Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Who are monophysites? + Chalcedon Council
Hi,
I know in our Church, we are miaphysites. Which churches are monophysites?
Also, can someone kindly explain to me what happened in the council of chalcedon??
What went on? When was this?
What is the dispute with the Greek/Russian churches over chalcedon? No matter how much I insist that we are miaphysites, they tell me that we are monophysites.
How is it they think they know us more than we know ourselves?? Isn't that taking the biscuit?
Thanks
I know in our Church, we are miaphysites. Which churches are monophysites?
Also, can someone kindly explain to me what happened in the council of chalcedon??
What went on? When was this?
What is the dispute with the Greek/Russian churches over chalcedon? No matter how much I insist that we are miaphysites, they tell me that we are monophysites.
How is it they think they know us more than we know ourselves?? Isn't that taking the biscuit?
Thanks
Comments
http://stnoufer.wordpress.com/?s=chalcedon
Hope that helps!
Hey Check out the following article about chalcedon on my blog site!
http://stnoufer.wordpress.com/?s=chalcedon
Hope that helps!
Thanks Bishoy,
I've read it, but it seems like such a long indian movie, I will need to read it again and again and again. What a soap opera!!
So, ultimately, we are only accused of being monophysites, but no one else is.
What I fail to understand is this: The Roman Catholics are not miaphysites, yet they accepted the council of chalcedon along with the Pope of Constantinople (or bishop) - so, why is it now they are duophysites? How did that happen??
I am not quite sure what you mean?
The Romans have more or less always been dyophisite. Certainly from the time of Leo.
In regard to heretical forms of monophysitism. There were some who held that the humanity and divinity were mixed in some way, or that the humanity was not the same as ours. Even St Cyril had to write against some who held these views. And our own St Timothy wrote against and excommunicated a handful of Alexandrian clergy in Constantinople who held them. But they were never a church, they were always just a small group.
The Julianists posed a more serious problem. They taught that the humanity of Christ was deified at the moment of the incarnation and were opposed by St Severus. They did split the Alexandrian Church for a while but having appeared in the early 6th century they had pretty much disappeared by the early 7th century, although the ideas maintained some popularity among the Armenians a little later.
So there is not a monophysite Church in an heretical sense. Just people and groups who have held wrong views and which the Church, our Church, has always opposed and rejected. Indeed St Timothy spent as much time practically opposing those who held heretical monophysite views as he did opposing Chalcedon.
Father Peter
I thought that seeing Leo was involved in Chalcedon, that his Church would have ended up as miaphysite, but as you said: they are dyophysite in fact. How comes?
And why on earth do the Greeks still see us as Monophysites (heretics) when we've always been Miaphysites?
This is a very annoying situation.
Why do you think that it would suggest that Leo was a miaphysite?
The Greeks see us as heretics because they have painted themselves into a corner where they cannot change the false history they teach otherwise they must admit that they have been always saying untruths about us. There are Greeks who do not consider us heretics, but there is not much scope for them being reconciled with us because they consider it a matter of dogma that we are heretics. If they had to admit that we don't believe what they say we believe then it would a) mean that for the past 1500 years they have been teaching error. b) would split their communion in two.
Though we should also be conservative in our theology, I do not believe we have painted ourselves into a corner. We could, for instance, accept the documents of the latter Eastern Orthodox councils as representing Orthodoxy when properly understood, but many of the Eastern Orthodox cannot easily accept anything less than the dissolution of our Orthodox Church. If there are parts of Eastern Orthodoxy which consider the main Eastern Orthodox Churches to be apostate, what do they think of us?
Personally I see more scope for reconciliation with the Catholic Church at present. There have been times in the past when the Coptic Orthodox Church has had better relations with the Catholics, even to the point of having a loose reunion over a century or more during the Middle Ages.
Father Peter
But Chalcedon was a dyophysite council. It is the council which insisted that Christ is 'in two natures'.
Hi Fr. Peter,
Thanks. I see. I didnt know. I just thought that the council was set up to respond to a heresy that resulted from some bishop who was trying to respond to Nestorianism (he ended up going to the other extreme).
