Why the Copts are NOT Monophysites:

[sin_vladimirov]

(CAPITAL letters are used for stressing, not as yelling!)


Erini I know. It would be very painful as it is. I am sorry that at least as EO and OO are concerned we still can not sort it out, so at least we can go one way or the other.. either roses and candy's or clubs and rocks.

I have to say, that I lean to see (AND THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN WITH ANY OTHERS) OO as somehwhat of an anachronism. What I mean?

I am very exclusive. I do not aplogize for that. For me, there is NO truth-even shadow of it, outside EOC. If you are not in communion, you are not. If you are out of communion-you are heterodox.

And this is why OO is an anachronism. AT THIS STAGE I think that OO is obviously out of communion, BUT it is NOT heterodox. (again, this is as it is AT THIS VERY MOMENT in my mind, I will adjust my oppinion as the more knowledge grows).

In the end, it is only my oppinion and I can not enforce it onto anyone else, nor I would if I could.

Erini, I am sorry for all the pain you and "southern" brethren are felling.

Xristos Anesti!

in ICXC
stefan+

 

[CopticGirl]

Stefan,

Your mind is obviously made up, and I pray that other OO are not like this.

Not every OO is the same as Orthedoxy. Just ignore his antics.

God Bless.

 

[minasoliman]

As the controversy progressed and Christological terminology became more clearly defined, St. Cyril expressed himself in the Orthodox manner, declaring that Christ has two natures united in one divine Person and that the distinction between those natures was not removed by their union. He did this in his letter to Bishop John of Antioch and in signing the Formulary of Reunion drafted by Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus.

Let me requote St. Cyril, which he wrote near his death AFTER FORMULARLY OF REUNION:

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.

etc. etc. etc.

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...

Now, Maximus what do you mean by "drafted"? Are you saying that Theodoret wrote the Formulary?

This is exactly what I mean about "assumptions." You haven't even researched to prove this. I don't think any EO would agree with you on this. Theodoret and St. Cyril were ENEMIES, not friends. My Lord Jesus Christ, when will ignorance end?

It is true that Theodoret however REVIEWED the letter and gave John of Antioch his opinion on it:

God, who governs all things in wisdom, who provides for our unanimity, and cares for the salvation of His people, has caused us to be assembled together, and has shewn us that the views of all of us are in agreement with one another. We have assembled together, and read the Egyptian Letter;we have carefully examined its purport, and we have discovered that its contents are quite in accordance with our own statements, and entirely opposed to the Twelve Chapters, against which up to the present time we have continued to wage war, as being contrary to true religion. Their teaching was that God the Word was carnally made flesh; that there was an union of hypostasis, and that the combination in union was of nature, and that God the Word was the first-born from the dead. They forbade all distinction in the terms used of our Lord, and further contained other doctrines at variance with the seeds sown by the apostles, and outcome of heretical tares.

Like St. Cyril says, people who assume we confuse speak nothing but rubbish, and the poison of ignorance overcomes them. Theodoret believed that St. Cyril's Formulary contradicted his 12 Chapters. Theodoret continued to write letters to Nestorius supporting his cause.

I personally believe that although we do allow distinction, that Theodoret's meaning of "distinction" is his refusal to believe in a "communicato idiomatum." Such is heresy, semi-Nestorian at best. This is what many EO I have talked to believe.

I also personally believe that there was "no repentance" or no evidence of Theodoret repenting. Up to Chalcedon, he didn't want to accept Ephesus and anathematize Nestorius. He has only done so, WITH GREAT HESITATION at the Council of Chalcedon.

Because Maximus loves his HOly Fathers so much, without any insult to him for he is very smart, I feel he is making up stories to appease the EO side without much attention to primary research and resources.

Xrictoc anecti!

 

[minasoliman]

The Henoticon:

Maximus makes the case that the Henoticon makes "one will" out of Christ, which he is right, but none other than the PERSONAL WILL. This post will be dedicated to posting some sources of what EO polemics think that our fathers are "heresiarchs." I wonder why though the text of the Henoticon is not provided in the internet. It's a very simple and short declaration according to my source. Could it be the fact that they are afraid for people to judge themselves whether it was heterodox or not?

First the text of the Henoticon, which I got from Iris Habib el Masry's book "The Story of the Copts":

We declare to you that we accept no Creed other than that of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers of Nicea, confirmed by two hundred at Ephesus--condemning Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. We also accept the twelve anathemas of Abba Kyrillos of blessed memory; we confess that our Lord God Jesus the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God was verily incarnate, while being Consubstantial with the Father in His Divinity; It is He Who descended from Heaven and was made flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos; He is One, not two. We say that it is the same Son of God Who performed miracles, and Who suffered voluntarily in the flesh. We refuse altogether those who divide or confound the two natures--such as Nestorius; those who adopt a simple appearance of the Incarnation--such as Eutyches. We anathematize whoever believes, or has believed otherwise, at Chalcedon or any other council--specifically Nestorius, Eutyches, and their partisans.
Be ye, therefore reconciled one to the other within the Church, our Spiritual Mother, as loving children; and She will grant you Her manifold blessings. Thus will angels rejoice, and we will give thanks to our Heavenly Father.

