Why the Copts are NOT Monophysites:

[minasoliman]

It seems that many so-called "Orthodox" do nothing but act like Pharisees to affirm their Antiochian terminology, without even realizing that they are Antiochians in terminology.

The temporary split between Cyril and John showed what can happen when both sides misunderstand one another. With confusion, the emperor had to punish them both. Here is an example where imperial politics never took sides.

The permanent split between Dioscorus and Leo resulted in Marcian and Theodoret supporting the Chalcedonian cause. Putting St. Dioscorus under house arrest, the council (and not all the bishops of the council) found it fitting to depose St. Dioscorus after an unexplained triple summons.

The faith of "one Incarnate nature" is the faith that was upheld by St. Cyril. John of Antioch confesses "of two natures" or "from two natures." Nestorius confessed "in two natures."

Now let's look at later history. Dioscorus confesses "one Nature" and later in Chalcedon argued to accept "of two natures." Eutyches confessed "one nature" but in a heretical manner. Flavian and Leo confessed "in two natures," a new terminology that was neither confessed by John nor Cyril. Yet, its terminology is still Antiochian, specifically fanatic Antiochian, or Nestorian.

Thus, here's where the confusion started. Flavian knowing exactly that Eutyches believes in a confusion "one nature" decided to go for a strict "in two natures." Dioscorus receiving a word from Eutyches that the heresy of Nestorius has been revived, while not knowing of Eutyches' shortcomings, had to defend the Cyrillian terminology against "supposed" Nestorians. The Council of Chalcedon, except the Nestorians who were "hailed" there, namely Theodoret and Ibas, had to defend a strict Antiochian theology against a supposed "Eutychian."

The following websites I offer as a defense on behalf of the OO's:

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

http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Christology/siteseverus.doc
http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Christology/Christological%20Controversies.doc

http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/lectures/lecture%201.doc
http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/lectures/lecture%202.doc
http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/lectures/lecture%203.doc
http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/lectures/Lecture%204.doc

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

I believe this is enough for now. Notice, I do not condemn the Byzantines of Nestorianism, but I present objective facts as they were. The fact of the matter is that both the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian fathers were either ignorant or misunderstanding.

God bless.

[CopticGirl]

Great post Mina.

I really start to get frustrated when these people are telling me what I believe.

And I'm starting to think one or two of them are posting these statements such as "Monophysite Pope Shenouda III" on a forum where we cannot debate, just to get us worked up.

I'm really proud of your persistance, Mina.

God Bless you.

[Yeznik]

In the Armenian Liturgy the deacons proclaim, " Yev yevus khaghaghootyamp uzDer aghachestook" which means - " In peace let us beseech the Lord ". So don't get frustrated about peoples opinions. Its not the first time Churches have been misinterpreted its not the last. Stand firm in the Faith of our ancestors, and remember that Salvation comes from Grace.

[sin_vladimirov]

It is a sad, sad division. I read the other day about fratricide that EO have commited on OO and I am so unhappy because of this.

I am new to the faith and especialy to the Theology and History behind the Ecumenical councils but reading whatever I could find on the internet about this it amazes me how stupid and narrow minded people can be.

I was so touched by sacrifice of the Coptic Christians that is continuing to these days. Moved by Armenian History, it is the oldest Christian state. So impressed by steadfast keeping of the faith by all other Orthodox Churches of three Ecumenical Councils.

There is so much power. So much beauty.

God bless you all...

Forgive the sinns of the fathers, to their sons.

in ICXC
Stefan+



Lord have mercy.

[Yeznik]

It is a sad, sad division. I read the other day about fratricide that EO have commited on OO and I am so unhappy because of this.

I am new to the faith and especialy to the Theology and History behind the Ecumenical councils but reading whatever I could find on the internet about this it amazes me how stupid and narrow minded people can be.

I was so touched by sacrifice of the Coptic Christians that is continuing to these days. Moved by Armenian History, it is the oldest Christian state. So impressed by steadfast keeping of the faith by all other Orthodox Churches of three Ecumenical Councils.

There is so much power. So much beauty.

God bless you all...

Forgive the sinns of the fathers, to their sons.

in ICXC
Stefan+



Lord have mercy.

Thank you for your post, may we all try to do God's Will.

[erinipassi]

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

[domi]

what's a Monophysite?

[CopticGirl]

Domi,

If you read erini's post above yours it gives a great explaination, but I'll give another brief one here.

So basically, we all know that Jesus is God--he is a divine being, right?
We also know that Jesus came down to earth and was human. He had human needs, desires, emotions--all that.

So Jesus was fully Divine and fully human. And these are both natures--a divine nature and a human nature.

As Coptic Orthodox Christians, we believe that his Human nature and his Divine nature are combined into one being. So just as I am one person, there are two parts of me. I have a body and I have a soul, and together they make me--Elizabeth. :) It's the same way with Jesus, he has his divinity and his humanity to make one being. This belief that Jesus Christ is one combined nature is called Miaphysite, and that is what we are.

Now, as for Monophysites, it originated in the 5th century when a man named Euchytes started to teach that Jesus Christ's humanity dissolved in his Divinity and he was only divine--therefore having only one nature. Mono=one and therefore monophysite. Now clearly this is wrong. We all know that it is a historical fact that Jesus Christ was a living, breathing human being. During this time, we were wrongly accused of being Monophysites and following this man's teachings, when in fact we excommunicated him from the church.

Soooooo, to sum it up:

1) We believe Christ has one combined nature. He is fully human and fully divine.
2) This believe is called Miaphysitism.
3) Usually when people call us Monophysites they mean it as an insult and accuse us of being heretics.

I hope this makes sense. Ask any questions you like!

God Bless,
Elizabeth

[domi]

ooo so a mono whatever means that chirst was divine not human...that makes sence. Thanks Elizibeath. Yah tha't snot right. GOD that's ANOYING! I seeeee the agrvation...AHHH GOD!...right chill...hehehe. Thankies

[Xpycoctomos]

Great OP. Thanks for that!

One problem I have.

It seems that many so-called "Orthodox" do nothing but act like Pharisees to affirm their Antiochian terminology, without even realizing that they are Antiochians in terminology.

I think this is uncharitable. Look, there are Orthodox who TRULY understand your beelief this way. They simply see things another way. Not because they dont want to believe you (at least I haven't come across any in TAW who are like that) but because their consciences and indepth study (which cannot be done in CF) has lead them to no other conclusion. What I mean is that their intentions are (form my POV) are good, holy and admirable, even if you don't agree with their conclusions (and I am often in agreement with you guys on this subject, that you are NOT monophysites.. at least not in the heretical way the term has been defined, but that's beside the point).

So please, don't throw around the term "pharisee" to insult others. It's unfair, inaccurate and only causes more room for misunderstanding and hardened hearts.

John

[CopticGirl]

John,

The issue I have is not the fact that some disagree with our description of the nature of Christ. I understand that not everyone is going to agree on these topics.

My issue is where we explain to someone numerous times that we are not Monophysites, yet Miaphysites. Nerevertheless that one person continues to refer to us as "monophysite Coptic Christians" and our Pope as "Monophysite Pope Shenouda". Now clearly this person has had conversations with myself and others and knows that we don't agree with or like the use of the term monophysite here.

I mean it appears to me that he is clearly making snide remarks, (that he knows will upset us) on a forum where we cannot even defend ourselves or clarify our position or beliefs! That just isn't right.

