Person) without mixture or confusion.

Okay, so Maximus said this on his forum. Is that not how we describe Christ's nature as well? Two natures united into one nature--one combined nature? Or am I missing something?

God Bless,
Elizabeth