What I bolded is the one personal will of Christ, but notice it does confess two natural wills. He "suffered voluntarily in the flesh." This is so in truth, for the divinity cannot suffer, but the humanity can. Thus, implied here is no heresy, but Orthodoxy. Just as Leo wrote in his Tome:

the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as he underwent this, not in his actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature.

The free will of humanity is also asserted in "voluntarily," agreeing with St. Maximus the Confessor.

Therefore, I ask to you dear Maximus, where is the heterodoxy?

Finally for today, I will not take the credit for this one, but my Coptic brother in faith Raouf took the time to defend Oriental Orthodoxy here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php/topic,798.45.html

I will post them for the sake of convenience:

DIOSCORUS OF ALEXANDRIA

Dioscorus to Domnus of Antioch:

Now I come back to you, O Christ loving bishop of Antioch, my brother,
observe that John did not spare any effort to strengthen the unity of the
Church at your end and ours. A unity that they cannot disrupt, they
dispatched their forces against it, and without feeling it, they were about
to destroy the time of peace. How glorious is the time of peace!

and...

They claim that Nestorius the blasphemer was unfairly excommunicated
without deviating from the right path and without injuring Christ. They do
not admit that he instilled heresies in the Orthodox faith that is derived
from the Bible.

Raouf then comments:

this shows that even after the Formula of Reunion, the Nestorians
were still attempting to claim that their heresy was in accords with the
Reunion since this was written to John of Antioch's successor after the
Reunion

First Letter of St. Dioscorus to his Monks:

I know Him, and with faith I transcend. He was born God of the Father, and
I know Him to be born man from the Virgin. I see Him walking as a man on
earth and behold to heavenly Angels as God. I envisage Him sleeping in the
ship as a man and He himself walks on the water as God. As a human He
experiences hunger, and as God He feeds. He, as human, was stoned by the
Jews and He himself is worshipped by the Angels as God. He was tempted as a
human, but expels devils as God....I confess He is one; while He Himself is
God and Savior, he became man because of His goodness...

and...

No one dare say that the Holy body taken from the Virgin by our Lord is not
consubstantial with ours, as it is known, and as it is so.

Letter to Secundinus:

The phrase is "in everything". It does not exclude any part of our nature
at all . It includes nerves, hair, bones, veins, belly, heart, kidneys,
liver, and lungs. That flesh of our Savior, which was born of Mary and which
was ensouled with a rational soul, was constituted of every element of which
we are composed, but through male seed, sleep, and sensual
gratification...For He was with us, like us, and for us.

to be continued...

 

[minasoliman]

TIMOTHY OF ALEXANDRIA

On the fact that one must assert as one our Lord and God Jesus Christ with
his flesh and must assign everything to Him, what is divine and what is
human, and that he became consubstantial with us according to the body but
also remained God, and that it is godless to separate Him into two
[natures].

Raouf comments:

Here St. Timothy is speaking of separating Christ in two natures
after union which according to St. Cyril's theology made null the hypostatic
union)

I have written this upon hearing that certain persons are opposed to
obeying the tradition of the holy fathers who taught Christ's fleshly
consubstantiality with us. Such persons the fathers also anthematized. For
we believe, in accordance with the traditions of the fathers, that our Lord
Jesus Christ was consubstantial in flesh with us...and one with his own
flesh.

and

I promised that if they refrained from heterodoxy and confessed that our
Lord was consubstantial in flesh with us and that he was not of a different
nature, I would maintain them in their former honor and would grasp then
with the same love as before.

and

...to inform everyone, naming the above mentioned Isaiah and Theophilus as
persons who, by asserting that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is of an alien
nature from us and that He was not consubstantial in flesh with them and
that He was not really human, have alienated themselves from communion with
the holy fathers and with me and give warning that no man henceforth should
hold communion with them.

and

These antichrists neither acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come into the
world in human flesh, nor believe that God the Word became man while
remaining God unchanged.

and

For they are now preaching the evil doctrines of the Phantasiasts' heresy
by saying that the body of our Lord and God Jesus Christ is uncreated, that
body which was constituted of created manhood. They are asserting that God
the Word was not ineffably incarnate from the Virgin, Theotokos, sharing
blood and flesh in our likeness - so as to be made wholly like us, sin
excepted, so that in becoming truly man, he could be seen by earthly men
revealed in human flesh for our salvation....

and

He gave up His spirit when we committed it, that is His soul, into the hands
of the Father, when He wanted to do this. He proved thereby that the
precious body of Christ was endowed with a rational soul; he became a human
being and truly died...

THEODOSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (566)

The hypostatic union did not falsify the distinction of natures that marks
the united and also left no place for division and separation; rather, for
us it created from two the one and indivisible Emmanuel; one is His nature
or composite hypostasis; this means the same as when we say: the nature of
the God-Logos Himself and His hypostasis has become flesh and perfectly
human being...

and

This perfidious and damnable synod taught unlawfully among its other
blasphemies that Christ is be known in two natures, and against the best
valid canones it set up a different definition of faith and called the Tome
of Leo a pillar of Orthodoxy, which openly affirmed the godless teachings of
Nestorius and two natures and hypostases, as well as two forms and
activities and characteristics ...

