Are the Copts orthodox? Sunt Coptii ortodocsi?

Interview with father Athanasios Henein, former coptic monophysite priest converted to Orthodoxy. Father Athanasios was also the head of the Coptic Monophysite Community of Athens and all Greece and was close to the Coptic Patriarch Shenouda the 3rd. Currently, father Athanasios is an Archpriest in the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Piraeus.

Interviu cu parintele Athanasios Henein, fost preot copt monofisit convertit la Ortodoxie.
Parintele Athanasie a fost seful Comunitatii Monofisite Copte din Atena si din toata Grecia, apropiat al Patriarhului Copt Senuda al III-lea. In prezent, parintele Athanasie este Protoprezbiter in Mitropolia Ortodoxa a Pireului.

The heretical doctrines in the Coptic cult are not limited to Pope Shenouda. They date from Dioscorus, Severus and their early followers.
A good source for this matter is the book Εἶναι οἱ Ἀντιχαλκηδόνιοι ὀρθόδοξοι (Are the Anti-Chalcedonians Orthodox?) published by the Holy Monastery of Grigoriou, in the Holy Mountain Athos, in 1995, and containing various texts, either of the whole Community of the Holy Mountain, or of other Holy Mountain monks, regarding the Anti-Chalcedonians, their doctrine and the Orthodox position regarding them and the ecumenist “dialogue”. This book was written and originally published in Greek (it was translated in Romanian, in 2007, and published by the Evanghelismos Publishing House, the edition that I am using; I am unaware of translations in other languages).
The book lists numerous dogmatical mistakes of Severus of Antioch, e.g. in the chapter “A contribution to the inter-orthodox dialogue on the „orthodoxy” of the Anti-Chalcedonians”, point C: Dogmatical differences, pp. 69-100. Among numerous other heresies present in the miaphysite doctrine (they fill 31 pages…), Severus (quoted after Kahali Alemu, The Christology of Ethiopian anaphorals compared to the Chalcedon dogma, Thessaloniki, 1977, p. 105) says: „When we anathematize those that teach about the two natures of Emmanuel after the union, as well as about their actions (works) and properties, we do not condemn such people because they speak about natures or actions or properties, but because they say two natures after union and attribute actions and properties to each of them, dividing them between the two natures”.
Clearly here Severus teaches a non-orthodox view of not accepting “two natures after union” (i.e. not accepting the Orthodox dogma as upheld by Chalcedon), and teaches monothelitism and monoenergism (which are condemned by the VIth Ecumenical Council) as well.
Also, as observed by Saint Anastasios of Sinai and Saint John of Damascus, and confirmed by the Holy Mountanin fathers after analyzing the work of the Anti-Chalcedonian theologian V. C. Samuel, Severus follows the doctrine of partial essences (by which persons are partial essences, and which is also followed by Arius) – thus, in his acceptance as described by St. Anastasios of Sinai, “the one nature of Christ is composed of two partial essences and two halved hypostases” – a “composite nature” doctrine which is totally against Orthodoxy.
As discussed further in the book (pp. 109-117), the Christology of Severus, as it claims the two natures of Christ as somehow (imaginarily, say the Holy Mountain monks) distinct but yet at the same time united in a composite one, and is avowedly monothelitist and monoenergist, indeed does not appear to upheld the non-mingling of the natures of Christ when under logical scrutiny.
Thus, miaphysitism is explicitly monothelitist and monoenergist and (through the “composite nature” statements and the systematic rejection of the Chalcedonian formulation) implicitly monophysite despite the denial of “hard” Eutychian monophysitism.
Also, the position of the Anti-Chalcedonians in the ecumenist „dialogue” is that “one united divine-human nature in Christ” is an acceptable formulation, as mentioned in the First Common Statement at Anba Bishoy, 1989. In the Second Common Statement, at Chambesy, 1990, the Anti-Chalcedonians do not explicitly adopt the Fourth Ecumenical Council and all subsequent Ecumenical Councils, but make use of a devious formulation to make the Orthodox accept their rejection of these Councils. This shows that the “miaphysite” doctrine is heretical and opposes Orthodoxy, and the two Common Statements quoted above are not proofs of the Orthodoxy of the miaphysites but unacceptable dogmatic concessions by the participating Orthodox. It is not the Ecumenical Councils that had a terminological misunderstanding, it is the modern ecumenist “Orthodox” that do not understand or do not consider the implications of the terminology they adopt.
Copts wishing to express “an Orthodox phronema” should indeed explicitly reject all the doctrine of Dioscorus and Severus, and fully embrace the Orthodox teaching, that of all Ecumenical Councils.

