Translate

Friday, June 22, 2012

Still Critical of the Copts?

Are the Copts Monophysites? They sure don't sound like it to me:

12 minutes to a better understanding...


So the question remains: Is Miaphysitism orthodox? Hmmm...

29 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:55 AM

    Copt's don't accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, is that Orthodox ? Hmmmmm....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon, my questions are intended as questions. They are not proclamations or statements. Why not address the question? It is one of doctrine...Miaphysitsm. I have almost concluded that the Copts are not Monophysites, however. This topic is a new one for me so I welcome respectful and civil dialogue. No need for tit for tat or for sarcasm, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:39 AM

    Nathan thank you for that info. It helps me understand their position and actually aids me to better explain it to others. Anna

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very simply, following all 7 ecumenical councils does not make one orthodox. It makes one Eastern Orthodox. There is a strong commonality between our two churches in the fact that we both honor St. Cyril's Christology. Regardless of the seven councils, the Oriental Orthodox Church agree that they adhere to the statements made at those councils though they do not look at them as Ecumenical. The point is that both sides were hasty and we must pray and work towards restoration. See orthodoxunity.org for up to date info on the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're welcome Anna. I am fully expecting to get kicked in the proverbial kiester by those who love to bash the Copts and will inevitably interpret my post as an all-out endorsement.

    Chef! Good balance. I just perused your blog. Good stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:19 PM

    Yes, following all the 7 ecumenical councils does make one Orthodox. Adding Orthodox after the word Oriental does not.
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/east_orth.aspx
    http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, Chef said the Copts "follow" the 7 councils but do not consider all of them ecumenical for obvious reasons.

      Delete
  7. Anon, It is this quote from one of the links you gave that the video in my post seems to refute.

    "...it was precisely their failure to embrace the Christology of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 that led to their departure from the domain of Orthodoxy to the hinterlands of heresy. They are therefore correctly and accurately designated either as Non-Chalcedonians, reflecting their rejection of this Divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synod, or Monophysites, characterizing their specific heterodox confession of Christianity."

    I am convinced the Copts are not monophysites. We know there are monophysites who are open about it, because they believe it. So, if someone says, "no we are not and never have been", it seems prudent to give ear to their explanation. I don't see subterfuge at play here. Something has gotten crossed up in the historical events of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So the Copts claim to be miaphysites. ANOTHER QUESTION: Is this the same as monophysites?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nathan, I appreciate your candor and aspiration to love your fellow man. Miaphysite and Monophysite are not synonymous. Having both studied and personally spoken with Ethiopian and Copy faithful I can attest to this in honesty. If you need more proof, I'd be happy to introduce you through the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The reason why the OOC rejects the monophysite misnomer, is simply that in our declaration of the Cyrillian formula, 'One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate', the Greek term for 'One' that is, and has been, consistently employed, is mia (the very Greek term St. Cyril himself employed). The reason for this, is that in the context of this declaration, we are using physis to denote the hypostasis that so actualises the natural reality/realities. In qualifying this hypostasis with mia, that, as opposed to mono which denotes a strict singularity, in fact denotes a composite unity, we imply that there is in fact more than one distinct natural reality so actualised by this hypostasis. So, far from actually implying a confusion or dissolution of the humanity and divinity of Christ, the phrase "mia physis" in fact implies that there are at the very least, two natural realities (essences/natures) realised by this One hypostasis. Since the only natural realities in question regarding the nature of Christ, are that of humanity and that of divinity, then both must have been preserved unadulterated, according to the logical implications of the mia physis formula - logical implications that simply do not, nay, cannot, follow from a mono physis formula.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fr. VC Samuel - Chalcedon Re-examined

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chef, If your culinary skills are as acute as your ability to argue this matter, I would sit at your table with expectant delight!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon, I appreciate your contribution. I have received your You Tube links. Sharing links such as these, in the context of supporting discussion can be useful, however I would prefer they not be a substitute for discussion in the comment section. Is this you on the videos? If so, I would be happy to share the link to your You Tube channel for those who may want to listen to you at length.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:47 PM

      No, that is not me in the video's. The Romanian man in them has several on this subject and clearly gives many reasons why the heretical churches known as "Oriental Orthodox" are not and can not be considered any more Orthodox than the Roman Papists and Protestant denominations can be called Orthodox. Coming from a Protestant and World Orthodox background you seem to have brought a lot of false ecumenical idea's with you. Not all Orthodox churches who use the Traditional "old calendar" are traditional Orthodox churches in practice, however it is safe to say every church that uses the new calendar is modernistic and run by ecumenists. I don't see your reasoning by not posting the links to Chris's video's that I posted in response to comments, after all, you opened this post with a video which was not made by you then commented on it

      Delete
  14. Also, the JTO e-mail is journeytoorthodoxy@gmail.com, should you want to communicate there.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nathan, I posted before finishing. Grrr! Autospeller on my android! I took the last post from "ekristosanesti", a gentleman on the forum orthodoxchristianity.net. He is a copy from Alexandria. You can also find out more by looking at the EOTC website at their creed and what they believe section.
    I wish i could say that I understood the Greek and Coptic languages that well, but my own talents in the kitchen far surpass my understanding of Christology. However, the goal of unity in the sense of correct ecumenism between the OO and EO churches is a strong priority for me. Try reading VC Samuel- Chalcedon Re.examined.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Uh oh! I lavished unwarranted praise. Now, you will have to feed me to make up for it. Great quote, though. Thanks for sharing it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. May the Lord make me worthy that I may be a cook in the kitchen at the Feast of Feasts, that I may fulfill that wish! Until then, please check out that book as I think it might clear up all this for you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon, I was trying to approve your comment and inadvertently deleted it. I am posting it here.