(notice here the misunderstanding of equating Leo with Nestorius, just as EO's misunderstood us equating Eutyches with Dioscorus)

...He who is one of the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic Logos of God the
Father, united to himself hypostatically a flesh homoousios with us, and
like us, capable of suffering.

and

There was not a union of ousias and natures which are generic and common,
that is, of the nature which contains the Trinity of the divine hypostases,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the nature which includes the entire
human race of all men - but there was merely a union of God the Logos and
His own flesh, endowed with a rational and intellectual soul , which he
united to Himself in a hypostatic way.

THEODORE OF ALEXANDRIA (587)

...who is like us and at the same time over us, since He is one from two,
divinity and humanity, which are perfect in their respects, consubstantial
with the Father in the divinity and the same one consubstantial with us in
the humanity, who is not divided into those of which he consists and not
separated into the duality of natures or mixed through any kind of
transformation or metamorphosis of natures; rather, after he was
hypostatically united to an animated body, He was born as man from woman,
and without having abandoned His nature, He became like us, but the same one
is God and man, that is God has become man...

SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH

In regard to the one prosopon and one nature that is hypostasis, when those
out of which He is and is naturally composed are thought of, reason brings
them together, recognizing Him as one, not to be divided into two.

and

For we do not say either that God the Word was changed over to man, made up of soul and body. But we confess that while remaining what He is, He was
united hypostatically to the flesh possessing a rational soul.

and

When the Fathers spoke of "one incarnate nature of God the Word," they made
it clear that by becoming incarnate the Word did not abandon His nature, but
that He remained in His perfection without change and deviation; for he did
not undergo any loss or diminution in His hypostasis. When they said that He
"became incarnate", they affirmed that the flesh was nothing but flesh, and
that it did not come into being by itself apart from union with the Word.
Therefore, it is just to say that the Word was simple, not composite, before
the ages. When He willed to assume our likeness without sin, the flesh was
brought into being, but not separately. While signifying the lofty union,
the words "became incarnate" refer to the assumption of the flesh from the
Virgin, which was not separate by itself; so that from two natures, namely
Godhead and manhood, one Christ came forth from Mary. The same is known to
be at once God and man; He is of the same substance with the Father in the
Godhead and He Himself is of the same substance with us men in the manhood.

and

The thought of union does not permit a division into two, though those from
which is the union remain without diminution and without change. They came
to be in composition, and not in specific concretion, and therefore they
cannot be counted two. From both there is complete one nature and one
hypostasis of the Word incarnate. For it is not of "simple" objects alone
that the word "one" is spoken, but it is used also of beings that came
together in composition.

and

When we think of the Emmanuel and contemplate Godhead and manhood, we shall
see that each of them is not only different from the other, but that they
are remote from each other and sharply distinct. Moreover, when the union of
both is confessed, the difference signifying the natures of which is the one
Christ does not disappear, though by reason of the hypostatic union division
is discarded.

(note St. Severus confesses "distinction" and not "seperation")

and

When we anethematize those who affirm of the Emmanuel two natures after the union and their operations as well as properties, it is not for speaking of
natures or operations or properties that we place them under condemnation;
but for saying two natures after the union and assigning the operations and
properties to each of them, thereby dividing them between the natures.

Note this last quote by St. Severus, he mentions that we do not deny that each nature has its own properties and operations, but it should be stressed that both were done by the same Prosopa. To divide the properties is to divide natures in Christ, and thus in danger of Nestorianism. We stress too much the personal will, while the EO's stress too much an analysis of the metaphysics of Christ.

I believe both are harmonious and in agreement despite the misunderstandings of the past.

That's it for tonight.

Xrictoc anecti!

 

[Mark Downham]

I like these quotes and I really like the introduction of the category of Distinction as opposed to separation -this is important because the Chalcedon Formula does not really deal with Distinction or identification with us through suffering.

TIMOTHY OF ALEXANDRIA

On the fact that one must assert as one our Lord and God Jesus Christ with
his flesh and must assign everything to Him, what is divine and what is
human, and that he became consubstantial with us according to the body but
also remained God, and that it is godless to separate Him into two
[natures].

THEODOSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (566)

The hypostatic union did not falsify the distinction of natures that marks
the united and also left no place for division and separation; rather, for
us it created from two the one and indivisible Emmanuel; one is His nature
or composite hypostasis; this means the same as when we say: the nature of
the God-Logos Himself and His hypostasis has become flesh and perfectly
human being...

...He who is one of the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic Logos of God the
Father, united to himself hypostatically a flesh homoousios with us, and
like us, capable of suffering

SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH

When we think of the Emmanuel and contemplate Godhead and manhood, we shall
see that each of them is not only different from the other, but that they
are remote from each other and sharply distinct. Moreover, when the union of
both is confessed, the difference signifying the natures of which is the one
Christ does not disappear, though by reason of the hypostatic union division
is discarded.

(note St. Severus confesses "distinction" and not "seperation")

In Him.

Mark

 

[minasoliman]

Just to prove a certain point in defense of our misunderstandings against Chalcedon, I've read somewhere where the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church accepted the canons and faith of Chalcedon. They accept three ecumenical councils in common with the EO: Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon. Bishop Mar Bawai Soro of the Assyrian Church writes in "The Vienna Christological Formula in an Assyrian Perspective:"

The Ecumenical Councils were major ecclesial events for the Church within the domain of the Roman Empire. The Church of the East, being within the Persian Empire, was never directly involved in any one. Yet, it has ultimately received Nicea, Constantinople I, and the canons of Chalcedon, and is in agreement with the tone and substance of others.