OK.. I see, so it was dyophysite. Sorry, I had just gathered that the entire purpose of chalcedon was to correct some Christological heresy to do with the composite/united Nature of Christ.
It was a wrong assumption from my part. How did that happen? Wow.. this is so sad. But surely there is a need for everyone to have some humble pie? This is obsurd, to be accused of something that we are innocent of, and to remain falsly accussed so as we do not embarrass a Church who falsly accused us. That's just outrageous.
Isn't it?
This is the information age. There is only so much lies that can last. Even till this day, they still believe we are monophysites... remarkable.
this is an ecumenical nightmare.
ps. is bishoy's document accurate? i want to be sure that i get the correct picture of the historical events on this issue. thanks
The whole reason that the Eastern Orthodox separated from our Orthodox Church is because of Chalcedon. This is why so many of our Fathers were exiled and killed. It is very important, and every Orthodox should have a basic understanding of the issues and theology, certainly all deacons. It is even more important than hymnology IMO since if we believe, and worse if we teach, error then our whole spiritual life becomes deformed.
I will recommend again my own book and the one by Father V.C. Samuel - The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined.
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/orthodox-christology/10969273
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-council-of-chalcedon-re-examined/194480
Father Peter
It is very important, and every Orthodox should have a basic understanding of the issues and theology, certainly all deacons.
It is even more important than hymnology IMO since if we believe, and worse if we teach, error then our whole spiritual life becomes deformed.
This is amazing. I insisted on this just last week actually with Fr. Shenouda. I told him that any deacon serving in the Church should know these theological differences. I agree totally.
I feel we are being mis-represented by other Churches due to their fear of admitting they were wrong.
[Edited: I don't want to say anything bad about any other denomination, but suffice to say that these differences between us are definately hurtful]
I recently had a debate with the webmaster of this internet site to try and find out why he considers our church as heretics and "our mysteries as invalid". He has yet to send me a rebuttal(it has been a month) i just hope that he has been convinced that we are not monophysites. I believe that there are a few very influential people who will try to fight the union of Orthodox churches, namely the monks of Mount Athos who still insist that we are heretics and refuse to listen to logic and the TRUTH. However i think we should all pray that the efforts of our fathers the bishops,priests and of course HH Pope Shenouda the 3rd, will finally unite all orthodox churches together.
I have added this link to a blog by Fr Antonious Kaldas regarding this issue i HIGHLY recommend that everyone reads it http://www.frantonios.org.au/2009/08/22/is-ecumenism-evil/
PPFM
thanks guys
On the contrary, I have found that the Russian Church is among the most resistant to efforts towards reconciliation between our Orthodox Church and the Byzantines.
I have never heard, and find it unbelievable, that Russians are taught they are in communion with us.
I believe that the orthodoxinfo website is truly a force for bad in the world, and would always urge great caution on viewing any material on it. I have preferred to just avoid it altogether.
Father Peter
I thought the Russians might be the best hope for reconciliation although reconciliation is low on most people's agenda. When I told my priest I liked the Agpeya and use it occasionally he warned me about divergent views 'about the Trinity'. At the end of the 19th century the Moscow patriarchate was making overtures to the (Coptic) patriarch but this could have been political ('The Great Game'). Anyway it came to nothing.
The Roman Catholic church seems furthest from Orthodoxy in our day so it surprises me to hear Father say they offer the best hope for rapprochement but I take his point about the inevitability of schism should the EO have to reconsider their views.
The Orthodox info site gave me my first into into Orthodoxy but Patrick Barnes does not enter into discussions unless you are on the radio or have published something he disagrees with.
Lastly, Fr Peter's book arrived yesterday. I look forward to reading it.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx
What is this nonsense!!!!!!!!
Can someone give this admin of orthodox info the following link?
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf ; -> or just give me his email address and I'll contact him!! HOW DARE THEY CALL US HERETICS!!!
Since when were we Monophysites?? I mean, when in the history of the CoC have we been monophysites???? I get the impression that they are regretting the Council of Chalcedon, and are returning back to the definitions of Saint Cyril and Saint Athanasius: a Hypostatic Union without change, alteration or mingling, + NOR SEPARATION!
