Why the Copts are NOT Monophysites:

Mark Downham

A Desert Voice
Sep 15, 2004
4,581
79
✟5,252.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
erinipassi said:
Thank you Mina for taking the time to post this thread. Its incredibly hurtful to know that some Eastern Orthodox are mis-representing our beliefs in a public forum and we are not even allowed to clarify this mis-representation. I was very hurt by the actions that was taken when they deleted my post when I tried to clarify the Coptic Orthodox beliefs. When we dont get the chance to clarify our position in a public forum, what this means is that not only are they allowing this incorrect information to spread, but for prejudices to grow unchecked against the Coptic Orthodox.

I want to stress what a great love I have for my Easter Orthodox brothers and Sisters, but that I am still trying to recover from the really hurtful comments that was posted in the Eastern Orthodox Forum calling the Oriental Orthodox as "Heretical" and have "pagan practices".

I would like to take this chance to clarify our position and hope to get the chance to do it.

Some Eastern Orthodox believe that the Coptic Orthodox Church are Monophysites and this is incorrect. The doctrine of Monophysites believe that “Jesus was not human, but exclusively divine, and God himself, therefore he could not have died.” And this doctrine is incorrect.



The book called the nature of Christ by His Holiness Pope Shenouda the third, he makes it clear what we believe and I would like to post an extract:



“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 Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the original sin; 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 Logos" as St. Cyril called it.”



“……the point of discussion was St. Cyril’s expression "One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" (Mia Physis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkwmene).



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 Logos". The same applies when we speak about our human nature which comprises two united natures: the soul and the body. Thus, man’s nature is not the soul alone nor the body alone, but their union in one nature called human nature. We will discuss this point in detail later on. 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 although those who believe in "the two natures" admit unity, the tone of separation was obvious in the Council of Chalcedon - a matter which prompted us to reject the Council and caused the exile of St. Dioscorus of Alexandria.”



That is why we call ourselves Miaphysite from the words of St Cyril that says "One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" (Mia Physis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkwmene).

This One nature refers to the Devine and the Human nature that coexists together.
Now in regards to tattoing, the Coptic Orthodox Church discourages anyone from getting a tattoo that is not a cross. So if you went to get a tattoo of a rose, that is considered placing unneccesary mark on the temple of God, our body. But if you are placing a cross on your hand, its not only proclaiming your faith, but the sign of the cross is holy and can only bring blessing to your body. Its the same as wearing a cross, why do people wear the necklace of the Cross??? Even more, why look down on the Coptics who tattoo a cross, yet many people wear earing in their ears and its ok?

I believe its an unfair remark to say that the Coptic Orthodox is "Heretical" when the Coptic Orthodox Church has contributed so much to the Orthodox faith. For example, the Creed, the Easter date calculations, iconography, Monastacism and many more.

It is also unfair, to label Coptic Orthodox Church with pagan practices in regards of tattoing of the cross without first asking a coptic person why it is done.


I’ve posted this for the sake of clarification of the doctrines in Coptic Orthodox Church. And again I want to stress, how much the Eastern Orthodox are our much loved brothers and sisters in Christ. May God have mercy on us all and have mercy on me a sinner.



Blessings and love

erini

This is great - I am very interested in Miaphysitism - but HOW are the Divine and Human natures of the Lord Jesus Christ united? In what way are they united? A spiritual unity? A cognitive unity? A volitional unity? A bodily unity? A soteriological unity? A kenotic-submissive unity?

The Aramaic word in the Gospel of John for Logos means Manifestation - the Manifestation of God.

If we are made in His Image and He is incarnated into our likeness - what are the implications for the nature of the Incarnate Logos?

If the Living Word becomes Flesh - the Living Manifestation of God becomes Human - how do the two natures become unified in a way that simultaneously expresses the unified attributions of the both in each other in an inter-fused way?

Suzannah, what would you say?

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Jason of Wyoming

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2004
1,525
29
48
Wyoming
✟1,852.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay, maybe someone can explain this to me (sorry if it was answered already).

If Oriental Orthodox are Miaphysites, and not monophysites, then why are our two churches not in communion? Certainly can't be the tattoos? (By the way, why do you get tattoos?)

Jason
 
Upvote 0

CopticGirl

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2005
909
66
42
✟1,398.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Jason of Wyoming said:
Okay, maybe someone can explain this to me (sorry if it was answered already).

If Oriental Orthodox are Miaphysites, and not monophysites, then why are our two churches not in communion? Certainly can't be the tattoos? (By the way, why do you get tattoos?)