Here, you see the hesitation to agree with Ephesus, obviously, since they revere Nestorius as a saint, as well as Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret. This is why there were so many non-Chalcedonian Church fathers simply because of the Nestorian interpretation behind it. But as EO's stress, it must be understood in light of the Council of Ephesus.

The point here is that rather than calling it "second guessing" the Holy Fathers, call it "clearing up the air of misunderstanding between" the Holy Fathers.

Dear Maximus, if you dearly believe that the Assyrian Church is a Nestorian Church, then you should dwell more into research seeing why Nestorius and his fruits applauded Chalcedon and rejected Ephesus.

May God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!​

 

[orthedoxy]

Maximus also says OO shouldn't be called orthodox.
He need to answer where in the bible or any council prior to chelcedon taught Christ having two natures?
"Orthodox" we mean the ancient faith of the Apostles, since the Oriental Orthodox Church can directly trace its line of succession back to the Apostles themselves.
Also if we have the wrong teachings wouldn't that make the church before Chalcedon wrong?
I guess Maximus could only spread lies in a place where people can't defend themselves.

 

[minasoliman]

http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CYRIL2.DOC

I wish any good EO would read this and understand when they condemn Miaphysitism, they really condemn St. Cyril, for even St. Cyril is conscience of his use of "One Nature" and never relented, even unto his death.

Many revealing quotes:

they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the son, the Word of God the Father and others are proper to another one again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to His divinity and others are proper to His humanity.

Notice here, the language that St. Cyril condemns. For Leo of Rome writes that the Word does what pertains to the Word and the flesh does what pertains to the flesh. This is the type of language that St. Cyril anathematizes, and justly, St. Dioscorus as well. Misunderstanding? You betcha! But it was out of a humble innocence from St. Dioscorus knowing St. Cyril very well that the language portrayed in the Tome was the language that St. Cyril condemns as written here. He would much prefer "divinity" and "humanity" rather than "Word" and "flesh" as he writes later:

but they say that some are proper to His divinity and others are proper to His humanity.

And he expects them to believe that the Word suffered, not in divine nature of course, but in prosopon:

They affirm, as I said, that he is the Word of God the Father, begotten before ages, and was born in recent days according to the flesh from the holy Virgin.

Leo instead, understandably with good intent, writes that the Word can never suffer, but rather the flesh. That puts the two natures in similar terms as "two prosopa." No wonder Nestorius agrees and St. Dioscorus disagrees. In addition, St. Cyril holds consciously to the "one nature" formula without condemning the two natures, but prefers himself the one nature as he says:

there is one fusiV of the Word (of God) made flesh.

"One Physis" is confessed. Might I add that Maximus' ancient arguments of comparing quotes of Eutyches with HH Pope Shenouda forgot to add this quote by St. Cyril. HH Pope Shenouda goes on to defend "one nature" with an analogy to the two natures of humanity into one nature. St. Cyril does likewise:

Therefore, as far as concerns our understanding and only the contemplation by the eyes of the soul in what manner the only begotten became man. We say that they are two natures which are united, but that Christ the son and Lord is one, the Word of God the Father made and incarnate. And, if it seems best, let us accept as an example the composition in our own selves by which we are men. For we are composed of soul and body and we see two natures the one being the nature of the body and the other the nature of the soul. But there is one from both in unity, a man. And because man is composed of two natures, this does not make two men, but one, but one and the same man through the composition.’

Therefore, rather than taking things out of context, this should affirm that HH Pope Shenouda in his book follows St. Cyril's arguments, not Eutyches. If one feels like a "scholar", he should not embarrass himself with childish comparisons of quotes like this without knowing the essence and origin of such Orthodox teaching.

And by the Maximus, St. Cyril says hi:

Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate fusiV ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.

Please substantiate your claims that we preach confusion before you embarrass yourself from our common saint, St. Cyril.

Lord have mercy and God bless.

Xrictoc anecti!

Mina

 

[minasoliman]

Sorry to bug you guys again, but I did promise I will continue.

But for today, I will only give you guys a book that you all should buy, both haters and lovers alike.

"The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined" by Fr. VC Samuel...EXCELLENT book on OO-EO history and he backs EVERYTHING up with facts; not one piece of history he mentions without criticism or primary documentation. Amen to Fr. V.C. Samuel, brillian historian and theologian:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Vx4dzuaBdN&isbn=1401016448&itm=1

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1401016448/ref=lpr_g_1/002-9119982-3365653?v=glance&s=books

Trust me, it's worth the read, and quite the drama. (they should make Chalcedon into a movie...seriously...lol)

Remember me in your prayers.

Mina

 

[Yeznik]

Here is a book written by Karekin Sarkissian who was the Catholicos and now has joined our Lord. A bit on the scholarly side but well worth the read. I will probably be picking up the book by Fr. VC Samuel in the near future. Thanks Mina!