Wasnt duophysites 2 natures that were seperated?? They are now changing the meaning of duophysites (they, the catholics) to indicate that they are now miaphysites, and that we have been in heresy all this time!!!
Fr. Peter, what is being done about this???
We are clearly in a situation of word play/word games!!
I feel extremely bad for any Coptic Orthodox Bishop/Metropolitan. The attitude they must be enduring is so hurtful. The Greeks/Russians look at us as if we are not only heretics, but our sacraments are invalid and so is our priesthood since chalcedon. How can we enter a discussion with them!???
What can we discuss?? what mistake would they like us to admit to exactly? We are saying that there is no separation between the two natures, yet there is no mingling or alteration between them. They are saying that Christ has two natures, and by suggesting (as we do) that He has ONE nature, we are rejecting another nature. What nature are we rejecting?? The one nature IS the hypostatic union of the two natures.
You see?? Its all word games - the end result is CLEARLY the same. We have stressed the ONE nature of Christ the Incarnate Logos simply to refute nestorianism which indicated that the two natures were separate. To reject a separation of the 2 natures as a heresy THEREFORE the TERM ONE NATURE OF THE INCARNATE LOGOS is correct as this is the hypostatic unity of the two natures in the Person of Christ.
Right????
I must say that I have found that the educated and theologically literate Catholics do seem to have a genuine and open-hearted interest in Oriental Orthodoxy, and do seem interested in seeking ways forward towards understanding even if reconciliation is not possible. I am the co-Secretary of the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Forum in the UK. And it is a pleasure to meet Catholic bishops who want to develop ways of working with the Oriental Orthodox communities in a positive manner. I attended a study day at Minster Abbey in Kent hosted by the Catholics and it was very enjoyable to be with them. There is ignorance of our Orthodoxy, but it doesn't seem to be the negative and even spiteful ignorance found in some other places.
On the other hand, despite knowing many friendly and sympathetic Eastern Orthodox, including yourself, it is also the case that several Oriental Orthodox enquirers and catechumens to my knowledge have been warned to stay away from the Coptic Orthodox Church by Eastern Orthodox priests in the UK.
There is no Oriental-Eastern Orthodox forum in the UK. Though it must be said that I know my bishop got on well with Bishop Basil as was, and does get on with Archibishop Gregorios, and there are Eastern Orthodox clergy who are true friends to Oriental Orthodoxy in the UK. But I don't see any signs at all in the UK which would indicate that the EO want to acknowledge the OO as Orthodox, or as a community to work with, while there are signs that the Catholics do want to work with the OO. Indeed are there any signs anywhere in the world that the EO want to move forward on this issue? I have not seen many myself apart from local events, and personal contacts between interested clergy and laity.
I would suggest that though there were contacts between EO and OO in the past which were often almost fruitful, there is a hardening of attitudes in the present time, which goes far beyond what was ever required for unity in previous centuries. I would imagine that it has to do with EO communities seeking to define their identities in the face of modern pressures, and post-communism, and therefore taking a more fundamentalist point of view. (This is of course present to some extent in all our Churches). But the Russians in the UK have fragmented into several groups, each seeking to be true to Orthodoxy, but some becoming more and more isolated and inward looking. In other places bishops and patriarchs are placed under great pressure by monastic groups who take a very negative view of any discussion with Oriental Orthodox. And I was recently reading a report by a senior Russian bishop who was warning that theological education had collapsed in Russia, and people were becoming priests with little knowledge, pastoring congregations who had even less. In such circumstances I imagine churches have more pressing concerns than a possibly divisive unity with Christians in other countries.
I have to say that I am less hopeful that there will be a reconciliation between the EO and OO. I am still reading too many articles and papers by EO theologians who consider us entirely heretical based on great ignorance of what we actually believe. There is ignorance among the OO as well, but I do sense a greater open-ness towards reconciliation with the EO. All of the OO Holy Synods have accepted that the EO are Orthodox, as far as I can see only the Romanian, and perhaps the Antiochians in the Middle East among the EO Holy Synods has said the same of us.