Jason

Well that is exactly why there are ecumenical discussions going on today--not everyone thinks we should be split.

Some think that the split was political, others think its a result of a language/culture barrier, and others think that you guys are Nestorians and/or we are Monophysites. It depends on who you ask.

If you look at www.orthodoxunity.org, you will see the progress that is being made.

The history behind the tattoos is that Copts in Egypt were forced to get tattoos by Muslims so they could tell us apart from the Mulsims. Nowadays, Copts will still get a small cross in their inner right wrist. Some do it as a reminder, others as a irremovable sign of faith, some pride, others because its the cool thing to do. It is by no means necessary, nor do all condon it.

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
39
Visit site
✟9,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Dear Mark,

St. Cyril described something called a communicato idiomatum, such that the properties of the divine are revealed through the human. For example, Christ walked on the see, but what we see is that His humanity walked. Christ transfigured on the mountain, and indeed, humanity has around it a shining glow brighter than the sun. Christ died on the cross, yet His human natures were united together by the divinity and was raised. Christ WENT THROUGH WALLS, something that humanity can't do by itself.

Indeed, soteriologically, this communication of wills and properties between the natures is necessary for salvation of mankind. We hear of the great hermits who are united to the Holy Spirit in such a way that makes them do things that a normal human can't do, at least that is the tradition in the Coptic Church. The only difference is that the human and the Holy Spirit exists in two prosopa, while Christ's two natures make up one prosopa.

It is believed that among theologians who say that Nestorius did not believe in two prosopa literally, at least he rejected the communicato idiomatum, which brings about a weak unity in Christ. It is why we rejected the Tome, for it fails AT LEAST to confess communicato idiomatum properly. The communication of natures make it such similarly to the communication of natures of humanity (body, soul, and spirit). To distinguish the natures according to the Tome in such a way as the flesh does his own thing and the Word does His own thing made it similar to how Nestorius worded his theology, which is why we accused Leo and his followers of Nestorianism (especially since he was associated with Theodoret, a follower and lover of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuesta himself).

Dear Jason,

We make the case that not only are we not Monophysites, but the people you condemned are also not heretics by the heresy you condemned them with. Is it fair that I ask you to accept Ephesus 449 and the third Ephesus (under the Oriental bishops) that condemned your fathers as Nestorians, when in fact they're not?

This is why we don't accept the last four councils. We will accept them however, only on account that anathemas may be lifted, which requires a TRUE Ecumenical council, one that I pray for very soon.

Xrictoc anecti!

PS You know, it's funny how when St. Cyril defend "one nature" that many accused him of confusion, and while he confesses no confusion, Theodoret proceeded to attack him regardless. It shows at least the same spirit what we go through with EO polemics.
 
Upvote 0

sin_vladimirov

Not anymore
Apr 18, 2005
1,110
54
✟1,549.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
orthedoxy said:
I don't think EO are Chalcedonians if they were they would be under the Roman Pope today.
It was at the council of Chalcedon that the primacy of the chair of Peter was established.

Greetings.

Excuse my ignorance, but I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you please explain.

in ICXC
stefan+
 
Upvote 0

Mark Downham

A Desert Voice
Sep 15, 2004
4,581
79
✟5,252.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
minasoliman said:
Dear Mark,

St. Cyril described something called a communicato idiomatum, such that the properties of the divine are revealed through the human. For example, Christ walked on the see, but what we see is that His humanity walked. Christ transfigured on the mountain, and indeed, humanity has around it a shining glow brighter than the sun. Christ died on the cross, yet His human natures were united together by the divinity and was raised. Christ WENT THROUGH WALLS, something that humanity can't do by itself.

Indeed, soteriologically, this communication of wills and properties between the natures is necessary for salvation of mankind. We hear of the great hermits who are united to the Holy Spirit in such a way that makes them do things that a normal human can't do, at least that is the tradition in the Coptic Church. The only difference is that the human and the Holy Spirit exists in two prosopa, while Christ's two natures make up one prosopa.

It is believed that among theologians who say that Nestorius did not believe in two prosopa literally, at least he rejected the communicato idiomatum, which brings about a weak unity in Christ. It is why we rejected the Tome, for it fails AT LEAST to confess communicato idiomatum properly. The communication of natures make it such similarly to the communication of natures of humanity (body, soul, and spirit). To distinguish the natures according to the Tome in such a way as the flesh does his own thing and the Word does His own thing made it similar to how Nestorius worded his theology, which is why we accused Leo and his followers of Nestorianism (especially since he was associated with Theodoret, a follower and lover of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuesta himself).