The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006CJQ1Q/qid=1119930768/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-9503795-1860868?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[minasoliman]

http://www.christianforums.com/t1844076-two-natures-of-christ.html

The fruits of TAW scholars:

Rick of Essex writes:

Orthedoxy,

Don't you have anything better to do than trolling around here?

Am I missing the welcoming language here?

Maximus writes:

St. Cyril mistakenly used the expression "one nature of the Word Incarnate" because he relied on Apollinarian forgeries that purported to be the work of St. Athanasius. Blessed Theodoret pointed out to him that those works were not authentic. St. Cyril later agreed and accepted the two natures terminology.

I've already refuted this. After the Agreed Statements, he wrote several letters on how the Agreed Statements should be interpreted, and in these letters, such as the one I provided to Succenus, and his famous work "On the Unity of Christ" written near his death, used the term "one nature." It is also noteworthy that he was careful when he used "two natures" by putting the word "of" in there. This is what St. Dioscorus was willing to agree on (without confusion obviously). The phrase "in two natures" is a Nestorian forgery that was interpreted Orthodox by the Chalcedonians.

God bless.

PS I don't how he thinks Theodoret and Cyril were "tight." Cyril anathematized this guy and this guy wrote a letter mentioning "at last, the villain is dead."

 

[ContraMundum]

I've tried to think of this in a different way myself, and this is what I've come up with. Would it be fair to say that the Non-Chalcedonian churches simply held to the previous statements of orthodoxy before the Council, and thus, are really merely faithfully retaining the simpler, less articulated formula that was handed down to them originally?

That would mean, to my way of thinking, that they cannot be accused of either monopysitism or heresy unless the fathers who held the simpler, earlier formula were also wrong on that point. Interestingly enough, no one wants to claim that! Therefore, unless I am in error, the indictment against the Oriental churches is not valid, and then retention of the schism is really political belly-aching over juristictions.

 

[Yeznik]

I've tried to think of this in a different way myself, and this is what I've come up with. Would it be fair to say that the Non-Chalcedonian churches simply held to the previous statements of orthodoxy before the Council, and thus, are really merely faithfully retaining the simpler, less articulated formula that was handed down to them originally?

That would mean, to my way of thinking, that they cannot be accused of either monopysitism or heresy unless the fathers who held the simpler, earlier formula were also wrong on that point. Interestingly enough, no one wants to claim that! Therefore, unless I am in error, the indictment against the Oriental churches is not valid, and then retention of the schism is really political belly-aching over juristictions.

Excellent point.

 

[erinipassi]

It really bugs me the type of lies that Maximus writes　‘St. Cyril later agreed and accepted the two natures terminology.”　Not only is Maximus inventing lies but he also forgets that St. Cyril was our Coptic Pope and it is well documented what he said and what he taught, especially in the Coptic Church and that is One Nature of the Incarnate Logos. Maximus is like a protestant quoting from protestant sources about Orthodoxy...how accurate would that be?? If he wants to know something about the people who are Coptic Orthodox, one needs to look at the Coptic Orthodox sources as they will be the most accurate.


St Cyrill never accepted the two nature terminology because it was the same terminology described by the heresy by Nestorius and St. Cyrill explained why Nestorian teachings were a heresy and why we should never use that term. Secondly, St. Athansius was aslo our Coptic Pope and St. Cyrill held to everything that was passed down to him and it is well documented till today in the Coptic Church that both what St. Athanasius and St. Cyrill taught echoed the early Church fathers and was faithfully passed down by them and must never be changed.

When St. Athanasius was defending the faith and saving it from heresy in the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 325 AD, was he also relying on Apollinarian forgeries??? That would mean all the Holy Fathers who were in the Ecumenical Council of Nicea were relying on Appolinarian forgeries when they convened to excomunicate Arius and his heresies. How rediculous can Maximus statement get?

So again if Maximus would stop inventing history that doesnt exist and actually look at the truth instead of making up his own truths which doesnt exist expect in his own mind, then all this unnecessary animosity can be avoided.

love and blessings
erini

 

[minasoliman]

Get ready for another episode of bone-chilling refutations.

From Maximus' interesting post:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16846189&postcount=5

I was reluctant to answer anything immediately, simply because I was waiting for an answer for Maximus to provide me for the context of those quotes. He obviously failed to do so for unknown reasons. He has gotten these quotes from orthodoxinfo.com, which shows how much of a "scholar" he is. Regardless of whether they got their facts right or not, a true scholar investigates on the quotations and what they mean, not go by solely one authority to provide yourself with all the information.

After some careful thought and studying, I decided to post some of his comments:

Here's a quote from St. Cyril's Letter to John of Antioch (433):

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" (John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1, p. 154).

No insistence on the preposition of there. It seems clear that St. Cyril believed our Lord still has two natures.

It is without a doubt that Christ has two natures. The way to describe these natures is of Christological and Soteriological importance, which is why the four adverbs that Chalcedon provides and the Agreed Statements provide (which was all taken from St. Dioscorus, the alleged "heiresarch"). The Alexandrian school has adopted "of" two natures and the Antiochian school has adopted "in" two natures. ACTUALLY we must note that the terminology "in" was ONLY started by Nestorius. So while we got the word "of" from a Universally known and respected theologian, the Chalcedonians got the word "in" from a Universally known and accepted heiresarch.