Father Peter
You can do nothing to change such people's opinions. We must be entirely positive, seek to understand our own theology correctly, and produce educational materials for ourselves and for those interested in our Orthodoxy.
I used to spend most of my life arguing with people such as have written the comments you quoted. THERE IS NO VALUE IN THIS. It is a waste of time.
This is one reason I have written the articles and papers I have, and have now published the collection. It is to educate ourselves and those who have open hearts towards us. Those who wish to see us as heretics, and even the short quote you provide is riddled with ignorance, will always do so. Their attitude is not based on a lack of knowledge but on an antipathy towards us and a fear of us as being different and other. It is more like a spiritual racism than anything else. I have often been told that I can have no knowledge of Orthodoxy, or be able to participate in any discussion or conversation about Orthodoxy because I am not Orthodox and therefore do not have an Orthodox mindset. I have even been banned from describing our Orthodox Church as a Church on some forums, and after posting hundreds of messages and being one of the top participants was told that I must resign my membership and become a Guest because I was not Eastern Orthodox. I know what such opposition is like. I have faced it since 1994 when I first joined an Orthodox forum online.
It is best to simply avoid it altogether and work positively to produce materials that properly describe our Orthodoxy in a honest manner, taking into account the objections raised against our Faith.
Father Peter
It is a bit of a shame really, though. With all the intermarriages, and the mutual benefit many laymen and clergy are already receiving from the integration of our literature, it is difficult sometimes to swallow the deep opposition among us and them.
But I kind of respect their stance against ecumenism as a whole.Trickey!
Gor evol enigagee...
The Coptic Orthodox Church is entirely conservative, and yet is able to have fellowship and open and honest discussions with anyone who is also serious in intent. I am the co-Secretary of the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Forum, and the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox Regional Forum. Neither of these forums is seeking to bring about a precipitate union, indeed it is not within the remit of either group to do so, but they are warm and open hearted meetings of bishops and priests to discuss things of common interest and with mutual respect.
I cannot think of any occasions at any event I have been to in which Orthodox participants have been encouraged or requested to do or say anything which is contrary to our Orthodox faith.
So I do find the anti-ecumenism line a bit bogus. It is often used as a justification for not engaging with those outside the Church, and/or for retreating behind the walls and viewing everyone outside as the enemy. I spent a very personally fruitful week at the WCC in Geneva last year at a small invite only conference on the Bible. Many people there were much more liberal than I was, but not all. But I was never asked to believe anything un-Orthodox, or do anything un-Orthodox. I learned from the other participants and I hope they learned from me. Certainly they learned more about Orthodox by my presence than they would have done by my absence. When I arrived the community who live and work there were having their daily prayers in the chapel. I arrived with a very critical spirit, but they were praying for the people of several un-pronounceable ex-Soviet republics and I was chastened to think that there were probably few Orthodox anywhere in the world who were interceding for those people at that time. Then a prayer was prayed which I considered rather wishy-washy and liberal, but was then ashamed to realise that it was an prayer by an Armenian Church Father.
In regards to the dialogue between the EO and OO, I am not sure that there is any great opposition from the Oriental Orthodox side. But the EO do seem unable and generally unwilling to proceed any further and even Churches which have participated in the dialogue are producing materials which are full of ignorance and error about us. There do not seem to be any champions of unity on the EO side, and no sense that our disunity is a scandal.
But there are many friends among the EO, so it is always possible to be hopeful.
Father Peter
Here is a little summarized timeline: Caesar, Emperor, Western Emperor, Eastern Emperor, Kaiser, Tsar. This explains the non-sensical attitude of the claims against the Coptic Orthodox Church. We never had an emperor, they did, and are trying to resurrect the imperial nonsense.
Lets be blunt: The Coptic Orthodox Church gave the world Christianity. There is a jealousy, and they do not like us for being what we are. It sounds like grammar school, but that is the reality.
Let's be blunt: Christianity came from the Apostles- out of Jerusalem!
I don't think they are jealous. I believe they are either ignorant, or following somehow the early church fathers who are said not to even sit with heretics.
We didn't change anything since Chalcedon, so why should the EO change their point of view about us today??