Doctrinele eretice ale cultului copt nu sunt limitate la papa Shenouda. Ele datează de la Dioscor, Sever şi adepţii lor de la acea vreme.
O sursă bună în această privinţă este cartea Εἶναι οἱ Ἀντιχαλκηδόνιοι ὀρθόδοξοι (Sunt anticalcedonienii ortodocşi?) publicată de Sf. Mănăstire athonită Grigoriu în 1995, şi conţinând diverse texte ale Sfintei Comunităţi a Sfântului Munte şi ale altor părinţi athoniţi despre anticalcedonieni, doctrinal lor şi poziţia ortodoxă privindu-i pe aceştia şi „dialogul” ecumenist. Această carte, scrisă şi publicată original în greacă, a fost tradusă în română în 2007 şi publicată la editura Evanghelismos, ediţia pe care o folosesc; nu am cunoştinţă să fi fost tradusă în alte limbi.
Cartea listează numeroase erori dogmatice ale lui Sever de Antiohia, d. ex. în capitolul „O contribuţie la dialogul inter-ortodox asupra „ortodoxiei” anticalcedonienilor”, punctul C: Diferenţe dogmatice, pp. 69-100. Între multe alte erezii prezente în doctrina miafizită (ocupă 31 pagini…), Sever (citat după Kahali Alemu, The Christology of Ethiopian anaphorals compared to the Chalcedon dogma, Thessaloniki, 1977, p. 105) spune: „Atunci când anatematizăm pe cei care învaţă despre două firi ale lui Emanuel după unire, precum şi despre lucrările lor şi însuşirile lor, nu-i condamnăm pe unii ca aceştia pentru că vorbesc despre firi sau lucrări sau însuşiri, ci pentru că zic două firi după unire şi atribuie lucrările şi însuşirile fiecăreia dintre ele, împărţindu-le între cele două firi”.
În mod clar, aici Sever învaţă o perspectivă ne-ortodoxă, ce nu acceptă „două firi după unire” (adică nu acceptă dogma ortodoxă aşa cum e susţinută de Chalcedon), şi învaţă de asemenea monotelismul şi monoenergismul (ambele condamnate de al VIlea Sinod Ecumenicl).
De asemenea, după cum observă Sfinţii Anastasie Sinaitul şi Ioan Damaschinul, şi părinţii aghioriţi confirmă după analiza lucrării teologului anticalcedonian V. C. Samuel, Sever urmează doctrina esenţelor parţiale (după are persoanele sunt esenţe parţiale, urmată şi de Arie) – astfel, în accepţiunea lui, după cum o descrie Sf. Anastasie Sinaitul, „firea cea una a lui Hristos este alcătuită din două esenţe parţiale şi două ipostasuri înjumătăţite”, învăţătură ce ajunge la o „fire compusă” şi este total împotriva Ortodoxiei.
După cum se discută mai apoi în carte (pp. 109-117), hristologia lui Sever, ce susţine că cele două firi ale lui Hristos sunt cumva distincte (distincţia fiind imaginară, spun părinţii atoniţi) şi în acelaşi timp unite într-una compusă, şi este pe faţă monotelită şi monoenergistă, într-adevăr, la o analiză logică, nu apare ca susţinând neamestecarea firilor lui Hristos.
Astfel, miafizitismul este în mod explicit monotelit şi monoenergist şi (prin afirmaţiile despre „firea compusă” şi respingerea sistematică a formulării de la Chalcedon) în mod implicit monofizit, în pofida negării monofizitismului „pur” al lui Eutihie.
De asemenea, poziţia anticalcedonienilor în „dialogul” ecumenist este că „o natură divino-umană unită” este o formulare acceptabilă, după cum se menţionează în Prima Declaraţie Comună de la Anba Bishoy, 1989. În cea de-a doua Declaraţie Comună, de la Chambesy, 1990, anticalcedonienii nu adoptă în mod explicit Al IV-lea Sinod Ecumenic şi Sinoadele Ecumenice ulterioare, ci folosesc o formulare evazivă pentru a face pe ortodocşi să le accepte refuzul acestor Sinoade. Aceasta arată că doctrina „miafizită” este eretică şi se opune Ortodoxiei, iar cele două Declaraţii Comune citate mai sus nu dovedesc ortodoxia miafiziţilor ci concesiile dogmatice inacceptabile făcute de ortodocşii participanţi. Nu la Sinoadele Ecumenice a existat o problemă de neînţelegere terminologică, ci „ortodocşii” ecumenişti moderni nu înţeleg sau nu iau în considerare implicaţiile terminologiei pe care o adoptă.
Copţii care doresc să exprime „o înţelegere [phronema] ortodoxă” ar trebui, într-adevăr, să se lepede explicit de toate învăţăturile lui Dioscor şi Sever, şi să îmbrăţişeze deplin învăţătura ortodoxă, cea a tuturor Sinoadelor Ecumenice.
Alexandru Iftime