I mean we are not starting topics here calling you guys polyphysites.

We are brothers and sisters in Christ. Eastern Orthodox Christians are the closer to us than any other Christians. I just don't see how this one topic can all of a sudden turn us into heretics. Look at our history, we are a blessed Church. There are so many miracles that occur in our church and through our Coptic Orthodox Saints. I mean St. Mary appeared above one of our churches for 3 years straight, or study about H.H. Pope Kyrillos VI, and all the documented miracles that he performed in his life and continues to perform.

We are not heretics.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

[Yeznik]

Great OP. Thanks for that!

One problem I have.



I think this is uncharitable. Look, there are Orthodox who TRULY understand your beelief this way. They simply see things another way. Not because they dont want to believe you (at least I haven't come across any in TAW who are like that) but because their consciences and indepth study (which cannot be done in CF) has lead them to no other conclusion. What I mean is that their intentions are (form my POV) are good, holy and admirable, even if you don't agree with their conclusions (and I am often in agreement with you guys on this subject, that you are NOT monophysites.. at least not in the heretical way the term has been defined, but that's beside the point).

So please, don't throw around the term "pharisee" to insult others. It's unfair, inaccurate and only causes more room for misunderstanding and hardened hearts.

John

John, thanks for the post, as I have said in other posts, most people who have done the study based on a baised basis (western historians). I have done an in depth study, and consulted with priests and bishops regarding the issue. All the facts the west has are inconsistent from all the facts the east has ( I am speaking specifically about the Armenian Church, unfortunately I haven't done an in depth study on my Sister Churches, my apologies to them).

Now here is a question I want you guys to think about. I want you to look at all the people who attend our Churches, both EO and OO. I want you to look and all the kids, parents, and grand parents. Now, do all these people in Church know what a monophysite or a diophysite? Do people really understand the doctrine and theology of Communion when they are taking it? Think about it.

[erinipassi]

Hi Yeznik and Xpycoctomos,



To Yeznik:

Please forgive me, I’m not clear about the point you are trying to make. But if your point was, since most children enjoy the faith, without understanding the details of the faith and could form good relations with other churches because of their lack of knowledge, then my response is: If you had a parent or a priest who is teaching you that anyone who is Eastern Orthodox is heretical, then it will damage future relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Likewise, if Eastern Orthodox people are teaching each other that Oriental Orthodox are heretical then it will damage future relations with Oriental Orthodox people.



What’s even worse the word “heretical” is thrown at the Oriental Church because some people in the Eastern Orthodox haven’t studied in detail what Monophysitism is about. If they have studied it well, they would never say that about the Oriental Orthodox Church. Just like we would never degrade the Eastern Orthodox Church by labeling them heretical or have pagan practices because they are diophysite and have what appears on the outside teachings similar to Nestorianism.



What I mean is that their intentions are (form my POV) are good, holy and admirable, even if you don't agree with their conclusions (and I am often in agreement with you guys on this subject, that you are NOT monophysites.. at least not in the heretical way the term has been defined, but that's beside the point).

So please, don't throw around the term "pharisee" to insult others. It's unfair, inaccurate and only causes more room for misunderstanding and hardened hearts.

John



To Xpycoctomos (John):

The term used by Mina when he said “act like the Pharisee”, is about how a Pharisee thinks. A Pharisee thinks that they have understood everything and no one can communicate or explain anything to them because they already have the “correct” understanding about everything in their opinion. To truly understand anything, you must read well the subject in great detail and look beyond the biases. I ask you John, was it very fair and “holy” when they labeled Oriental Orthodox people as heretical and have pagan practices in the thread called “Coptic Tattoos” in the EO forum? Was it very fair and holy when they said that because the Oriental Orthodox are heretical, efforts of unity should not resume? Was it very fair or holy when they didn’t allow the Coptic Orthodox to clarify their position??? What do you think we felt when they said that? It hurt us beyond any words to see this coming from our dearly loved brothers and sisters. Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” (Matthew 25: 40) May we not wound each other like this, because when we hurt each other, we are hurting the heart of Jesus. In Jesus’ eyes we are all his precious Children, whether we are Eastern Orthodox, Oriental, Catholic or protestant.



Please forgive me Yeznik and John, I know my weaknesses are great and the sins of my tongue are many, but I have not recovered from the hurt yet. Please pray for me a sinner and I pray that God may bring understanding, wisdom, the spirit of discernment, His peace and love to all our hearts.



Love and blessings

erini

[minasoliman]

Dear John,

Forgive me if that was insulting. If you want, I will edit it.

The problem is that I've tried to talk with someone by PM and to have a conversation with him. While he spends a HUGE amount of time in TAW, he (or she) tells me that "I have no time for this." Someone who acts as a charitable and true Orthodox in public, who mentions that "he (or she) has had discussions with these type of people before" tells me that he has no time. I thought a true Christian would try to refute my arguments in order to hit me with some "truth" that he learned.

This is why I feel that many (and I did not say all...for I PRAISE so many Orthodox who are not Oriental, such as Fr. John Romanides-who with Fr. VC Samuel are my heros in theology, and I wish after the union, hopefully, that a church will be built under BOTH their names-and Fr. Peter Gillquist, who inspires me to evangelize to non-Orthodox) act like Pharisees.

I've had a discussion once with a Copt DEFENDING Leo, something that Copts do not like to do if you know what I mean. I don't even think the Church hereirchs like to do that much either. But I am not afraid of the truth. I love my Coptic Church, but I've also come to understand we misunderstood your fathers as well.

Pray for me.

Mina

[minasoliman]

And plus, if I may John,

What doesn't make sense in this website is the "debating" issue. You can ask questions, but you can't debate. And I did hear that they used to have the Copts and Oriental Orthodox under the same thread as the Eastern Orthodox, and because of some "scholars," the forum has been split, and we are not allowed to debate with one another again.

Suppose I start a debate about how Nestorian your Church is or was. And then you try to clarify your Church, but rather, I complain to admins that you are "debating" in the thread, so your parts are deleted/editted. I mean it's just RIDICULOUS that you can't debate in the same place. While you guys call us Monophysite, we may continue to call you Nestorian here, and instead of a debate, we end up talking against each other without really talking to each other. It's like those verbal fights where rather than insulting the person in front of you, you talk to the person next to him to tell "his friend" the insults.

This website really has a problem. I hope this message is not deleted though. Sigh.

What I wish and pray to see for once is an EO defending us, but that I don't even see. Sometimes, when I defend you and your fathers, I feel I am doing so in vain, especially in the things I read here.

Pray for me. I have sinned.

Mina

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, Im not holy enough to judge, but I miss where you've "sinned". Point taken from many of you about the "Pharisee" comment. I have not once entered the Tatoo thread because.... well, qite frankly anything aobut Oriental Orthodox tends to turn into a divisive debate and the tatoo part sounded boring and uninteresting so.. it's still bolded orange on my screen.

I do see what you are saying however. While I beleive it is any Orthodox's right to believe that the Oriental Orthodox are in heresy (a belief I have not been convinced of, to the frustration of some of my brethern.... but I wouldn't even say most), there is a way to go about expressing this, and the intention (which I really cannot judge) must be pure. I have had their position explained to me which seems logical and uses primary texts, but I have equally seen OO arguments (or pro-OO arguments from EOs) that seem logical with primary texts and do a slightly better job at convincing me. But as I said, disagreement should be done with a fair and open mind and most of all with Charity at only seeking Truth (not to win an argument) and it seems to me that, in my past experience in threads regarding this controversy (the very ones that lead up to the creation of this very forum some months ago) most were debating from a very sincere and and educated POV (however biased it may have been... but we're all biased I suppose). But, there were certainly others who went below the belt and refused to listen to your side of the story. That made me very upset and embarrased.