Let us examine the context of the quote given. It was so kind of Marjorie to provide for us the context of which was none other than the Agreed Formula between St. Cyril and John of Antioch.

First, I like to start from the beginning of the letter. The letter affirms a misunderstanding between the two parties, and instead of a straying away from the faith, it was a simple schism. It is written in the letter "the middle wall of partition has been taken away." St. Cyril also writes praising Paul the messenger who came that "he might overcome the envy of the devil and heal our divisions." Can the Church be divided? Well, dogmatically, NO! But men only divide, but where God sees injustice, He never bestows grace. It's as simple as that. Instead of division, St. Cyril continually praises Paul as the source of "removing the offences scattered between us" and the "crowning of your Church and ours with harmony and peace." Can there be a better example? St. Cyril believed for a couple of years that John was actually a Nestorian and had an unfortunate schism. For two years, one Church believed to be the true Church while the other a false one. Both churches condemned one another as heretics and misunderstood one another.

We ask simply to those who live today ever since the era of the Chalcedonian schism, does two years or 1500 years of schism make a difference to Christ? If so, then where do we draw a line? And for those who believe that the OO Church has no grace, then one should investigate where one lost grace and where one has returned to it. In this case, for St. Cyril's case, for those who believe that one can lose grace and one can keep it, St. Cyril is a heretic for affirming a certain division in the Church. I ask all those fanatics, if you truly want to keep your fanatic beliefs, are you ready to affirm that St. Cyril committed a theological error by affirming that the Church divided? If so, then they also will contradict themselves who believe that every word which proceeds out of the mouths of holy fathers are infallible. These people are full of contradictions, and yet they know not, only reading half-truths, reading a paragraph of a letter rather than the full letter, reading a page of a book rather than the whole book. They think that they can get the fullness of truth from a simple sentence, but the context of the sentence is never analyzed and thus they will be forever blind in faith, unless they repent from their ignorance.

Here, St. Cyril affirms a true understanding heart of love and unity: "Of the reason of the disagreement, it is superfluous to speak." What is the reason of disagreement dear Papa? Our Holy Papa Ava Cyril is implied the differences in theological terminologies, the Alexandrian versus the Antiochian. Our Holy Father does not say "I was wrong with my terminology, I should accept yours" as some fanatics ignorantly and falsely persuade that that's what happened. Instead, he said that the disagreements are "superfluous" and "unnecessary" and "inopportune." See the understanding, the WISDOM of St. Cyril by going past disagreements. See the holiness and righteousness that he went through. The disagreements are "superfluous" because they are of terminological differences and not dogmatic, "unnecessary" because it is what the heart believes, not the tongue, and "inopportune" because it was at a time when a heresy was rampant for professing two prosopa in Christ. These three adverbs are also a necessary piece of understanding with the Chalcedonian controversy, for also it was "superfluous," "unnecessary," and horribly "inopportune," but we thank God that He has opened the hearts of many today to go past differences and find the essences of faith still preserved in each Church.

St. Cyril continues to praise Paul:

"This he asserted to have been prepared, by your Holiness and by the God-beloved Bishops there."

Who are these bishops that he talks about? Well, I have ample proof that it is not Theodoret, contrary to the opinion of some ignorant. St. Cyril not only has words of praise for also words of rebuke and disgust over those who are under John of Antioch's influence, like Theodoret:

Since I learned that certain of those accustomed to find fault were humming around like vicious wasps, and vomiting out wretched words against me

O fools, and only knowing how to misrepresent, how have ye been led to such a judgment, how have ye fallen into so foolish a sickness? For it is necessary, it is undoubtedly necessary, to understand that almost all the opposition to us concerningthe faith, arose from our affirming that the holy Virgin is Mother of God.

They are to be laughed at who babble such things about me.

Will your holiness vouchsafe to silence those who say that a crasis, or mingling or mixture took place between the Word of God and flesh. For it is likely that certain also gossip about me as having thought or said such things.

When some of those who are accustomed to turn from the right, twist my speech to their views, I pray your holiness not to wonder; but be well assured that the followers of every heresy gather the occasions of their error from the God-inspired Scriptures, corrupting in their evil minds the things rightly said through the Holy Spirit, and drawing down upon their own heads the unquenchable flame.

So my beloved, these are not words of some sort of humility, that accepted rebuke from others who somehow "misunderstood" his theology, these are words of rebuke and frustration against those who MISREPRESENT his theology by lies, and is rightfully defending himself. Why do you think I keep on writing here, with frustration and anger against those who misrepresent the Coptic Church? Why do you think I keep on voicing my deepest passions to hit people in the head with some sense? Why do I go at such great lengths, to annoy people here of, what seems to be useless, my ramblings against those who have no foundation to truly call us heretics? St. Cyril is none other but my inspiration, my hero, and what he did is no different than what I'm doing right now.

I will continue tomorrow on the why these passages relate to Theodoret, then I'll make my final comments on this letter, showing that the terminology intended was indeed "of" two natures, and nowhere in the letter does it affirm "in" which shows, perhaps a failure of clarity against those who made the word "in" a reality as well as a bloody and disasterous schism for centuries to come.

God bless you all.

Pray for me a sinner.

Mina

 

[minasoliman]

Who is Theodoret?