Minasoliman

I would like to express my gratitude for your response which I found quite excellent - I have looked over the St. Cyril 'communicato idiomatum' before - I think this line of inquiry and unfolding revelation is closer to the prophetic-incarnational real than the Chalcedon Formula on the two natures.

We too believe that the properties and purposes of the Trinity in their Divine Inner Life are always expressed through the Human in terms of prophetic-incarnational redemptive and soteriological purpose - all Evangelicals believe this in the final sum - we may use different language forms and descriptors - but we are all ultimately engaging the same end - our chief purpose which is to glorify God through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in us - changing us from glory to glory - an ever increasing glory.

2 Corinthians 3:17,18
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

For us, when Jesus walked on the water - we always see the expression of the realised potential of the pre-Fall Adam and Eve - again, for us - Jesus was walking through and across a more substantial reality when he walked on the water.

We all have the Divine Effulgence, the Divine Uncreated Trinitarian Eternal Light of the Holy Spirit in each of us as Spirit-Filled Christians and htere are momenrts when this breaks through and breaks out of us like the brilliance of the rays of the noon day sun, breaking through the clouds - this is increasingly happening to some of Us as we pursue our Lifewalk/Faithwalk/Lovewalk with the Lord Jesus - only the other day I was worshipping with a friend and I turned round and our faces were filling with that Inner Light again and then it engaged our bodies - even through our clothes -

Judges 7:16
Dividing the three hundred men into three companies, he placed trumpets and empty jars in the hands of all of them, with torches inside.


2 Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.


Indeed, soteriologically, this communication of wills and properties between the natures is necessary for salvation of mankind.


A brilliant comment - Minasoliman - this is at the very Heart of our following the Lamb in a soteriological way - it is all encompassing for us - it includes Puragtion/Conversion/Catharsis/Regeneration/Justification/Definitive Sanctification; Illumination/Photosis/Progressive Sanctification -Serenification- Substantiation and Union in and through Communion/Theosis.

Orthodoxyusa said -

Orthodoxyusa said:
100% God and 100% man, making 100% Christ.

100% God + 100% Human = 100% Christ - I just had an epiphany in that moment - I saw in it all in the purity of that statement.

We believe that for effective and efficacious soteriology - this communication of wills and properties between the natures has to be a form of prophetic-incarantional Communion - Union in Communion.

The only difference is that the human and the Holy Spirit exists in two prosopa, while Christ's two natures make up one prosopa.

We all believe this - however, we hold that our progressive sanctification is a progressive Encounter - that we are all - everyone in the Lord Jesus Christ - going further in and further up, from shadow to substance from coping strategy to transformative encounter - 'Epektasis' -Reaching Forward TO -

THE CONSUMMATION WHEN WE WILL BECOME TWO PROSOPA IN ONE PROSOPA IN UNION AND COMMUNION WITH THE TRINITY IN THEIR INNER LIFE - WHICH IS FULL OF ECSTATIC JOY AND LOVE.

John 17: 6- 26

Jesus Prays for His Disciples
6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
Christ died on the cross, yet His human natures were united together by the divinity and was raised.


This is at the very Core of how we put our feet in His footprints which are filling up with Blood and Water -

Philippians 3:10-14
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Pressing on Toward the Goal

12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

Minasoliman - you are a Light, a Fire among your people and I have seen your brightness from distant shores.

John 1:3-5
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men and women. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood [or overcome] it.

In His Love - We will definitely meet in Heaven - I will come and find you.

Mark
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
39
Visit site
✟9,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Minasoliman - you are a Light, a Fire among your people and I have seen your brightness from distant shores.

I deserve nothing of that. I can only give credit the great amount of knowledge I received from my Lord who inspired my Church fathers and my friends both online and offline.

As for my spirituality, I still have a lot to improve. :)

God bless you and keep you.

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

orthedoxy

Lusavorchagan
Dec 15, 2003
533
17
pasadena california
✟764.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
sin_vladimirov said:
Greetings.