I will admit that the circumstances under which this forum was created (which it seemed very obvious to me that it was a mutual decision, if I may add) were very unfortunate and sad. But, I think it is better this way. The fact is, while I tend to think that we are separated by politics rather than important theological virtues, the 7 ecumenical councils are tenets of our faith. They are not of yours and there has been no official statement from your Church saying that they can accept them, in fact there are problems that your Church has with ours. the fact is, while mystically I believe it is probable that we are indeed one body separated by earthly misunderstandings... we are none the less separated. the fact of the matter is that, being together with the EOs in TAW was a definite disadvantage to you guys. We always held the upperhand (by issue of sheer numbers) and although your POV was to be equally welcomed in TAW, I think those who were here in those days can attest to the fact that this was rarely so. Should we come into communion one day again (which I definitely think there is hope for, even if the event may be distant) there will have been serious obstacles for both of our bishops to overcome. While I am partial to the theory that thre is no important difference between miaphysites and us, I am not fully convinced only because I trust in my bishops wisdom more than my own from having read a few intriguing articles on both sides.

But I fervently pray that we are one again and this prayer is aided and rejuvenated by my own personal beliefs that the chasm which lies between us is not so great as that which may lie between us and the Vatican Catholic Church (a faithful flock I love and respect dearly).

That was long winded.

In the end, I don't (now) blame you for your frustration. TAW can certainly learn a few lessons in humility, but please understand that not all who disagree with you do so simply because they have not taken an honest look at what you have to say. (I mean, I know you "know" you're right which I think is fine, but I also "know" that Orthodox practices are good and correct and is easily seen if you just take an open look at the information that's available, but for some reason, sincere and loving protestants in my life just do not agree with me, even after having taken a sincere look at the info. I can only trust that they are acting out of pure motives and telling the truth. I can't understand how they can't come to my same conclusion... but I'm not them then. Do you see my comparison? Wow.. that was a very long parenthetical!)

God bless all of you and may we continually pray for unity... I truly believe this can be achieved!

John

[domi]

MAny problms i have let me put them in bold for u lol...




Great OP. Thanks for that!

One problem I have.



I think this is uncharitable. Look, there are Orthodox who TRULY understand your beelief this way. They simply see things another way. Not because they dont want to believe you (at least I haven't come across any in TAW who are like that) but because their consciences and indepth study (which cannot be done in CF) has lead them to no other conclusion. What I mean is that their intentions are (form my POV) are good, holy and admirable, even if you don't agree with their conclusions (and I am often in agreement with you guys on this subject, that you are NOT monophysites.. at least not in the heretical way the term has been defined, but that's beside the point).

So please, don't throw around the term "pharisee" to insult others. It's unfair, inaccurate and only causes more room for misunderstanding and hardened hearts.

John

All of those words cuz misundersatnds lolll and i dunn know what the heretical form of monophysites is lol....somebody help me lol

[Xpycoctomos]

OP- Original Post (the one that started this thread)

TAW- The Ancient Way (The Eastern Orthodox Forum)

CF = Christian Forums (this website)

Pharisee = biblical type. Back track the posts a little and there is an explanation for what is meant by ths word when it was used in the "OP"

POV = POint of View

intentions = the actual purpose or motive behind an action (did the person do this or that out of greedy intentions or good and pure intentions)... kind of like the state of mind one was in when they decided to do such and such an action.

hretical definition f monophysite: The word literally means "one nature" so TECHNICALLY Oriental Orthodox are monophysite...BUT, NOT in the way that the term is originally meant to be used. The term monophysite was used to describe those who thought either Jesus was JUST a man (having only ONE nature- the human one) or JUST God but not really man (having only ONE nature- the divine one). This in no way describes what Coptics believe so it is incorrect to call them monophysites since they would just as emphatically denounce the above beleifs as we would. They (you) beleive that Christ has ONE nature.... BUT it is a kind of God-man nature... He is both GOD and MAN (neither one is denied) and the Oriental Orthodox describe this as one nature for in this mindset it seems (or at least seemed so at the time, probably with good reason for their own culture) dangerous to split them up into two nautures and risk making a kind of schitzophrenic Jesus. Anyhow, Someone here will corrrect my mistakes and fill in the blanks. :)

John

[Rilian]

What doesn't make sense in this website is the "debating" issue. You can ask questions, but you can't debate. And I did hear that they used to have the Copts and Oriental Orthodox under the same thread as the Eastern Orthodox, and because of some "scholars," the forum has been split, and we are not allowed to debate with one another again.

There was friction on both sides unfortunately. I liked having us as one forum, I was sad to see it split.

[domi]

OP- Original Post (the one that started this thread)

TAW- The Ancient Way (The Eastern Orthodox Forum)

CF = Christian Forums (this website)

Pharisee = biblical type. Back track the posts a little and there is an explanation for what is meant by ths word when it was used in the "OP"

POV = POint of View

intentions = the actual purpose or motive behind an action (did the person do this or that out of greedy intentions or good and pure intentions)... kind of like the state of mind one was in when they decided to do such and such an action.

hretical definition f monophysite: The word literally means "one nature" so TECHNICALLY Oriental Orthodox are monophysite...BUT, NOT in the way that the term is originally meant to be used. The term monophysite was used to describe those who thought either Jesus was JUST a man (having only ONE nature- the human one) or JUST God but not really man (having only ONE nature- the divine one). This in no way describes what Coptics believe so it is incorrect to call them monophysites since they would just as emphatically denounce the above beleifs as we would. They (you) beleive that Christ has ONE nature.... BUT it is a kind of God-man nature... He is both GOD and MAN (neither one is denied) and the Oriental Orthodox describe this as one nature for in this mindset it seems (or at least seemed so at the time, probably with good reason for their own culture) dangerous to split them up into two nautures and risk making a kind of schitzophrenic Jesus. Anyhow, Someone here will corrrect my mistakes and fill in the blanks. :)

John

thanks John. U rock my socks!:) Intentions how could i not know intentions? I must have been tired.

[Yeznik]

Hi Yeznik and Xpycoctomos,



To Yeznik:

Please forgive me, I’m not clear about the point you are trying to make. But if your point was, since most children enjoy the faith, without understanding the details of the faith and could form good relations with other churches because of their lack of knowledge, then my response is: If you had a parent or a priest who is teaching you that anyone who is Eastern Orthodox is heretical, then it will damage future relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Likewise, if Eastern Orthodox people are teaching each other that Oriental Orthodox are heretical then it will damage future relations with Oriental Orthodox people.



What’s even worse the word “heretical” is thrown at the Oriental Church because some people in the Eastern Orthodox haven’t studied in detail what Monophysitism is about. If they have studied it well, they would never say that about the Oriental Orthodox Church. Just like we would never degrade the Eastern Orthodox Church by labeling them heretical or have pagan practices because they are diophysite and have what appears on the outside teachings similar to Nestorianism.