Anunțuri

54 comentarii

Din categoria Uncategorized

54 de răspunsuri la „Are the Copts orthodox? Sunt Coptii ortodocsi?

  1. Traducere? Nimic? Preferabil un transcript in romana. As vrea sa ii dau si duhovnicnului sa citeasca.

  2. For viewers wishing to be informed:

    Fr. Athanasios was excommunicated from the Coptic Orthodox Church a few years back. Since then, he has been redirecting his hurt feelings toward attacking the Coptic Orthodox Church through a smear campaign aimed at „informing” Byzantine Orthodox faithful to the „heresies” of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

    I’ve watched this video (as well as read his propaganda material) it’s full of falsehoods and half truths.

    What you will watch see in this interview is the sad scene of a petty and broken man, seeking revenge against the Coptic Orthodox Church.

    May God help and illumine the minds of those who live in darkness and seek to divide where they can unite.

    • inspite this, the Coptic Church did not accept the Calcedon Concile, so the coptic church is outside of the Church.
      If you read in greek or in roumanian you can understand that the copts are heretics to Sever of Antioch:

      Προς τον Μακαριώτατον Πατριάρχην Ρουμανίας κ.κ. Δανιήλ,
      και την Ιεράν Σύνοδον της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Ρουμανίας,
      Θέμα : H επίσημη αποδοχή από την Ιερά Σύνοδο της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Ρουμανίας (1994) των δύο (Β’ και Γ’) Κοινών Δηλώσεων του Σαμπεζύ (1990 και 1993) στο πλαίσιο του διαλόγου με τους Αντιχαλκηδονίους.
      Μακαριώτατε,
      O άγιος Απόστολος Παύλος μάς διδάσκει ότι όλοι οι Χριστιανοί είναι μέλη της Εκκλησίας του Χριστού και αποτελούν μαζί το Σώμα του Χριστού. Ως εκ τούτου, όταν υποφέρει ή κινδυνεύει ένα μέλος του Σώματος του Χριστού, φυσικό είναι να αντιδρούν όλα τα άλλα μέλη της Εκκλησίας του Χριστού, ως ένας ενιαίος ζωντανός οργανισμός. Επομένως, ως μέλος της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας, διά της παρούσης επιστολής, εκφράζω την ανησυχία μου σχετικά με ό,τι έχει υπογραφεί από την Ορθόδοξο Εκκλησία της Ρουμανίας ως τοπική παρουσία της Μιάς, Αγίας, Καθολικής και Αποστολικής Εκκλησίας, κατά την διάρκεια της συνεδρίασης της Ιεράς Συνόδου στις 8-9 Δεκεμβρίου 1994, διά του οποίου αναγνωρίζονται ως Ορθόδοξες οι Αντιχαλκηδόνιες «Εκκλησίες».
      Πιστεύω ότι θα έπρεπε να επανεξεταστεί αυτό το έγγραφο από την Ιερά Σύνοδο της Εκκλησίας της Ρουμανίας. Αναφέρω, επίσης, ότι σε καμία περίπτωση δεν είμαι εναντίον του θεολογικού διαλόγου με τους ετεροδόξους.
      Έχω δει δημοσιευμένες στην επίσημη ιστοσελίδα του Πατριαρχείου Ρουμανίας τις παρακάτω δηλώσεις και υποψιάζομαι ότι δεν έχουν ελεγχθεί αρμοδίως από τους θεολόγους. Ως εκ τούτου, ταπεινά υπογραμμίζω τα εξής :