Excuse my ignorance, but I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you please explain.

in ICXC
stefan+
There was this statement made at the council of Chalcedon
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

No EO accepts this statement. That's why I say they're nonchalcedonians.
Part of the reason Armenians didn't accept the council of Chelcedon was because it was about power about being under Rome. We didn't accept that but EO did.
I see a big hypocrisy by EO who cut themselves from Peter (their head) and now they see a problem with people not attending councils?
What I would like to ask EO is what gives them the right not to attend RC Councils? NonChecedonians have more reasons for not attending the council of Chelcedon then EO have in not attending RC Councils.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
39
Visit site
✟9,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Some people have problems with the "split." How can there be a split when there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

The answer is not how, but what does Christ see as opposed to what we see. "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" are the necessary components in the oneness of the Church.

Consider the schism of St. Cyril and John of Antioch. This schism lasted two years. Can we say that John of Antioch deviated from the Church? Can we say the followers of St. Cyril constitute the only true Church?

Or the unworthy excommunication of St. John Chrysostom by Alexandrian Pope Theophilus. Does Christ see that just because St. John was excommunicated until death that eternal condemnation is given to him?

I believe that although anathemas were given, they were the anathemas of men, not God. And whether it's two years or 1500 years, our Lord Jesus Christ cares only about getting our act together. The mentality that the FATHERS could have been right in EVERY SINGLE THING even condemning certain persons is a dangerous mentality, and was never believed in the Orthodox Church. What we do believe is that the Orthodox Fathers have kept the faith, but their actions are only processed through Christ and it is Christ who approves or disapproves.

It is not faith that divides both the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches. IT IS MAN! Man who believes they are the "Church of Paul" or "Church of Apollo" or
"Church of the Apostles" and forgetting FIRST AND FOREMOST, they are the Church of Christ. If MEN can stop their childish ways, go past the polemics, and understand the truth, then the truth shall set us all free.

This is a message to Maximus who finds it impossible to believe that the Church fathers were fallible and that the One Church exists not in branches (for I do not either believe in the branch theory), but the One Orthodox Church exists regardless of what men do.

I repeat this again and again. If we are to follow the logic that the Holy Fathers could not have been wrong in condemning certain persons, then I guess I will have to blindly follow my own fathers and continue calling you Nestorians.

God bless you Maximus. Regardless of our dissentions in the past, you are still a true brother to me.

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
39
Visit site
✟9,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Does this sound familiar to anyone:

[?] We say there is one Son, and that He has one nature even when he is
considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have
already said, He has made the human element His own. And this is the way,
NOT OTHERWISE, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and
man.

[Questioner] Then he does not have two natures? that of God and that of man?

[?] Well, Godhead is one thing, and manhood is another thing, considered
in the perspective of their intrinsic beings, BUT in the case of Christ they
came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion
or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception.

[Questioner] But how from these two things, that is Godhead and manhood, can
we envisage a single Christ?

[?] I think in no other way than as things which come together with each
other in an indivisible union beyond all conception, as I have already said.

[Questioner] Such as what?

[?] Well, do we not say that a human being like ourselves is one, and
has a single nature, even though he is not homogenous but really composed of
two things, I mean soul and body?

[Questioner] We do.

[?] And if someone takes the flesh on its own, separating its unity with
its own soul, and divides what was one into two, have they not destroyed the
proper conception of man?

[Questioner] But if we say that the Son (even considering his as
incarnate)has a single nature surely in is inevitable that we must admit a
confusion and a mixture here, as if he had hidden away a human nature in
Himself. For what would the nature of man be in the face of the pre-eminence
of the Godhead?

[?] My friend, if anyone says that when we speak of the single nature of
God the Word incarnate and made man, we imply that a confusion or mixture
has occurred, then they are talking utter rubbish. No one could convict us
of saying this by the force of proper arguments...

I wish if any Orthodox, both OO and EO can identify the source of this dialogue. Who is the person that answers the Questioner? Who is the "?" ?

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

sin_vladimirov

Not anymore
Apr 18, 2005
1,110
54
✟1,549.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Orthedox, to you greetings and many years, in ICXC. (your words are in blue)


“There was this statement made at the council of Chalcedon
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3”

It would be fair to say that this statement was, indeed, made during the Holy and Imperial Council by the Papal legates and that it was shunned by the rest of the Holy Episkopes that were by the mercy of our God been assembled in Chalcedon. It would be also fair to say that because there are things said and reported in Acts of the Holy and Ecumenical (Imperial) Synod (for those words are in there just for that reason, that they were said, and not of Canonical value), they are not, the canon law, also, they are not taken in matters of Ecclesial law/order. This being so and there is not one Canon of the Holy Ecumenical Synods that, indeed, supports this statement. This was, and stays ONLY the opinion of the legates of the St. Leo (Archbishop of the Old Rome).