To Xpycoctomos (John):

The term used by Mina when he said “act like the Pharisee”, is about how a Pharisee thinks. A Pharisee thinks that they have understood everything and no one can communicate or explain anything to them because they already have the “correct” understanding about everything in their opinion. To truly understand anything, you must read well the subject in great detail and look beyond the biases. I ask you John, was it very fair and “holy” when they labeled Oriental Orthodox people as heretical and have pagan practices in the thread called “Coptic Tattoos” in the EO forum? Was it very fair and holy when they said that because the Oriental Orthodox are heretical, efforts of unity should not resume? Was it very fair or holy when they didn’t allow the Coptic Orthodox to clarify their position??? What do you think we felt when they said that? It hurt us beyond any words to see this coming from our dearly loved brothers and sisters. Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” (Matthew 25: 40) May we not wound each other like this, because when we hurt each other, we are hurting the heart of Jesus. In Jesus’ eyes we are all his precious Children, whether we are Eastern Orthodox, Oriental, Catholic or protestant.



Please forgive me Yeznik and John, I know my weaknesses are great and the sins of my tongue are many, but I have not recovered from the hurt yet. Please pray for me a sinner and I pray that God may bring understanding, wisdom, the spirit of discernment, His peace and love to all our hearts.



Love and blessings

erini

What I am saying is sometime people lose focus in what binds us as Christians.

[tattedschmoe]

hello everyone. i'm not coptic or even eastern orthodox, after seeing the tattoo thing, i hope i'm welcome to post here, lol :)

i'm kind of confused here what is being argued over with long posts here. i mean i understand the one poster mentioned about her irritation of being called monophysites and she gave sufficent proof for her irritation, that is fine. these terms and meanings behind it, is still new to me. i'm researching about Orthodoxy. i'm loving how this is challenging my Evangelistic/Protestant mindset, so in time, i will know more and predict my conversion over. but, i am still confused on what the long posts are trying to defend? pardon my ignorance here :) and hey if this is a way to know about Orthodoxy, send me loads of info hehe :) May God Bless you all! <><

[CopticGirl]

hello everyone. i'm not coptic or even eastern orthodox, after seeing the tattoo thing, i hope i'm welcome to post here, lol :)

i'm kind of confused here what is being argued over with long posts here. i mean i understand the one poster mentioned about her irritation of being called monophysites and she gave sufficent proof for her irritation, that is fine. these terms and meanings behind it, is still new to me. i'm researching about Orthodoxy. i'm loving how this is challenging my Evangelistic/Protestant mindset, so in time, i will know more and predict my conversion over. but, i am still confused on what the long posts are trying to defend? pardon my ignorance here :) and hey if this is a way to know about Orthodoxy, send me loads of info hehe :) May God Bless you all! <><


Of course you are welcome here!! :)

So what exactly are you confused about?

I guess to sum up what is being argued is that some of the EO's think we are heretics because of the way we describe Christ's nature. They say it is incorrect to say he has one combined nature. Furthermore, some of them accuse us of following the teachings that brought up this heresy in the 5th Century--which of course is just ridiculous because we in fact excommunicated the man who started that heresy. That man taught that Christ was only divine and we clearly do not teach or believe that.

The way I see it, they can disagree with our definition as much as they like, BUT I do not want them saying we believe things that we don't.

I mean one person was trying to argue with me about what my church believes. I have been part of my church since birth, know it very very well, my grandfather was a priest, my 3 brothers are deacons, and two of them teach at the church...and I can provide a zillion sources that state what we believe. Why this person things he knows what I believe better than me? Who knows.

Please, as always feel free to ask any questions that come to mind.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

[CopticGirl]

i'm researching about Orthodoxy. i'm loving how this is challenging my Evangelistic/Protestant mindset, so in time, i will know more and predict my conversion over.



One more thing. If you are interesting in learning more about the Orthodox Church, there is this book, Becoming Orthodox that is about the conversion of 2000 Evangelicals to Orthodoxy. While I would always recommend the Coptic Orthodox Church, ;) this group converted to the Antiochian Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, they converted to an Orthodox Church and the book is VERY interested, and easy to read.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

[Padraig]

Of course you are welcome here!! :)

So what exactly are you confused about?

I guess to sum up what is being argued is that some of the EO's think we are heretics because of the way we describe Christ's nature. They say it is incorrect to say he has one combined nature. Furthermore, some of them accuse us of following the teachings that brought up this heresy in the 5th Century--which of course is just ridiculous because we in fact excommunicated the man who started that heresy. That man taught that Christ was only divine and we clearly do not teach or believe that.

The way I see it, they can disagree with our definition as much as they like, BUT I do not want them saying we believe things that we don't.

I mean one person was trying to argue with me about what my church believes. I have been part of my church since birth, know it very very well, my grandfather was a priest, my 3 brothers are deacons, and two of them teach at the church...and I can provide a zillion sources that state what we believe. Why this person things he knows what I believe better than me? Who knows.

Please, as always feel free to ask any questions that come to mind.

God Bless,
Elizabeth


I apologize on behalf of my EO brothers and sisters who continue to deride your venerable Church. Your Tradition has produced many wonderful saints, and have indeed stayed true to St Cyril's definition. I'm a big fan of the Alexandrians myself. We pray for reconciliation between our Churches. May it happen in our lifetime. I would love to concelebrate with our Coptic brothers and sisters.

God bless,
padraig

[CopticGirl]

I apologize on behalf of my EO brothers and sisters who continue to deride your venerable Church. Your Tradition has produced many wonderful saints, and have indeed stayed true to St Cyril's definition. I'm a big fan of the Alexandrians myself. We pray for reconciliation between our Churches. May it happen in our lifetime. I would love to concelebrate with our Coptic brothers and sisters.

God bless,
padraig

Thank you for your kind words. I too respect and love my Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. I do pray that we are reconciled. I just think it would be so wonderful. Its crazy how many divisions there are in Christianity. And its crazy how similar we are and how long we have been seperated.

May God Bless us all and guide us all.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

[minasoliman]

Over the holy week, if you were careful in reading the prayers and doxologies, you would always see a repetition of the phrase "uniting His divinity to His humanity without change." This was written WAY before we had talks with EO's. It's ignorance to those who don't do just a little more professional research to find out inconsistency with their "terminological" defenses.

Xristos Anesti!

[Xpycoctomos]

I apologize on behalf of my EO brothers and sisters who continue to deride your venerable Church. Your Tradition has produced many wonderful saints, and have indeed stayed true to St Cyril's definition. I'm a big fan of the Alexandrians myself. We pray for reconciliation between our Churches. May it happen in our lifetime. I would love to concelebrate with our Coptic brothers and sisters.

God bless,
padraig
:amen:

[erinipassi]

Hi Padraig,

It's really nice of you to say that....how great it is to see God's love in your heart. Most people don't even know who St. Cyril is and I will give a brief introduction to who he is.

St. Cyril is the 24th Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church after St. Mark in the 5th Century.