From reading his letters, he seems to have a pious heart. Whenever we talk about heretics, the "vile" that we give them comes from their dogma, but their actions should essentially follow every moral a Christian follows. They are not Satanists, although they are anti-Christ through their dogma.

Therefore, who is Theodoret? He is man who believed that Nestorius has been "misrepresented" by St. Cyril in the Council of Ephesus. He was a strong anti-Ephesian and anti-Cyrillian (and as I will show later, anti-Alexandrian). He not only opposed St. Cyril, he HATED him. After Nestorius was condemned, and after John of Antioch united with St. Cyril, Theodoret, as I have shown you, continued to communicate with Nestorius through letters notifying him that he will never follow those Egyptians. He wrote a famouse work against the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril, dripping with the oil of Nestorian doctrine. He guided his see in Cyrus into the heretical doctrine of his own hero, teacher, and friend. He considered people like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus among the Church fathers, and St. Cyril considered them the forerunners of Nestorius.

Did Theodoret write the letter? If he did, then kudos for him. But did St. Cyril know that Theodoret write the letter? Let us examine some points made by Theodoret HIMSELF in his letters.

In his letter to John of Antioch, after the reconciliation:

God, who governs all things in wisdom, who provides for our unanimity, and cares for the salvation of His people, has caused us to be assembled together, and has shewn us that the views of all of us are in agreement with one another. We have assembled together, and read the Egyptian Letter, we have carefully examined its purport, and we have discovered that its contents are quite in accordance with our own statements, and entirely opposed to the Twelve Chapters, against which up to the present time we have continued to wage war, as being contrary to true religion.

This Egyptian letter Theodoret is talking about is the letter of St. Cyril to Acacius. In it, it describes that our brothers in Antioch, "understanding in simple thoughts," have only maintained a unity without confusion, but they did not seperate. Essentially both we and them beleive the same thing, regardless of what terminology we use. In this letter, he did not say that I should agree in using Antiochian terminology, but confessed that we believed the same thing all along, but they are not Nestorians, i.e. they don't seperate the natures.

Theodoret, in his weakness, had to accept the 12 Chapters (aka 12 Anathemas) regardless of what he thought about them. Deception? Perhaps. Observe this letter written to Nestorius AFTER he accepted the 12 Chapters, which apparently goes against his conscience:


​

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.

So, he finally saw that there was no heresy, yet there was no Orthodoxy in St. Cyril's writings either. And yet he continued to be loyal to Nestorius. Moreover, his remarks about St. Cyril's death written to the successor of John, Domnus of Antioch:

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

Does this sound like St. Cyril and Theodoret were buddy buddies? Does this sound like St. Cyril knew Theodoret wrote that letter to St. Cyril before the reconciliation? However, now with St. Cyril dead, Theodoret continued to become rebellious against the Church. Fr. V.C. Samuel writes in his book "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined:"

So long as Cyril and John were alive, there was peace between the two sides, at least on the surface. But John died in 442. Schwartz notes that he tried to establish a dynasty by appointing Domnus, his nephew, as his successor. "A characterless weakling," as Schwartz describes him, Domnus was completely under the control of Theodoret who, every inch of him, was anti-Alexandrine and anti-Cyrilline. Now, when the see of Antioch and the patriarch came within the sphere of his influence, Theodoret saw to it that only Antiochene partisans could find recognition in the orient. Among the many such instances, the appointment of count Irenaeus, a strong supporter of Nestorius from 431, to the see of Tyre deserves mention. Not being satisftied, Theodoret published in 447 his Eranistes, a book intended to distort and ridicule the teaching of the Alexandrine fathers. His activities aroused so much of opposition that on 18 April 448, an imperial edict was published in Antioch, proscribing Nestorius, his writings, and his supporters, and Theodoret himself was ordered to remain confined to his see of Cyrus. Another important figure who played a significant part in this tragic drama of ecclesiastical history was Ibas of Edessa, whose policy also aroused a great deal of reaction and he had to face strong opposition. In all these developments Dioscorus of Alexandria may well have had a hand. Having succeeded to the Egyptian see in 444 after the death of Cyril, he had to play a delicate role.

Here we find that Theodoret never had Orthodox intentions. In 447, four years before the Council of Chalcedon, he still held schismatic and most probably heretical views, and still caused harm to the Church and added insult to the Alexandrian fathers. St. Dioscorus came at such an " inopportune" (taking this word from the letter of reconciliation between St. Cyril and John of Antioch) time to handle this situation.

How do fanatics like Maximus in TAW figure that Theodoret was the establisher of peace between St. Cyril and John? I have no clue. Perhaps, Maximus may enlighten on things that I don't know and missed in my own research. But until then, I will not let ignorant statements be unanswered.

On my next post, I will finally give my last comments on the letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch.




​

 

[minasoliman]

Now, let us examine Maximus' quote, which was taken so out of context. From the orthodoxunity website, provided so kindly by Marjorie, it is written in this matter:

For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as per-raining to the one person, and other flyings they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity].