”No EO accepts this statement. That's why I say they're nonchalcedonians.”
You are 100% right, NOT ONE Orthodox accepts this statement. It was and still is just wishful thinking that indeed brought the separation of Latin see from the communion. We are, however, Chalcedonians, unless you consider us to be Oriental-which is not the case. We accept the Canons of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and it is none of the Church concern what some said that was not included into Canon Law. Views of equals, episkopes, of the Holy Church are just that their singular views, they can be wrong or right. Only Council is what formulates the Canons.


“Part of the reason Armenians didn't accept the council of Chelcedon was because it was about power about being under Rome. We didn't accept that but EO did.”
This simply is not true. Please compare Holy Canon and Epitome of Canon in order numbered and recorded as XXVIII. Holy Fathers have still delivered this Canon. If you are right, and you are not, this canon would have never been delivered. I am not sure what other reasons the Churches (out of communion) of Armenia (she be blessed) had, but this one simply can not be there, because it does not exist. This Council was definitely not under Pope. (either Doctrinally, Physically, Symbolically.. or in any other way. Come to think of it, in a sense, the Synods that you accept –First three- have been more" under Pope" than this one).

“I see a big hypocrisy by EO who cut themselves from Peter (their head) and now they see a problem with people not attending councils?”
I am sorry for this, truly, I do not. Also this is an irrational statement being delivered without any historical evidence or, indeed, sense.

“What I would like to ask EO is what gives them the right not to attend RC Councils? NonChecedonians have more reasons for not attending the council of Chelcedon then EO have in not attending RC Councils”
Nothing gives EO right to attend RC councils. God Forbid if we did! This (IV EC) was not RC council in a sense if by RC you think of current body that is out of communion with the Church and is under jurisdiction of Bishop of Rome (out of communion).


Thank you, many years and God bless.
Doxa Patri’ ke ‘Ios ke Agios Pnevmati!

In ICXC
stefan+
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
39
Visit site
✟9,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
More polemics have been published.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1664095-assyrian-church-of-the-east.html&page=6

Early in the course of the Christological controversies of the 5th century, St. Cyril of Alexandria used the phrase "one nature of the Word Incarnate" to speak of our Lord Jesus. In doing so, St. Cyril thought he was quoting St. Athanasius. He was in fact quoting an Apollinarian forgery, but he did not know that at the time. It was later pointed out to him by the Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus.

While Theodoret did accuse St. Cyril of confusion (i.e. Monophysitism), his writings against Cyril and against the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL of Ephesus should not be something that "taught" St. Cyril a lesson, which was even anathematized by your fifth "Ecumenical" Council.

As a matter of fact, it was St. Cyril who called upon the anathemas against the supporters of Nestorius, Theodore, and Diodore. Among those famous and well-known supporters are Theodoret and Ibas.

As for the formula "one nature," this was something that St. Athanasius did indeed use. There is a version of his book "On the Incarnation" where the Greek translation does mention "miaphysis." Did Apollinarius write the "On the Incarnation"? While I agree it is an "Apollinarian" term, what proof do you have that St. Cyril was wrong?

Notice what the WISEST OF ALL WISE HOLY FATHERS THE GREAT SAINT POPE ATHANASIUS wrote to the people of Antioch:





These things then being thus confessed, we exhort you not hastily to condemn those who so confess, and so explain the phrases they use, nor to reject them, but rather to accept them as they desire peace and defend themselves, while you check and rebuke, as of suspicious views, those who refuse so to confess and to explain their language. But while you refuse toleration to the latter, counsel the others also who explain and hold aright, not to enquire further into each other’s opinions, nor to fight about words to no useful purpose, nor to go on contending with the above phrases, but to agree in the mind of piety. For they who are not thus minded, but only stir up strife with such petty phrases, and seek something beyond what was drawn up at Nicæa, do nothing except ‘give their neighbour turbid confusion to drink3691,’ like men who grudge peace and love dissensions. But do ye, as good men and faithful servants and stewards of the Lord, stop and check what gives offence and is strange, and value above all things peace of that kind, faith being sound. Perhaps God will have pity on us, and unite what is divided, and, there being once more one flock3692, we shall all have one leader, even our Lord Jesus Christ.



The question we ask is "Is it possible to use different terminologies, yet the essence of the faith itself the same?" According to true Church tradition according to St. Athanasius, the answer is "Yes." But due to the ignorance of our fathers, much peace was lost and true investigations were replaced with political preferences.