"St. Cyril the Great is the hero of faith against the Nestorians. He exposed the heresy of Nestorius who was the Patriarch of Constantinople the Capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. St. Cyril explained to him the faith, but as he disobeyed and continued in his heresy, St. Cyril wrote against him twelve Anathemas which have become part of the Church Laws. Nestorius was then ex-communicated by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was convened in 431 AD and headed by St. Cyril of Alexandria."
http://www.copticcentre.com/article18.html (http://www.copticcentre.com/article18.html)


Here is a brief description of the Nestorian Heresy:

"According to the Nestorian concept, Christ was two separate persons, the one divine and beyond the reach of human frailty, and the other human and susceptible to all the fragility of the flesh. The divine Christ could neither suffer or die, and therefore, on the Cross it was the human Christ alone who suffered and died apart from the divine Christ. Nestorius had spoken out against calling the blessed Virgin Mary the 'Theotokos''.....Abba Cyril strongly contested these views expounding the Orthodox doctrine of the indivisible union of the divine and human natures of Christ, and arguing that if Jesus Christ is God, it follows that his mother is the ``Mother-of-God'' who bore Him forever. This is what the Apostles taught us and the doctrine of our Fathers. .......Just as Saint Athanasius had saved the Faith concerning the Logos in the Nicene Creed, so did Saint Cyril in defending the Theotokos maintaining the Orthodox Doctrine concerning the incarnation of the Logos in the Introduction to the Creed which he wrote in this regard.''
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/cyril1.html



love and blessings
erini

[Padraig]

Hi Padraig,

It's really nice of you to say that....how great it is to see God's love in your heart. Most people don't even know who St. Cyril is

Rest assured, St Cyril is very well respected by the Orthodox in this country, at least at the seminary level. And by all who want a truly wonderful insight into Scripture. I've always preferred the Alexandrian school of scriptural exegesis over the Antiochian. Of course I also really like Origen's commentary and Philo of Alexandria. What wonderful insight these great men of God possessed. If only we could follow that example.

padraig

[sin_vladimirov]

My heart goes out to Cross bearing and full of Holy Martyrs Church of Egypt. I am in love with the witness that she has been for our Lord.

I dont think that there is a division that makes me more sad that one between Orthodox Churches of the East.

Even more se because I still can not figure it out. I may be damned but it is a sin for a man not to speak his mind, not to say what lies on his heart.

For me might aswell be a communion between our Churches for in my mind, if I can not figure out the reasons for division, there is no division.

Please, leave me in my dark.
Let me enjoy it.

I am so sorry.

God bless the cross bearers of Egypt.

Lord has risen!

in ICXC
stefan+
cathecumen and a sinful one

[tattedschmoe]

Of course you are welcome here!! :)

So what exactly are you confused about?

I guess to sum up what is being argued is that some of the EO's think we are heretics because of the way we describe Christ's nature. They say it is incorrect to say he has one combined nature. Furthermore, some of them accuse us of following the teachings that brought up this heresy in the 5th Century--which of course is just ridiculous because we in fact excommunicated the man who started that heresy. That man taught that Christ was only divine and we clearly do not teach or believe that.

The way I see it, they can disagree with our definition as much as they like, BUT I do not want them saying we believe things that we don't.

I mean one person was trying to argue with me about what my church believes. I have been part of my church since birth, know it very very well, my grandfather was a priest, my 3 brothers are deacons, and two of them teach at the church...and I can provide a zillion sources that state what we believe. Why this person things he knows what I believe better than me? Who knows.

Please, as always feel free to ask any questions that come to mind.

God Bless,
Elizabeth


so suffice it to say, the argument or whatever is solely based on the ways of explaining, instead of the meaning itself?

[Xpycoctomos]

Sin Vladomirov...
rest assurred that you are not alone in the Orthodox Church. i cannot agree with you about "leaving me in my dark"... as Orthodox (Coptic or "Eastern") it is our calling to seek truth no matter how unappealing it may be... but I am still unconvinced that there is any TRUE division of mind and spirit (including theology) between the EO and the OO Churches.

I pray that we are reconciled in my lifetime!

With that said, I have a question. It's not meant to be a "gotcha!" question, but real question. In the EO Church, we believe that Christ ASSUMED another nature (that being the human nature) and that the divine nature never changed. I'm not convinced that I've done a great job of representing the EO explanation of this, but that's the gist of it. Being that in your Church Christ has one God-man nature, do you believe that before the incarnation he had only a divine nature and that, upon the incarnation, that nature was transformed into a God-man nature?

John

PS: I am not trying to put you in any trap. There are no PLANNED follow-up questions. I am merely curious about this. Thanks!

[minasoliman]

Dear Xpysostomos,

We in fact do agree with that statement. I don't know if that's how other EO's represent it.

I see that others don't like us using "one nature" simply because it will make the Son different from the Father and the Holy Spirit. But then again, the "two natures" is at fault because it seperates the Logos from the humanity, and that's Nestorian.

There is no PURE way in describing Christ's metaphysics. What I can give you is an analogy to our "one nature."

The human nature is made up of three "unconfused, undivisible" natures: spirit, soul, and body. What you as an EO don't realize is that you unite these three natures into one human nature. HH Pope Shenouda makes it clear that if we were to really examine parts of Christ, Christ would have THREE NATURES (he combines the body and soul into one "animalistic" nature). So in reality, Christ would have FOUR NATURES, divinity, body, soul, and spirit. However, all three natures of a human being are of one person, or "prosopon." Yet, traditionally, Church fathers have combined them "unconfusedly, and undivisibly" into one "human" nature. This lead St. Cyril to describe Christ into one "composite nature" (mia physis). What bothers me of some so-called theologians that hate us is that they call "Mia Physis" heresy, "no different from Monophysis" of Eutyches, yet they do not realize they condemn St. Cyril, the Pillar of Faith.

Therefore, when we call Christ the "One Nature of the Incarnate Logos," Christ's nature is that of the Incarnate Logos, NOT CHANGING His divinity, neither eliminating His humanity, neither seperating the two from one another at any moment at all. Both uniting into one Hypostasis of Logos, for the humanity of Christ is the humanity of the Logos. That's why we call St. Mary the Mother of God, and that's why we say that God suffered on the cross. It is not His divinity that was born or suffering, it was His humanity, but in the prosopon of the Logos. We are not Nestorians who believe in "two prosopa," where the Logos NEVER suffered, but the human person did.

I think I confused you enough. Any questions, or did I make myself clear?

Xrictoc anecti!

[Rilian]

Most people don't even know who St. Cyril is and I will give a brief introduction to who he is.

Fr. John McGuckin has written a pretty good book (http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=244) about St. Cyril. I read it a couple of months ago. I'm going to have to go back and re-read it though to soak it all in.

[minasoliman]

Little by little, day by day, I will attempt to answer every post that defames us in this website.

From this website:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1329160-orthodox-view-of-coptic.html

Maximus writes:

The Coptic Church still rejects the last four of the seven ecumenical councils. Its leaders continue to teach and believe the same things their spiritual predecessors - the Monophysites, men like Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Timothy Mongus, and Severus of Antioch - taught and believed, doctrines for which they were anathematized by the Orthodox Fathers.

And RIGHTFULLY so. We will not accept the last four councils that condemn our MIAphysite fathers, who in turn CONDEMNED the Eutychian heresy. In addition, the Coptic Church was not present in those councils to agree. Therefore, these are not "ecumenical" but LOCAL councils. Especially the Council of Chalcedon that condemned St. Dioscorus not for heresy, but for not showing up to the council, not knowing that he was under house arrest under the emperor Marcian who called for the murder of many Miaphysite Christians if they do not confess the Tome of Leo.