      Κατά την επίσημη ιστοσελίδα του Πατριαρχείου Ρουμανίας, «Η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία της Ρουμανίας έχει κάνει ένα μεγάλο άνοιγμα προς αυτόν τον διάλογο. Έχει συμμετάσχει σχεδόν σε όλες τις επίσημες και ανεπίσημες συνεδριάσεις (εκτός από την Δ’ ανεπίσημη και τις Β’ και Γ’ επίσημες), διά των Σεβασμιωτάτου Μητροπολίτου κυρού Αντωνίου Πλαμαδεάλα (Antonie Plămădeală), κ. Νικολάου Κιτσέσκου (Nicolae Chițescu), στις ανεπίσημες συναντήσεις μεταξύ 1964 – 1970, μακαριστού αιδεσιμολογιωτάτου πρωτοπρεσβυτέρου π. Δημητρίου Στανιλοάε (Dumitru Stăniloae), στις ανεπίσημες συναντήσεις μεταξύ 1971 – 1979, αιδεσιμολογιωτάτου πρωτοπρεσβυτέρου π. Δημητρίου Ράδου (Dumitru Radu), στην πρώτη επίσημη συνάντηση του 1985, αιδεσιμολογιωτάτου πρωτοπρεσβυτέρου π. Νικολάου Νεκούλα (Nicolae Necula). Στην συνεδρίαση στις 8-9 Δεκεμβρίου 1994 της Ιεράς Συνόδου της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Ρουμανίας έχουν γίνει δεκτά επισήμως τα κείμενα των δύο (Β’ και Γ’) Κοινών Δηλώσεων (του Σαμπεζύ 1990 και 1993) . Ούτως, η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία της Ρουμανίας ήταν η πρώτη τοπική εκκλησία η οποία αποδέχτηκε επίσημα αυτόν τον διάλογο μετά το 1993».
      Φαίνεται ότι οι συνοδικοί, που υπέγραψαν τα συμπεράσματα του διαλόγου με τους Αντιχαλκηδονίους, προσήγγισαν επιπόλαια το έγγραφο, που υπέγραψαν : «Όταν μιλάμε για την μοναδική και σύνθετη υπόσταση του Κυρίου ημών Ιησού Χριστού, δεν εννοούμε ότι στον Χριστό ενώνονται μια θεία υπόσταση με μια ανθρώπινη υπόσταση. Εννοούμε ότι η μία και αιώνια υπόσταση του δευτέρου Προσώπου της αγίας Τριάδος ανέλαβε την ανθρώπινη μας κτιστή φύση με μια πράξη , που την ενώνει με την ίδια του άκτιστη θεία φύση, για να αποτελούν μαζί ένα αληθινό θεανθρώπινο ον , ενωμένο ἀδιαιρέτως και ἀσυγχύτως, ενώ οι φύσεις διακρίνονται μεταξύ τους μόνο στην θεωρία . … Αυτή η υπόσταση του δευτέρου Προσώπου της αγίας Τριάδος, εκ του Πατρός γεννήσασα προ πάντων των αιώνων, είναι εκείνη η οποία στις έσχατες ημέρες έγινε ένα ανθρώπινο ον και γεννήθηκε από την κεχαριτωμένη Παρθένο» .
      Η πρώτη διατύπωση, «μιλάμε για την μοναδική και σύνθετη υπόσταση του Κυρίου ημών Ιησού Χριστού», δεν είναι καθόλου σαφής και η επεξήγηση, που έπεται είναι ακόμα ασαφέστερη.
      Η διατύπωση, «οι φύσεις διακρίνονται μεταξύ τους μόνο στην θεωρία», θα μπορούσε να σημαίνει ότι οι φύσεις του Χριστού είναι μόνο θεωρητικές.
      Στην διατύπωση, «για να αποτελούν μαζί ένα αληθινό θεανθρώπινο ον», μπερδεύεται η έννοια «θεανθρώπινο ον » με την έννοια «θεανθρώπινη φύση», ακριβώς όπως στην αιρετική έκφραση θεανθρώπινη σύνθετη φύση του Σεβήρου Αντιοχείας.
      Η διατύπωση, «είναι εκείνη, η οποία στις έσχατες ημέρες έγινε ένα ανθρώπινο ον», πάλι είναι εναντίον της διδασκαλίας της Δ’ Οικουμενικής Συνόδου, διότι η υπόσταση του Υιού δεν «έγινε ένα ανθρώπινο ον», αλλά «ανέλαβε την ανθρώπινη φύση». Στο Σύμβολο Νικαίας – Κων/λεως δηλώνεται ότι ο Υιός σαρκώθηκε «εκ Πνεύματος Αγίου και Μαρίας της Παρθένου» και ενηνθρώπησε , όπου ο ελληνικός όρος «ενανθρωπήσαντα» θα μεταφραζόταν ακριβέστερα με τον «ενηνθρώπησε», δηλαδή «ανέλαβε ανθρώπινη φύση».
      Ο Σενούντα Γ’, στο βιβλίο του Φύση του Χριστού, μιλάει για μία φύση του Χριστού, σεβόμενος την γραμμή της αίρεσης του Σεβήρου. Σ’ αυτή την διατύπωση έγκειται η μιαφυσιτική αίρεση . Κατά τον Σενούντα, ο Χριστός έχει μόνο μία θεανθρώπινη φύση , επειδή ερμηνεύει λανθασμένα την έκφραση του αγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρείας, «μίαν φύσιν του Θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην » . Διατύπωση, η οποία, παρόλο που ανήκει σε ένα μεγάλο άγιο της Εκκλησίας, έχει αποφευχθεί από την Δ’ Οικουμενική Σύνοδο, ακριβώς για να μην υπάρχουν ασάφειες.