Now, for my TRIVIA, for which I've answered. It is actually a great thing that I have included this quote that I have provided. The quote I have entered, could it be by a Monophysite? The wording here confesses ONE NATURE in Christ. Yet, would you be surprised that St. Cyril is the "?" that I have substituted? But even more so, would you believe that St. Cyril wrote this near the end of his life, AFTER the Agreed statements between St. Cyril and John of Antioch? The fact of the matter is St. Cyril continued to uphold "one nature" and defend his terminology. And how do you know, dear Maximus, that Theodoret "corrected" St. Cyril? You almost assume that St. Cyril was in good terms with Theodoret, as if some agreement was reached between them. Observe this letter by Theodoret:






At last and with difficulty the villain has gone. The good and the gentle pass away all too soon; the bad prolong their life for years.

The Giver of all good, methinks, removes the former before their time from the troubles of humanity; He frees them like victors from their contests and transports them to the better life, that life which, free from death, sorrow and care, is the prize of them that contend for virtue. They, on the other hand, who love and practise wickedness are allowed a little longer to enjoy this present life, either that sated with evil they may afterwards learn virtue’s lessons, or else even in this life may pay the penalty for the wickedness of their own ways by being tossed to and fro through many years of this life’s sad and wicked waves.

This wretch, however, has not been dismissed by the ruler of our souls like other men, that he may possess for longer time the things which seem to be full of joy. Knowing that the fellow’s malice has been daily growing and doing harm to the body of the Church, the Lord has lopped him off like a plague and “taken away the reproach from Israel.” His survivors are indeed delighted at his departure. The dead, maybe, are sorry. There is some ground of alarm lest they should be so much annoyed at his company as to send him back to us, or that he should run away from his conductors like the tyrant of Cyniscus in Lucian.

Great care must then be taken, and it is especially your holiness’s business to undertake this duty, to tell the guild of undertakers to lay a very big and heavy stone upon his grave, for fear he should come back again, and show his changeable mind once more. Let him take his new doctrines to the shades below, and preach to them all day and all night. We are not at all afraid of his dividing them by making public addresses against true religion and by investing an immortal nature with death. He will be stoned not only by ghosts learned in divine law, but also by Nimrod, Pharaoh and Sennacherib, or any other of God’s enemies.

But I am wasting words. The poor fellow is silent whether he will or no, “his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish.” He is doomed too to silence of another kind. His deeds, detected, tie his tongue, gag his mouth, curb his passion, strike him dumb and make him bow down to the ground.

I really am sorry for the poor fellow. Truly the news of his death has not caused me unmixed delight, but it is tempered by sadness. On seeing the Church freed from a plague of this kind I am glad and rejoice; but I am sorry and do mourn when I think that the wretch knew no rest from his crimes, but went on attempting greater and more grievous ones till he died. His idea was, so it is said, to throw the imperial city into confusion by attacking true doctrines a second time, and to charge your holiness with supporting them. But God saw and did not overlook it. “He put his hook into his nose and his bridle into his lips,” and turned him to the earth whence he was taken. Be it then granted to your holiness’s prayers that he may obtain mercy and pity and that God’s boundless clemency may surpass his wickedness. I beg your holiness to drive away the agitations of my soul. Many different reports are being bruited abroad to my alarm announcing general misfortunes. It is even said by some that your reverence is setting out against your will for the court, but so far I have despised these reports as untrue. But finding every one repeating one and the same story I have thought it right to try and learn the truth from your holiness that I may laugh at these tales if false, or sorrow not without reason if they are true.

Phillip Schaff titles this letter, "Letter of Theodoretus, as some suppose, to Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, written on the Death of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria."

Does this sound like "blessed Theodoret" corrected or even at least respected the dead of righteous Orthodox persons. Rather, he is counted as a "villain" and an "enemy of God." It gives me pride that the same condemnations are given against St. Dioscorus, the defender of St. Cyril and the Orthodox faith.

I will continue to answer more polemics later. I'm tired.

The lesson I want people to learn is to not to assume cerain "righteous" accounts based on the "goodness" of the Holy Fathers. But first and foremost, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) Whoever doesn't hate first his Holy Fathers for the sake of the knowledge and wisdom of Christ, then we can never achieve union in truth and love as Orthodox Christians in faith, and to examine the faith of those fathers to see whether or not there was heterodoxy or not.

Xrictoc anecti!
 
Upvote 0

minasoliman

Veteran
Mar 21, 2005
1,041
72
39
Visit site
✟9,050.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Before I drop dead on my bed, I received a message that may get people to misunderstand my last statement about "hating the Holy Fathers," and I can see how it can be misunderstood.