However, we do confess the faith of the last four councils. Fr. John Romanides wrote about us is that although we don't accept the last four councils and the Roman Catholics do, by spirit, we have always accepted the faith of those four councils, while Roman Catholics have deviated from the faith of the last four councils, although "accepting" them. However, we WILL NOT accept councils that bear false witness against our Holy Fathers.

They still maintain that our Lord Jesus has but one nature and one will (see Coptic Pope Shenouda III's The Nature of Christ). The first error (one nature) is Monophysitism. The second (one will) is Monothelitism.

I explained why we believe in "one nature" above. As for the "one will," this is no different than what St. Cyril and interestingly enough Pope Leo the First. For in his letters, he confesses that "one and the same" chooses whether to show forth His glory or His pain. The fact that only "one" chooses means that there is "one will." But let's expand this view.

There's a difference between "natural will" and "personal will". To confess two natural wills is similar as to us who confess one "unconfused" natural will. This "miatheletism" implies that there is "more than one will involved" since these wills are "unconfused" but at the same time, "indivisible." It is clear that St. Maximus the Confessor defended the notion of two natural wills. "Personal will" is what Christ chooses. As you see, since we like to unite the natures into one composite nature to define one person, so we also unite the wills into one composite will to define one personal will. TO BELIEVE IN TWO PERSONAL WILLS IS NESTORIAN AT ITS BEST, which is why we refuse to believe in "two wills." However, two natural wills don't necessarily mean "two prosopa," this we accept. However, two personal wills means there's a certain schizophrenia or a multiple personality disorder in a person. Nestorius believe that the "two prosopa" of Christ "harmoniously" agree with one another, although two personal wills continue to exist. It's like the personal will of the saints conforming to the will of Christ. Two wills continue to exist, but they're the same. This I REJECT, for it is NESTORIAN in character. If Christ is one prosopon, then there's one personal will.PERIOD!

The comments in HH Pope Shenouda's book if you read carefully talk about conforming the will of Christ to the will of the Father, just as saints conform to the will of Christ. HH writes:

He does not seek for Himself a will that is independent of that of the Father. Consequently He Says "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 6:38).

You see, HH talks about the personal will, and not the natural will. Something interesting that may confuse people is this quote:

What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human Nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the wills and the actions of both.

It may seem that HH is "confusing" the natural wills, but here, He only speaks of a harmony, the same harmony that St. Maximus the Confessor defends. You notice also that implied in this quote is "two natural wills:" "will and action of both" shows that HH distinguishes the wills and actions by thought only and not by reality. If St. Maximus defends two "indivisible" and "harmonious" wills of Christ, then that would be "contradictory." Yet, St. Maximus the Confessor knows that what is "chosen" by Christ is the "one personal will" that we confess. There are not "two simultaneous choices" like Nestorius, but an Orthodox confession of one choice, i.e. one personal will. For all that HH is talking about in this book is not the natural wills, but the one personal will of Christ.





If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps (1 John. 2:6)? </FONT>



Again, HH writes here implying two wills should not have internal conflict. Here, without realizing it, HH confesses two united wills, just as St. Maximus the Confessor did. There is nothing Monotheletic here, but Miatheletic, something that St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith also confessed.







Both errors were condemned by ecumenical councils of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. Both errors are still maintained to this day by the leadership of the various Non-Chalcedonian churches.

Rather, we are the ones who defend the same Orthodox faith the EO does, probably more so today than ever before. We are not Monothelites. Christ says "my will." That is one will, one personal will. In Him exists wills that belong to the nature that are harmonious with one another. If we are to examine carefully, AGAIN, Christ would have FOUR NATURAL WILLS, not just two. But the choice (personal will) IS ONE. We also are not Monothelites, but Miathelites, and we definately condemn both heresies, as much as we also condemn the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies through our own local councils as evident by our Holy Fathers who are ignorantly condemned by some with the heresy they also condemn.


These are not mere problems of semantics, politics, or misunderstanding. They are real Christological differences with far-reaching consequences. To say that they are only problems of semantics, etc., is to imply that the Orthodox Fathers - most of whom had Greek as the mother tongue - did not understand the Monophysites and that the Monophysites - who also understood Greek quite well - likewise did not understand the Fathers.

They understood each other.

There can be no union with the Copts and other Non-Chalcedonians until they repent, renounce their errors, and acknowledge the dogmatic decrees of all seven ecumenical councils.

I could not resist posting an answer to this inquiry.



Finally, my beloved Orthodox Christians by faith, I would like to share with you our side of the story. Indeed, before I did my research, I thought of the same thing. How can St. Dioscorus misunderstand Leo. To unite with EO's they must repent from their "shortcomings." Little did I realize, we both misunderstand one another, and there must be not one apology, but mutual apologIES.

Our side of the story is the problem with this quote from the Tome of Leo:


The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence.


How can you say that the Word performs on its own and the flesh on its own. For St. Athanasius defines the flesh as the prosopon of humanity alone. While the Word is obviously a prosopon on its own. Here, Leo confesses TWO PROSOPA, although admittingly contradicts himself later:


We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man.


Therefore, although the former quote is Nestorian in thought, the latter quote is Orthodox in thought. You CANNOT seperate the Word from the flesh, for the Word of God suffered on the cross as confessed by St. Cyril, and here Leo says that the Word never suffered and never sustained acts of violence. Nestorius upon reading this quote (YES HE WAS STILL ALIVE) agreed with Leo and praised Leo for defending the "Orthodox faith" and condemning the "heresy of Cyril." This is serious stuff. But since Leo was not in Chalcedon to explain himself, I refrain from condemning him, for his MANY letters show he means Orthodox. Leo did defend himself, but although not to St. Dioscorus, but to a group of Cyrillian/Miaphysite Monks of Palestine:

The anxious care, which I owe to the whole Church and to all its sons, has ascertained from many sources that some offence has been given to your minds, beloved, through my interpreters, who being either ignorant, as it appears, or malicious, have made you take some of my statements in a different sense to what I meant, not being capable of turning the Latin into Greek with proper accuracy, although in the explanation of subtle and difficult matters, one who undertakes to discuss them can scarcely satisfy himself even in his own tongue. And yet this has so far been of advantage to me, that by your disapproving of what the catholic Faith rejects, we know you are greater friends to the true than to the false: and that you quite properly refuse to believe what I myself also abhor, in accordance with ancient doctrine. For although my letter addressed to bishop Flavian, of holy memory, is of itself sufficiently explicit, and stands in no need either of correction or explanation, yet other of my writings harmonize with that letter, and in them my position will be found similarly set forth. For necessity was laid upon me to argue against the heretics who have thrown many of Christ’s peoples into confusion, both before our most merciful princes and the holy synodal Council, and the church of Constantinople, and thus I have laid down what we ought to think and feel on the Incarnation of the Word according to the teaching of the Gospel and Apostles, and in nothing have I departed from the creed of the holy Fathers: because the Faith is one, true, unique, catholic, and to it nothing can be added, nothing taken away: though Nestorius first, and now Eutyches, have endeavoured to assail it from an opposite standpoint, but with similar disloyalty, and have tried to impose on the Church of GOD two contradictory heresies, which has led to their both being deservedly condemned by the disciples of the Truth; because the false view which they both held in different ways was exceedingly mad and sacrilegious.