But the problem is, they don't take into consideration that mistakes have been made in the past, that the opinions of their church fathers weren't necessarily based on religious disagreement but political animosity...
Another thing: this is not relevant to this discussion but I didn't want to open a new thread so as to not draw any attention to this:
there is a new movie coming out soon called 'Agora', from what I read about it, the movie talks about 4th Century Alexandria, and it depicts the early christians as barbaric hateful people who enjoy the public burning of people who oppose their doctrine, I also heard it talks about St. Cyril as a cruel, greedy-for-power church leader who doesn't tolerate any opposition, the movie claims to be a true story
and I also read it says the early christians were responsible for the burning of the famous Library of Alexandria, as it was full of heretic ancient philosophy... Now, I know that from the beginning of Christianity in Egypt there were the native Egyptian christians (copts) and the Byzantine occupiers (eastern roman empire with byzantium/ constantinopel as its capital) who later on became christian and in many cases opposed and fought the Coptic church, however, I wonder, are there any parts of our history that we are never told about because they are just too shamful?? Maybe this particular story in this specific movie isn't true, but is it possible that our church has in the past fallen into similar malpractices such as the ones the Catholic church was guilty of?? I mean corrupt leaders, crimes commited in the name of christianity etc. ??? (I admit that I don't know a lot about early Coptic history (of course the Egyptian educaton system is one of the instances to blame here and I am very hesitant to read such books written by Copts because of the fear for historical inaccuracy and the lack of an objective mindset... ) so if anyone know about any good books...
Zoxasi,
Here is a little summarized timeline: Caesar, Emperor, Western Emperor, Eastern Emperor, Kaiser, Tsar. This explains the non-sensical attitude of the claims against the Coptic Orthodox Church. We never had an emperor, they did, and are trying to resurrect the imperial nonsense.
Lets be blunt: The Coptic Orthodox Church gave the world Christianity. There is a jealousy, and they do not like us for being what we are. It sounds like grammar school, but that is the reality.
Guys,
The user I loveStMark has absolute right to be proud of his Church. But I disagree a BIT with what he saying. The problem isn't jealousy, the problem is that the EO will lose face by accepting us as Miaphysites after having falsely accused us of monophysism all these centuries.
This is their problem: no one wants to lose face. It is complete pride.
It is really like childrens saying: "My daddy knows more than your daddy. My daddy can beat your daddy up."
For the RCC, they think they are the continuation of the Western Empire/Emperor and the Byzantines the Eastern Empire/Emperor.
The only problem is: they are both incorrect. They want to lead and master--that is the bottom line.
Gee, it's funny: the RCC accepted the Assyrian Church--no problems. All was set relative to stretching the Roman Papal reach and umbrella.
The Russians want to dominate the Byzantine branch. Constantinople wants to lead yet it only has 5-10k followers. The Greeks think that the center of the world is Athens and Mt. Athos.
Empire. That is the word of the day.
The Ecumenical Patriarch's entrance processional chants are for the emperor, since the Ecumenical Patriarch, is considered the custodian of the empire until it is reintroduced.
My feeling is let them be. Let us be. We will find out on Judgment Day. The more we try to dialogue, the more things get amplified. Sometimes it is better to be in separate corners.
Peter and Paul had their arguments. They went their separate ways in order to avoid antagonizing each other. From what I gather in the Scriptures, St. Paul has a tendency to take little "snipes".
I would hope that hierarchs would be able to iron out these things, but they are no different than us. I think the word sibling rivalry is appropriate.
Even within a given Communion there is separation. Let's take the Oriental Orthodox: Armenian Antelias/Etchmiadzin; Syrian/Indian, Ethiopian/Eritrean, Coptic/Ethiopian.
Byzantines: Greek/Russians, Old Calendar/New Calendarists, Constantinople/Greek/OCA, etc.
Western: RCC/Protestants.
Everyone wants to be emperor, yet there ain't no empire, and there ain't no emperor.
In the meantime, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, are all growing at a rate faster than all of the Christian Denominations.
The ROMAN EMPIRE is DEAD--Leave it that way.