Let it be known to you that not only have I kept my Miaphysite fathers, but I've personally, as an aid to unity between EO's and OO's am trying to adopt and perhaps defend the fathers of the EO as well, regardless of past disentions that blinded us both.

The point I make when saying "hate" the Holy Fathers is not to literally hate as we even learn from the Biblical interpretations, but to not blindly think that EVERY SINGLE WORD PROCEEDING FROM THE MOUTH OF HOLY FATHERS are infallible. Orthedoxy just gave a polemic on "Petrine Primacy" taught by Leo and his legates. While Chalcedon did not agree with such an opinion (neither did it disagree might I add), there is agreement that Leo may have believed that he had temporal authority over all sees, and not just a primacy of honor as Apostolic traditions have taught us.

Therefore, if in fact Leo did teach Primacy of Peter, will you listen? If it is found that "blessed" Theodoret continued to accuse St. Cyril of confusion (assuming that Theodoret is a Church father to some EO), will you listen to him?

It is one thing to love your Church fathers and uphold the faith they have upheld for you. It is another to count every single word they say and write as dogma to your minds, that it is "impossible" they have been wrong in condemning certain persons.

I wish that you do not abandon the love you have for your fathers and to uphold the True Orthodox faith they have upheld, but also research and know the truth that they themselves have misunderstood and did not know, for a wise and prudent mind will go beyond assumptions and search for facts.

God bless and good night.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

orthedoxy

Lusavorchagan
Dec 15, 2003
533
17
pasadena california
✟764.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
sin_vladimirov said:
Orthedox, to you greetings and many years, in ICXC. (your words are in blue)


“There was this statement made at the council of Chalcedon
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3”

It would be fair to say that this statement was, indeed, made during the Holy and Imperial Council by the Papal legates and that it was shunned by the rest of the Holy Episkopes that were by the mercy of our God been assembled in Chalcedon. It would be also fair to say that because there are things said and reported in Acts of the Holy and Ecumenical (Imperial) Synod (for those words are in there just for that reason, that they were said, and not of Canonical value), they are not, the canon law, also, they are not taken in matters of Ecclesial law/order. This being so and there is not one Canon of the Holy Ecumenical Synods that, indeed, supports this statement. This was, and stays ONLY the opinion of the legates of the St. Leo (Archbishop of the Old Rome).
I have a question for you what was the position of Pope Leo of Rom at the council of Chalcedon?
Please read this link:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ235.HTM

”No EO accepts this statement. That's why I say they're nonchalcedonians.”
You are 100% right, NOT ONE Orthodox accepts this statement. It was and still is just wishful thinking that indeed brought the separation of Latin see from the communion. We are, however, Chalcedonians, unless you consider us to be Oriental-which is not the case. We accept the Canons of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and it is none of the Church concern what some said that was not included into Canon Law. Views of equals, episkopes, of the Holy Church are just that their singular views, they can be wrong or right. Only Council is what formulates the Canons.
I showed you where the Pope of Rome is considered the head the pillar of the Church. Can you show me where it’s just a singular view?
Give me a link or something that says Pope Leo was not the head at that council.
Here is one other link that you should find interesting. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm
It is pretty clear to me that he was the head of your church. How dear you break off from the head.


“Part of the reason Armenians didn't accept the council of Chelcedon was because it was about power about being under Rome. We didn't accept that but EO did.”
This simply is not true. Please compare Holy Canon and Epitome of Canon in order numbered and recorded as XXVIII. Holy Fathers have still delivered this Canon. If you are right, and you are not, this canon would have never been delivered. I am not sure what other reasons the Churches (out of communion) of Armenia (she be blessed) had, but this one simply can not be there, because it does not exist. This Council was definitely not under Pope. (either Doctrinally, Physically, Symbolically.. or in any other way. Come to think of it, in a sense, the Synods that you accept –First three- have been more" under Pope" than this one).

“I see a big hypocrisy by EO who cut themselves from Peter (their head) and now they see a problem with people not attending councils?”
I am sorry for this, truly, I do not. Also this is an irrational statement being delivered without any historical evidence or, indeed, sense.