You can see my defense of Leo against my fellow Copts who accused him of heresy here:

http://coptichymns.net/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-5225-start-125.html

In this particular quote, notice I bolded the first part, mentioning that Pope Leo is saying that "perhaps, those who translated my paper gave you a heretical interpretation." This paper, as you see here, IS THE TOME. If one knows very well, these monks of Palestine accused Leo of Nestorianism, and, as I bolded later, it was necessary for Leo to clarify himself to talk in an Orthodox manner throughout this letter. I hypothesized that if St. Dioscorus would have read this clarification letter rather than the Tome, there would have been no schism.

[minasoliman]

In addition, Leo's association with Theodoret the Nestorian made us think of him as the ringleader of Nestorians, since his Apostolic See was a very influencial one. Fr. John Romanides writes:

It seems that Eutyches was trying to follow the fathers in his own way, but was not doing a good job. Then some like Dioscoros undertook to guide him, but to no avail. But neither Dioscoros himself nor any other of the Oriental Orthodox Fathers every followed Eutyches the way Leo followed Theodoret like a pet on a leash.

These are not my words, but the words of a very respectful Greek Orthodox theologian. Here, we see, although it seems insulting in nature, it is the truth of objective research. For St. Dioscorus was openly willing to condemn Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon. "If Eutyches erred from the faith, not only would I excommunicate him, but pray for his burning." Here, you see that St. Dioscorus wished to guide Eutyches to the right faith, but Eutyches later refused, which lead to his condemnation by US, THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS, by HH St. Timothy Aelureus, the immediate Coptic Miaphysite successor of St. Dioscorus, who lead a council, called by us the Third Council of Ephesus, to condemn Eutyches both in person and in dogma. This is PROOF that from the VERY BEGINNING of the schism, we WERE NEVER Monophysites, and PROOF that Maximus (the person that I am quoting who condemns us) is condemning someone of a heresy that he condemned. However, Leo lifted the anathema off of Theodoret and was the best of friends to Theodoret, willing to defend him while many of the Egyptian, Illyrian, and Palestinian fathers condemned them as Nestorians, just as St. Cyril condemned them.

It is interesting to note that the Fifth "Ecumenical" Council, although does not contradict in faith, but contradicts in praise. For in the Council of Chalcedon, Theodoret and Ibas were praised as "blessed" and their writings as "Orthodox," yet THESE SAME WRITINGS were condemned in the Fifth "Ecumenical" Council as damnworthy, and heretical (Nestorian obviously). Why should I believe in these two councils if they clearly contradict one another's decisions? How should Maximus and others like him who unjustly condemn us make us believe that these "ecumenical" councils are the products of the Holy Spirit if God does not contradict Himself?

Thus, this is why Fr. John Romanides found no choice but to sincerely write the truth of the relationship between Leo and Theodoret. If it wasn't for Leo sacrificial friendship with Theodoret the Nestorian, Theodoret would have been condemned in Chalcedon, and this would be another factor of "the no-schism theory" (the other factor being that Leo should have showed up to Chalcedon himself to defend himself in person against those who accused his Tome of Nestorianism).

This is the Alexandrian view of things. Please forgive me for the length. This is my attempt to show how much politics and semantics were involved. We are not the Church of Paul, or the Church of Apollo, or the Church of Peter. We are the Church of Christ. The Holy Spirit cares to preserve the faith, not the persons. I don't care if you venerate Leo; I care that Leo venerated the Orthodox faith, and on this basis, I believe therefore the EO's are blessed with the Holy Spirit regardless of the political and semantic problems that unnecessarily split our churches.

We are not the Church of Leo or the Church of Dioscorus. We are the Orthodox Church of Christ, who upheld the right faith. If the EO's upheld the right faith all along, and the OO's upheld the right faith all along, then I pray to the Lord to lift the schisms of the Church, and to embrace one another's churches to be a true Orthodox witness to the world.

I will stop for today, and I will continue some other day.

Pray for me.

Xrictoc anecti!

[Maximus]

I don't normally even look at this forum; I am not sure why I did today.

I know I cannot argue here.

To the Eastern Orthodox who have posted in this thread I would say, please be careful to what you expose yourselves.

Be careful also to what you commit yourselves.

Remember that the person referred to above as "Theodoret the Nestorian" is known to the Orthodox Church as Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus.

Do not try to second-guess the Orthodox Fathers.

It is not loving to reinforce others in their errors through talk of a grossly premature "reunion."

[minasoliman]

Dear Maximus,

If you think that Theodoret was Orthodox, then how do you explain the Orthodox fathers of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD:


Second Council of Constantinople (553), of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the errors of Origen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia and of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.


http://www.piar.hu/councils/

Here, the condemnation of their heretical (Nestorian) writings, the same writings defended in Chalcedon shows a CONTRADICTION. If you don't admit that, then you are in an extreme case of denial.

These writings were also condemned by St. Cyril in his letter to the Emperor. Do not tell me you didn't read those.

God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!

[minasoliman]

Just in case you want a direct reference, according to the Sentence of the Second Council of Constantinople:


When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting to introduce their impiety into the church of God through the impious Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his impious writings; and moreover through those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and through the wicked epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and assembled in this royal city called thither by the will of God and the bidding of the most religious Emperor.


Here, the Byzantine successors of Chalcedon contradicted their Chalcedonian fathers, going from "blessed" to "impious." Please reread your sources again. This sentence is DRENCHED with the word "impious."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-113.htm#P5543_1159989

Xrictoc anecti!

[Maximus]

Dear Maximus,

If you think that Theodoret was Orthodox, then how do you explain the Orthodox fathers of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD:



http://www.piar.hu/councils/

Here, the condemnation of their heretical (Nestorian) writings, the same writings defended in Chalcedon shows a CONTRADICTION. If you don't admit that, then you are in an extreme case of denial.

These writings were also condemned by St. Cyril in his letter to the Emperor. Do not tell me you didn't read those.

God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[minasoliman]

And you know I can't argue in TAW, which is why I'm posting here.

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

Chalcedon accepted these writings, and Constantinople rejected them.

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

May God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!

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

[minasoliman]

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

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

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


And later on "impious."


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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

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

Xrictoc anecti!

[CopticGirl]

Ahhh....Mina...

Wonderful posts, I truly enjoyed reading them. Please keep up the good work.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

[Maximus]

Neither Theodoret nor Ibas are condemned or ever were condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Fifth Council condemned some of Theodoret's early writing but not his person. It condemned a letter allegedly written by Ibas of Edessa, but which Ibas himself denied writing.

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

Origen was also condemned at the same council.

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

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen were themselves condemned as heretics.

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

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

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

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

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

[CopticGirl]

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


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

You seem to enjoy spreading mistruths.

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


God Bless.

[Maximus]

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

You seem to enjoy spreading mistruths.

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


God Bless.

Say what you will.

This is your forum, after all.

[Xpycoctomos]

To the Eastern Orthodox who have posted in this thread I would say, please be careful to what you expose yourselves.

Be careful also to what you commit yourselves.


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

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

John

[sin_vladimirov]

I am at this time researching the subject, using Orthodox sources available on the net. Due to me, at the moment, living in Saudi Arabia I am not able to find 'real time' information.

I will formulate personal oppinion in good time.

Lord has risen and is among us!

[Jay2004]

I would like to see the RC, EO, and OO as one again.

One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church instead of schisms

[minasoliman]

Dear Maximus,


Neither Theodoret nor Ibas are condemned or ever were condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Fifth Council condemned some of Theodoret's early writing but not his person. It condemned a letter allegedly written by Ibas of Edessa, but which Ibas himself denied writing.