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Still Critical of the Copts?":

    No, that is not me in the video's. The Romanian man in them has several on this subject and clearly gives many reasons why the heretical churches known as "Oriental Orthodox" are not and can not be considered any more Orthodox than the Roman Papists and Protestant denominations can be called Orthodox. Coming from a Protestant and World Orthodox background you seem to have brought a lot of false ecumenical idea's with you. Not all Orthodox churches who use the Traditional "old calendar" are traditional Orthodox churches in practice, however it is safe to say every church that uses the new calendar is modernistic and run by ecumenists. I don't see your reasoning by not posting the links to Chris's video's that I posted in response to comments, after all, you opened this post with a video which was not made by you then commented on it

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon, Reasoned discourse might require you to eliminate unfounded statements such as "Coming from a Protestant and World Orthodox background you seem to have brought a lot of false ecumenical idea's with you." The topical discussion usually ends with such personal assessments and the rest is fruitless. The ONLY idea I have asserted here is that Copts are not Monophysites. How is that "a lot of false ecumenical ideas"? I am not in a World Orthodox church. I abhor ecumenism and have denounced World Orthodoxy and may get around to discussing that with Chef (for instance, I might take issue with the Copts "unifying" with EP since he does not believe that Christ is the only way to heaven. Why would the Copts unify with a heretic? At least the Copts are not heretical in that core truth.)Peruse the rest of my blog and come back. I will wait for the words, "I stand corrected." As for the videos? Posting links to numerous videos is not an appropriate use of this comment section. I have offered to post one You Tube Channel link where people might go and I will look at them. Sounds reasonable to me. I welcome your continued views if they are civil conversation-give and take. Also, Remaining anonymous detracts from your credibility in any blog conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just noticed this comment is directly to the left of my links about the dangers of ecumenism. Look to the right.

      Delete
  20. Anon and other Anons of the world: After 5 years of JTO blogging we have determined that allowing anonymous comment posting is not fair to others who identify themselves. It is also a temptation that allows the anonymous person to say things they might not otherwise say. As of this comment, JTO has eliminated the anonymous posting feature. We would love to hear from you in this and future discussions. Please consider acquiring one of the public profile options, suggested under the comment window, for future participation in the comment section. THANKS!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Couldn't the Copts simply end everything by accepting formally all the Councils that are contained in the Pedalion, and accepting all the anathemas contained in the Synodikon of Orthodox. If they really wish to end this, then, it can literally be ended in a very short time period.

    Personally, I have had nothing but good come to me from Coptic Christians; earlier last year, I had an horrible tooth ache. I went to the dentist, who was a Coptic doctor, and he pulled my tooth. When we tried to pay him the money, he consistently refused; even when regular visits were made, he never charged. Forgive me for saying this, but, on the contrary, but, such has not been my experience or that of others, with Greek doctors who professed to be Orthodox.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Father bless.
    Not that simple I'm afraid. Anathemas were passed on both sides towards saints and toward the latter councils themselves. To clear this up permanently, the OO'S would have to merely retract.the anathema against Pope St. Leo (I believe) while the EO's need to allow for acceptance of.the OO's to join because the 5 & 6 th councils were dealing primarily with local issues, not ecumenical ones. There is really no disagreement with the 5th, but the language in the 4th sounds Nestoria in Coptic. Also I have heard that they disagree with something in the way the language was used in the 6th. but I'm not clear on that one yet.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jonathon,

    Then we could not have an agreement. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and the Pedalion are binding upon Orthodox Christians. To even say the language in the 4th 'sounds Nestorian' is to continue to teach the opposite of what the Orthodox Church teaches.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Father, I disagree. To say that the 4th sounds Nestorian implies that there is a language barrier. I think you assume that Coptic and Greek are easily cross-translateable. However the Colts do not see it this way. Fortunately they look past the issue, utilizing our books for teaching their english speaking children and believe us when we tell them we do not condone Eutyches and maintain an unchanged faith. Should we offer them the same respect, I believe we would find ourselves United.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi, I hope I'm not intruding by posting so late to this discussion, but, out of honest curiosity about miaphysite Christology in general, I've made a blog where I plan on making running translations of Christological texts from various Coptic and Syriac authors. I've started with the 10th century bishop of Ashmunein, Severus ibn al-Muqaffa', the first major Coptic writer in Arabic: http://miaphysitism.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hello Samn!. You are not intruding. I think some are still engaged here. I went to the blog you referenced. Seems like a valuable tool to search out the truth on this matter. You are welcome to give your perspective here as well.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to JTO. The ability to comment is currently open to all. All comments are filtered prior to posting. Anonymous posters are asked to sign their comment with an identifying name (first name is okay) to prevent confusion in the discussion.