      Κατά την Ορθόδοξο διδασκαλία του αγίου Ιωάννου του Δαμασκηνού, που την εξέφρασε στο Έκδοσις ακριβὴς της Ορθοδόξου Πίστεως, (Πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας• Εἰ δύο φύσεων καὶ ἐνεργειῶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀνάγκη ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ τρεῖς φύσεις καὶ τοσαύτας λέγειν τὰς ἐνεργείας) , «Πᾶν γάρ, ὃ κοινῶς καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς θεωρεῖται, οὐ τινὶ μὲν πλέον, τινὶ δὲ ἔλαττον ὑπάρχον, οὐσία ὀνομάζεται». Ἐπεὶ οὖν πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐστι συντεθειμένος καὶ σώματος, κατὰ τοῦτο μία φύσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λέγεται. Ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ κυρίου οὐ λέγειν δυνάμεθα μίαν φύσιν• αἵ τε γὰρ φύσεις σῴζουσι καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἑκάστη τὴν φυσικὴν ἰδιότητα, καὶ εἶδος Χριστῶν οὐκ ἔστι εὑρεῖν. Οὐ γὰρ ἐγένετο ἄλλος Χριστὸς ἐκ θεότητός τε καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, θεός τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός” . Η ανθρώπινη φύση ενυποστασιάζεται στο Πρόσωπο του Υιού του Θεού, άρα η ανθρώπινη φύση του Χριστού δεν έχει την δική της υπόσταση.
      Κατά την Δ’ Οικουμενική Σύνοδο, η φράση του αγίου Κυρίλλου κατανοείται ως μία θεία φύση ενωμένη με την ανθρώπινη φύση, δηλαδή ως δύο φύσεις. Ο αγ. Ιωάννης ο Δαμασκηνός λέγει : ‘’ἡνωμέναι γὰρ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν καὶ ἐν ἀλλήλαις περιχωροῦσαι ἀσυγχύτως ἥνωνται τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλας μεταβολὴν οὐ δεξάμεναι, τὴν οἰκείαν ἑκάστῃ φυσικὴν διαφορὰν καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν διασῴζουσα” . Και αλλού λέγει : “Εἰ γὰρ μιᾶς φύσεως συνθέτου ὢν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ πατρί, ἔσται ἄρα καὶ ὁ πατὴρ σύνθετος καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ὁμοούσιος, ὅπερ ἄτοπον καὶ πάσης βλασφημίας ἀνάπλεον“ . Και ο άγιος Μάξιμος ο Ομολογητής λέγει : “Οὕτω τοίνυν, κάθα πρόκειται, πάσης συνθέτου ἐχούσης φύσεως, οὐκ ἄν τις τολμήσαιέ ποτε τῶν εὐσεβῶς περὶ τῶν θείων φρονεῖν ἐγνωκότων, μίαν εἶναι σύνθετον φύσιν εἰπεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν, ἵνα μὴ ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἱρμῷ τινι φυσικῷ καὶ ἀκολουθίᾳ τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν ἐξελόμενος, κτιστὸν ὅλον καὶ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, περιγραπτόν τε καὶ παθητόν, καὶ τῷ Πατρὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον, καὶ ἢ συναΐδιον τῷ Λόγῳ τὴν σάρκα, ἢ ὁμόχρονον τῇ σαρκὶ τὸν Λόγον ὄντα ὑποτιθέμενος (τοιοῦτος γὰρ ὁ πάσης συνθέτου φύσεως λόγος), φοβερῶν ἑαυτὸν καταστήσει ἐγκλημάτων ὑπεύθυνον” .
      Στο Μηναίο του Ιουλίου, τῇ Κυριακῇ τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων τῆς Δ’ Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου, τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνελθόντων, η ς’ Ωδὴ του κανόνος του Όρθρου λέγει : «Ὁ Κύριλλος τὸν Χριστόν, κηρύττει ἐν δύο φύσεσι, καὶ ἐνεργείαις διτταῖς, Σεβήρου τὴν αἵρεσιν, τοῦ ἄνου τρεπόμενος· διὸ πάντες τούτου, τοῖς διδάγμασιν ἐμμένομεν.».