My comment about giving the world Christianity relates to:
1. We established the example of hierarchy
2. The Holy Bible
3. Divine Liturgy/Anaphora
4. The Catechetical School
5. The Creed
6. The formulation of the Seven Sacraments.
7. The Canonical Calendar/Resurrection Celebration
8. The leadership in the definitions of the Three Ecumenical Councils.
9. The harboring of the Holy Family
10. The monastic system
11. Patristic Writings.
12. The defense against all of the major heresies
13. The miracles
14. The First Gospel
15. The resilience of steadfastness against the sword of the heretic and the religious enemy
16. The oldest surviving Churches on the face of the earth.
I have to get to work. I do not have more time to add to the list.
The greatest reigning Patriarch in our lifetime: Pope Shenouda III
There is no other Church that has covered all the bases like the CoC. Other churches contributed, partially and in certain scopes, but nothing on this grand scale.
I wake up every day and I thank God I was born into the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Clay,
My comment about giving the world Christianity relates to:
1. We established the example of hierarchy
2. The Holy Bible
3. Divine Liturgy/Anaphora
4. The Catechetical School
5. The Creed
6. The formulation of the Seven Sacraments.
7. The Canonical Calendar/Resurrection Celebration
8. The leadership in the definitions of the Three Ecumenical Councils.
9. The harboring of the Holy Family
10. The monastic system
11. Patristic Writings.
12. The defense against all of the major heresies
13. The miracles
14. The First Gospel
15. The resilience of steadfastness against the sword of the heretic and the religious enemy
16. The oldest surviving Churches on the face of the earth.
I have to get to work. I do not have more time to add to the list.
The greatest reigning Patriarch in our lifetime: Pope Shenouda III
There is no other Church that has covered all the bases like the CoC. Other churches contributed, partially and in certain scopes, but nothing on this grand scale.
I wake up every day and I thank God I was born into the Coptic Orthodox Church.
The only appearance that Saint Mary performed in public was in the CoC. What does that tell you?? Do the Greeks believe that this is not a miracle? Would the Holy Mother of God appear in a Church that was heretical???
Saint Mary will raise the heads of the Coptic Christians.
The EO churches take their stand on more Ecumenical councils than the OO churches. One of their(EO) councils has been anathemised/repudiated by the OO. Somebody must be wrong and therefore not the whole Body of Christ in its fullness. If the Copts believe themselves to be right then, it seems to me, the others must be in error and need to be brought in to the True Faith.
This is, in effect, what the bulk of EO believe. Various EO groupings refuse to accept any deviation from an absolute 'party line' based on the bible and seven councils. There is a logic in their belief since we all believe in a visible church which has a clear doctrine
So if you hold to your OO position, hold to it. Don't behave like your team has been insulted. Repudiate the position of the others by all means.
In the meantime Godislove has posted a question about Our Lady of Lourdes. This too is relevant since 'things happen' outside the bastion of Orthodoxy. Myrrh weeping icons occur in the RCC as well as Orthodox ones.
One of two things has to happen: either the Almighty knocks sense into the situation, or the grammar school mentality has to end.
We will find out on Judgment Day.
I am willing to rest on that thought.
The historical facts I outlined are irrefutable.
The Coptic Orthodox Church has never used soldiers, murder, and pilage to enforce its dogmas and doctrines. The Roman and Byzantine Churches have done so. What does that say about the issue?
One of the reason we suffer under the Muslims is the accusations relative to the Crusades, but we had nothing to do with the Crusades.
The CoC is the only major church left in the Middle East. The cradle of Christianity. That is a fact.
It is my view point.
I do not think there will be reunion of the CoC with East or West. We are not an empire nor do we wish to be part of an empire.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE (EAST OR WEST) DOES NOT EXIST ANY MORE!
The term is being used against us by jealous rivals to try to elevate their positions. My feeling: keep your positions, and decorations, and titles. It does not amount to a hill of beans in the end.
The Lord will come and ask His questions and will ask for answers. I believe the CoC is waiting for that day without any fear. We have faced the sword, the spittle, the indignations, false accusations, injustices, and every vile act against us, and yet we stand tall
and proud. By the way, my inference is relative to our fellow Christians throughout the centuries.