I’ve given you two links and quotes that Pope Leo was the head.
Post in the OBOB and ask if Pope Leo was the head at Chalcedon I would guarantee you they would all agree with me.
“What I would like to ask EO is what gives them the right not to attend RC Councils? NonChecedonians have more reasons for not attending the council of Chelcedon then EO have in not attending RC Councils”
Nothing gives EO right to attend RC councils. God Forbid if we did! This (IV EC) was not RC council in a sense if by RC you think of current body that is out of communion with the Church and is under jurisdiction of Bishop of Rome (out of communion).
Please answer this Question: What makes RC councils not binding to you?
 
Upvote 0

sin_vladimirov

Not anymore
Apr 18, 2005
1,110
54
✟1,549.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Orthedox, to you greetings.

I am not writting this because of you, but because of other Oriental Christians who might actually believe you because of your Coptic Cross (undernith you name). So that they might not think that you are actually saying the truth.


I have explained why you are not right. Everyone that knows even a little bit about Chalcedon (short of Oriental issues) will know that this Council is not Latin. I think that I have answered you questions.


Couple of notes:

1. If I were you I would not use Dave Armstrong or Phil Porvaznik for any information in regard to anything; unless, you are inquiring about directions whilst in Vatican.

2. Same in regard to OBOB.

(If you wish to use Latin resources, lets ask them what they say about Oriental Theology!!)

3. I find you anti-Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) polemics most disturbing, due in part that you would be the first OO that I have met that does this, but mostly because of you shallow and baseless argumentation.

You can, if you wish, continue to believe Latins.

Your mind is obviously made up, and I pray that other OO are not like this. I do not mind people being eclusive, I am; but to use Roman Catholic argumentation and methodology against Eastern Orthodox and to, at the same time, be Oriental Orthodox is, to me, 100% senseless.


I for one, would not do that.

May God bless you.


in ICXC
stefan+
 
Upvote 0

sin_vladimirov

Not anymore
Apr 18, 2005
1,110
54
✟1,549.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
orthedoxy said:
Here is what RC think of Armenian Church. they say we have one and the same faith. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19970125_jp-ii-aram-i_en.html
I don't see you having problem with maximus in the TAW who is being exclusive.

Again, I really do not care anymore what RCC has to say about anything, unless it is total negation of their erroneus doctrines.



I am not here to judge and correct people minds. It is not my "office". Maximus is my brother, older and baptised at that. He has very deep sense of Ecclesiology and understanding of heresy of ecumenism that lacks in the west. "I" for one can not change his mind if I do not have reason to disagree (not that I could even if I did).

On the same token, I am not "trying to change" Minas or C. Girls mind either.

It is not my duty to change anyones mind but to find out what it actually going on. I have been doing this for a month now.. I still have not made my mind. When and if I do, I will say so. Until then I can not go either way.

I am praying for both parties.

There are Orthodox that believe that Orientals are heretics, there are who do not. I am still formulating my view, and have been doing do for the last month or so.

I have outmost respect for OO and my posts here and private conversation are witness to that. Same "treatment" I do not show to ANYONE else, except to EO. There are reasons for this.

God bless you.

in ICXC
stefan+
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

erinipassi

Regular Member
Apr 14, 2005
155
10
✟15,335.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Hi Stefan,

I want to thank you for always being courteous and respectful to our Church. But at the same token, I want to ask you, how hurtful it was for you to face what you 'feel' as judgemental attitude from Orthedoxy...what do you think we feel when people like Maximus and many others like him not only judge and condemn us, call us heretics but also misrepresent our beliefs in a public forum. Just right now you tried to clarify the Eastern Orthodox position. We, the Oriental Orthodox, were not given that right to clarify our position in the Eastern Orthodox forum when someone misrepresented our beliefs. What do you think Orthedoxy felt when a large group of people attacked his Church and made it equal to rubbish?

I'm not saying that two wrongs makes something right. I strongly believe just as you believe, that through love and understanding each other is the key. BUT its not the Oriental Church that started the judging and putting down some of your practices. When a group of Eastern Orthodox started to judge and condemn the Oriental Church, it rubbed many people the wrong way. Notice the Coptic Orthodox Church still defends your practices, yet very few from the Eastern Orthodox defend the Coptic Church and we are appreciative and thankful for all those who are understanding. But how many of the Eastern Orthodox are respectful? compared to how many Coptic Orthodox who are respectful to the Eastern Orthodox Church?

In any case, I believe one day the Eastern Orthodox will realise that the only difference in regards to the nature of Christ between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox is the terminology. We are describing the same thing but in different words. May God grant all the Churches understanding and wisdom, and may He guide us to him in love and peace.

Thank you once again, Stefan, for all your patience and kindness.

love and blessings
erini
 
Upvote 0