Here, St. Cyril shows that while the Alexandrians stress what the Prosopon of Christ does, the Antiochians like to stress the properties of the natures of Christ. He does not force his terminology on them, but accepts their "simple-mindedness" as is written in the letter to Acacius, which can be read here:

http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CYRIL2.DOC

Obviously, by the context of St. Cyril's interpretations of the agreement, he wisely believes that we believe the same thing, while implying through his words "simple in mind" that the Alexandrian theology is superior in his own beliefs, i.e. the "one nature of Christ, a unity unconfused." He writes in the paragraph after that statement quoted by Maximus:

These being your holy voices, and finding ourselves thinking the same with them ("One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,") we glorified God the Saviour of all, congratulating one another that our churches and yours have the Faith which agrees with the God-inspired Scriptures and the traditions of our holy Fathers.

Here, St. Cyril affirms the formula of the oneness of the Church of Christ, "One Lord, One faith, One baptism." Ever since he found out that the Church of Antioch was one in faith with Alexandria, he goes on in his whole letter that the "division" of the Church was unnecessary, and we are still one through this one faith. I write this to teach brother like Maximus that it is possible that there can be misunderstandings. After all, we are human, not infallible. Let us learn from St. Cyril's wisdom in not dividing the Church over superfluous and unnecessary terminological differences.

Moreover, the context of the "two natures" belief is affirmed in the paragraph before the text quoted by Maximus:

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.

This paragraph is the agreement that both the Church of Antioch and the Church of Alexandria was BOUND to accept. The paragraph after that was only the interpretation of the, dare I say, "semantics" that have divided the Church for two years (and also have continued to divide the Church yet again from Chalcedon up to today). But the paragraph before this is the DEFINITION, the SOLA Agreement of what the faith of the Church united MUST be. And in it describes the unity "OF", and not "IN" two natures.

Why do we make a big deal about it? What is the big deal of "of" vs. "in"? Why did it create such a ruckus?

The two natures in Christ is united INEFFABLY, and UNLIKE any other union that is known in nature. For example, a union of Christ must be clarified that this union is NOT like the union of the Holy Spirit to a Christian. Neither is this union like the union of a husband and wife with the grace of the Holy Spirit. It is a union upon which the flesh became the VERY flesh of the Word, so much so as it is the Word HIMSELF who felt pain, suffered, and died, but in the flesh. This is how the Nicean Creed words it, that the Word "became man, and He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried." It was the Word Himself in prosopon, and not just His own flesh alone that suffered, while others believed that the Word never suffered. This latter view, which was upheld by Nestorius, and also somewhat by Leo's Tome, was what we rejected all these centuries. Understandably, the latter view is interpreted Orthodox if only you write the words "in His divine nature" after it, to show that the Word did suffer through the substance that made suffering possible (His flesh).

So what does it mean to be "in two natures"? Well this is a vague terminology. God can be IN two natures of St. Peter and St. Paul. But God is not OF the two natures of St. Peter and Paul. Sts. Peter and Paul are not in person God, but God is IN them through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Christ is different. Christ is OF two natures, so much so as the prosopon of the Word is also in the flesh, yet the two natures of the flesh, although ineffably united, are different and unconfused. Therefore, it is more POWERFUL to believe in a union OF, and not IN two natures. Notice, also I used the word "Nature" as a prosopon, the two natures being Peter and Paul. But "one nature" being the prosopon of the Word of God. A simple analogy is the three natures of man himself united in one nature. I've provided quotes by St. Cyril which up to his death, he continued to affirm one nature of the Word incarnate.

Therefore, those who confessed "in two natures" went against the reconciliation letter, which left St. Dioscorus no choice but to excommunicate those who held this Nestorian terminology.

And thus ends my comments on the letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch. If anyone has any objections, then I will accept them humbly and read them to see where I went wrong. I will not shun you as I was shunned from the other thread, like Rick of Essex, who affirms that non-Chalcedonians have nothing better to do but to annoy TAW people.

In another post, perhaps in a week, I will answer the other quotes made by Maximus whether or not Maximus provides the contexts of those quotes.

God bless you all.

Pray for me a sinner.

Mina

 

[MORTANIUS]

I find it interesting that although the Monophysite issue has been properly explained away in this thread, that other Orthodox branches refuse to accept you guys.

From what I understood in history, similar explanations had been presented long ago (I recall by Theodora who tried to champion the Coptic view). I find it strange that semantics seem to be at the forefront of resistence by other Orthodox branches.

Regardless of whatever anyone says, I think you guys have a beautiful faith and are Christian. I don't agree with certain practices, just as you would no doubt not agree with certain practices in my Church, but these are the ways in which we approach God.

My point is, that don't listen to what other people say, because most of the time they don't understand the entire situation that they think they understand. Many people who raise the Monophysite issue do so in ignorance of its complete history.

Most only regurgitate what they have been told without exploring what really happened and what is really meant by what was said.

Christ be with you.

 

[Marjorie]

So what does it mean to be "in two natures"? Well this is a vague terminology. God can be IN two natures of St. Peter and St. Paul. But God is not OF the two natures of St. Peter and Paul. Sts. Peter and Paul are not in person God, but God is IN them through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think that is a fair portrayal of what "in two natures" means to EOs... it would be heresy to say that the divine and human natures of Christ were just like God being in SS. Peter and Paul.

That being said, pray for me, the sinner Marjorie (Marina.)

In IC XC,
Marjorie