Christology of OO

[ReformedChapin]

I have read in several articles that OOs are Monophosites. Can you expound in this view further so an outsider like myself can understand these views more clearly?

[copticorthodoxy]

I have read in several articles that OOs are Monophosites. Can you expound in this view further so an outsider like myself can understand these views more clearly?

We are not monophysites ..we have been accused of being monophysites but that is not true

see this threads

http://christianforums.com/t1500435-why-the-copts-are-not-monophysites.html

http://christianforums.com/t3204633-the-humanity-of-christ-what-oriental-orthodox-believe.html

[Knightwolflord]

Do y'all accept the most Holy Council of Chalcedon?

[Knightwolflord]

.....according to the Catholic Church (and thus all of Orthodox Christianity) miaphysitism is the same as the Catholic Faith. We've had Papal-level Joint-Declarations that say as much.

http://syriacchristianity.org/PZakka...eclaration.htm (http://syriacchristianity.org/PZakka/joint_declaration.htm)

[Anglian]

Dear Knightwolflord,

Indeed we are, and there have been both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox discussions that have established that we are not now and never have been Monophysites.

There's a good website maintained by the British Orthodox Church on this subject here:
www.orthodoxunity.org (http://www.britishorthodox.org/www.orthodoxunity.org).

In peace,

Anglian

[ReformedChapin]

I would really like it if someone presented a more simplified view so I can understand this complex subject later.

[Knightwolflord]

I would really like it if someone presented a more simplified view so I can understand this complex subject later.
I don't think it can get much simpler....no offense....

[copticorthodoxy]

This is common declaration betweeb the Catholic Church & the Church of Alexandria ( The Coptic Orthodox Church )
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

[ReformedChapin]

I don't think it can get much simpler....no offense....
ouch, that's not what I mean. I just dont want to read something incorrectly and have a false view of OOs. SO I would rather if someone typed a simplyfied view and go from there.

[Knightwolflord]

ouch, that's not what I mean. I just dont want to read something incorrectly and have a false view of OOs. SO I would rather if someone typed a simplyfied view and go from there.
You mean explain how Miaphysitism is compatible with Orthodoxy?

[ReformedChapin]

You mean explain how Miaphysitism is compatible with Orthodoxy?
No, compare it traditional trinitarianism.

[ReformedChapin]

bump

please help...

[Anglian]

Dear New Guy,

I suspect part of the problem is that for us in the OO Churches Miaphysitism is part of our traditional Trinitarianism, and therefore the question makes little sense.

The Incarnate Word is the person of Jesus Christ Our Lord, out of two natures, wholly human, wholly divine without any commixture even for the twinkling of an eye. The Chalcedonians, not stopping to ask us what we meant, assumed that in speaking of one person we meant one nature in which the divine overshadowed the human; that was not what St. Cyril held, nor what St. Severus held; they held, as we do, that the Incarnate Word had a composite nature.

Some Chalcedonians continue to repeat this error, and one reason OO are chary of such questions is they often (I am sure not in your case) presage attempts to pin the old label of Monophysite on us. We are not, never were, and never will be, Monophysites.

In peace,

Anglian

[ReformedChapin]

Dear New Guy,

I suspect part of the problem is that for us in the OO Churches Miaphysitism is part of our traditional Trinitarianism, and therefore the question makes little sense.

The Incarnate Word is the person of Jesus Christ Our Lord, out of two natures, wholly human, wholly divine without any commixture even for the twinkling of an eye. The Chalcedonians, not stopping to ask us what we meant, assumed that in speaking of one person we meant one nature in which the divine overshadowed the human; that was not what St. Cyril held, nor what St. Severus held; they held, as we do, that the Incarnate Word had a composite nature.

Some Chalcedonians continue to repeat this error, and one reason OO are chary of such questions is they often (I am sure not in your case) presage attempts to pin the old label of Monophysite on us. We are not, never were, and never will be, Monophysites.

In peace,

Anglian
So essentiallly what you are saying is that it's same?

[Anglian]

Assuming, as I do, that the Chalcedonians believe what I expressed as the OO position, then I am guessing that it is the same.

One of the things some of us find problematic at times is the EO assumption that the OO actually spend much time trying to work out whether our beliefs are the same as theirs; we don't. We know what we believe - and what some EOs claim and we leave it at that.

Arguments over these things never really help. But I know you come at this from another place and want to understand; so I hope my explanation helped. But honestly, to know whether it is what the EOs also hold, you'd have to ask them; I assume it is - but hey, what do I know?

In peace,

Anglian