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

It was not until Nestorius had been condemned by the Council of Ephesus (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/ephesus.shtml) in AD 431 that Theodore's writings and teachings came into open question. Charges of heterodoxy were brought against him by several bishops, most notably Cyril of Alexander, whose tome Contra Diodorum et Theodorum proclaimed the association between these two men. Still, Theodore remained a revered figure among the Church of his day, and the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon.shtml), AD 451, accepted the characterisation of him as a 'herald of the truth and doctor of the Church' (made in the second epistle of Ibas of Edessa).

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

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

However, this would not long stand. Charges of Nestorianism came to the forefront, and the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553) condemned Theodore's writings and anathematised him as an heretic. This remains the position of the Church to this day, though the publication of a Syriac version of Theodore's long-lost Catechetical Homilies in 1932 has brought discussion on his Orthodoxy back into question. There are those in the present day who argue that Theodore's works and teachings are Orthodox and free from Nestorian heresy, while others continue to uphold the decision of the council of 553 in condemning him as heretical.

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

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

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


Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen were themselves condemned as heretics.



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


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



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


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


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


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



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

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

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

God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!

[minasoliman]

Just before I come out misunderstood with my comments, my comments make a point, not that EO's were heretics and became Orthodox but my point is that EO's as well as OO's are humans, not God, and definately not infallible.

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

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

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

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone.

Xrictoc anecti!

[minasoliman]

I will continue to reply to other posts.

In this website:

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

Maximus writes:

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

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


As a consequence, Non-Chalcedonians also believe our Lord has but one will. That error is called Monothelitism.

The first error (Mia or Monophysitism) was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.

The second error (Monothelitism) was condemned at the 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople, in A.D. 681.


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

Non-Chalcedonian leaders will say they believe Christ is both perfect Man and perfect God, etc., and lots of other perfectly Orthodox-sounding things. But one must be careful to look at everything they say. The Orthodox Fathers did not condemn the teachings of the Non-Chalcedonians for no good reason, or because they misunderstood them, or for base motives like politics.

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

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


It is Non-Chalcedonian, not Orthodox.

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


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


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

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

Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration. The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us (Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, nos. 1 and 2, p. 139; Does Chalcedon,p. 133).

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


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



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



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


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


We find that this Sixth Council exalts as its standard mainly the teaching of Leo and Agatho, popes of Rome, paying only lip-service to the teachings of the Blessed Cyril. We regard Leo as a heretic for his teaching that the will and operation of Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ rather than to the one hypostasis. The human nature is as "natural" to Christ the incarnate Word as is the divine. It is one hypostasis who now is both divine and human, and all the activities come from the one hypostasis (Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, nos. 1 and 2,pp. 140-141; Does Chalcedon,pp. 134-135).


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

[minasoliman]

In addition, every meeting ends with a conclusive statement, or "agreed statements." You can see both official and non-official "Agreed Statements" here:

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

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

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

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

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


+ The theologians found that they were still in full and deep agreement with
the universal tradition of the one undivided Church .

+ Through visits to each other, and through study of each other's liturgical
traditions and theological and spiritual writings, they rediscovered other
mutual agreements in all important matters: liturgy and spirituality,
doctrine and canonical practice.

+ They concluded by saying `` Our mutual agreement is not merely verbal or
conceptual it is a deep agreement that impels us to beg our Churches to
consummate our union by bringing together again the two lines of tradition
which have been separated from each other for historical reasons for such a
long time. We work in the hope that our Lord will grant us full unity so
that we can celebrate together that unity in the Common Eucharist. That is
our strong desire and final goal''.



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

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


+ The well known phrase used by our common father, St. Cyril of Alexandria
``the one nature of God's Word Incarnate'' was at the centre of the
conversations. Through the different terminologies used by each side,
they saw the same truth expressed. On the essence of the Christological
dogma they found themselves in full agreement.

+ As for the Council of Chalcedon (451) both families agreed without
reservation on rejecting the teaching of Eutyches as well as Nestorius, and
thus the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon does not
entail the acceptance of either heresy.



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


+ Ever since the fifth century, we have used different formulae to confess our
common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect Man. Some
of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the
One Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature,
will and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union without
confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The four
adverbs belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic permanence
of the God-head and the Manhood, with all their natural properties and
faculties, in the one Christ. Those who speak in terms of ``two'' do not
thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of ``one'' do not
thereby commingle or confuse.

+ They discussed also the continuity of doctrine in the Councils of the
Church, and especially the mono-energistic and monothelete controversies of
the seventh century. They agreed that the human will is neither absorbed nor
suppressed by the divine will in the Incarnate Logos, nor are they contrary
one to the other.



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


+ As discussed in Bristol in 1967, the Joint Sub-Committee concluded that the
four attributes of the wonderful union of the natures belong also to the
common tradition since both sides speak of it as ``without confusion,
without change, without division, without separation''. And thus those who
speak in terms of ``two'' don't thereby divide or separate. Those who speak
in terms of ``one'' don't thereby co-mingle or confuse.



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

To continue answering posts, Maximus writes:


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



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

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

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

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

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


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



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


Amen! Amen! Amen! I believe! I believe! I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint May. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen.


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

Xrictoc anecti!

If I have offended in my posts, please forgive me.

[minasoliman]

Actually, in answer to the history of reunion attempts, I give you Father Subdeacon Peter Theodore's article of the British Orthodox Church. I cannot write anything better than him.

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

Xrictoc anecti!

[sin_vladimirov]

I have been reading about these problems last 2 days and I have to tell you that now, atleast I know how big the mountain is... it is like Himalayas... I will by studying have to get to the top of Himalayas in order to get somewhere... and now... I am walking towards Himalayas from.... South Africa... so there is a lot of reading and prayer to go before I can even formulate some sort of oppinion on the matter.

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

So, that is it.

[minasoliman]

Dear Sin_Vladimirov,

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

Xrictoc anecti!

[sin_vladimirov]

I do see what it is meant.. It does seem like a great idea. This is a point worthy of more explanation, not for now though.

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


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

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


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


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

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


Indeed HE is risen!

[minasoliman]

I mean that the faith the of councils we accept, but in these councils they condemn St. Dioscorus, St. Timothy Aeulureus, and later on St. Severus, etc. as "haters of God." This is something serious, and we cannot accept that.

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

Xrictoc anecti!

Mina

[sin_vladimirov]

OK, I see the point. It is a very decent one at that.

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

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

Would this be a fair statement?

[minasoliman]

YES, exactly.

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

God bless you.

Xrictoc anecti!

[sin_vladimirov]

O.k. now thank you for this.

One last question before I start digging in Patristics.

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

[minasoliman]

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

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

Xrictoc anecti!

[sin_vladimirov]

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

Now, it time for some more research.

Thank you again, and God bless!

Indeed He is risen, and among us!


sinner+

[Xpycoctomos]

Very interesting thread.

[minasoliman]

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

I already provided an article about the times after Chalcedon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xrictoc anecti!

[minasoliman]

Dear Maximus,

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












CLXXII. Letter of Theodoretus to Nestorius.

To the very reverend and religious lord and very holy Father, Nestorius, the bishop Theodoretus sends greeting in the Lord. Your holiness is, I think, well aware that I take no pleasure in cultivated society, nor in the interests of this life, nor in reputation, nor am I attracted by other s