• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why the Copts are NOT Monophysites:

Discussion in 'The Voice In The Desert - Oriental Orthodox' started by minasoliman, Apr 18, 2005.

  1. sin_vladimirov

    sin_vladimirov Not anymore

    +51
    Christian
    Single
    (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+
     
  2. CopticGirl

    CopticGirl Senior Member

    909
    +63
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    Stefan,

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

    God Bless.
     
  3. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    Let me requote St. Cyril, which he wrote near his death AFTER FORMULARLY OF REUNION:

    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:

    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!
     
  4. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    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":

    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 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:

    and...
    Raouf then comments:

    First Letter of St. Dioscorus to his Monks:

    and...
    Letter to Secundinus:

    to be continued...
     
  5. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    TIMOTHY OF ALEXANDRIA

    Raouf comments:

    and

    and

    and

    and

    and

    THEODOSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (566)

    and

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

    THEODORE OF ALEXANDRIA (587)

    SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH

    and

    and

    and

    and

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

    and

    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!
     
  6. Mark Downham

    Mark Downham A Desert Voice

    +78
    Anglican
    Married
    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




    THEODOSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (566)







    SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH



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

    In Him.

    Mark
     
  7. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    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:"

    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!​
     
  8. orthedoxy

    orthedoxy Lusavorchagan

    533
    +15
    Oriental Orthodox
    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.
     
  9. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    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:

    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:



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



    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:



    "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, 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:



    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
     
  10. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    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
     
  11. Yeznik

    Yeznik Guest

    +0
  12. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    http://www.christianforums.com/t1844076-two-natures-of-christ.html

    The fruits of TAW scholars:

    Rick of Essex writes:

    Am I missing the welcoming language here?

    Maximus writes:



    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."
     
  13. ContraMundum

    ContraMundum Messianic Jewish Christian Supporter

    +2,812
    Australia
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  14. Yeznik

    Yeznik Guest

    +0
    Excellent point.
     
  15. erinipassi

    erinipassi Regular Member

    155
    +10
    Oriental Orthodox
    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
     
  16. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    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:



    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:

    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
     
  17. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    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:







    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:












    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:

    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:"

    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.









     
  18. minasoliman

    minasoliman Veteran

    +65
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Republican
    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:

    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:

    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:

    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
     
  19. MORTANIUS

    MORTANIUS Active Member

    687
    +24
    Lutheran
    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.
     
  20. Marjorie

    Marjorie Senior Veteran

    +173
    Catholic
    Single
    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
     
Loading...