      Η «άρση αναθεμάτων» έγινε εναντίον της Δ’ Οικουμενικής Συνόδου της Χαλκηδόνος
      «Η άρση του αναθέματος στο πλαίσιο του διαλόγου ανάμεσα στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία και την Ανατολική Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία βασίζεται στην Χριστολογική Κοινή Δήλωση του Σαμπεζύ (1989) και επιδιώκει την αναίρεση των εμποδίων ενόψει της πλήρους εκκλησιαστικής κοινωνίας» .
      Τίθεται η ειλικρινής ερώτηση : Γιατί οι Κόπτες, οι Συροϊακωβίτες και οι Αρμένιοι δεν αποδέχονται το δόγμα της Δ’ Οικουμενικής Συνόδου της Χαλκηδόνος;
      Η απάντηση βρίσκεται στο βιβλίο Φύση του Χριστού του Κόπτου πατριάρχου Σενούντα Γ’, στο οποίο δηλώνει σαφώς ότι εμείς οι Ορθόδοξοι είμαστε Νεστοριανοί αιρετικοί !
      «Μετά την αποδοχή της Χριστολογικής Κοινής Δήλωσης του Σαμπεζύ (1989), έπεται η λειτουργική συμφωνία. Αν και τώρα δεν υπάρχει δογματικός χωρισμός, η επίτευξη της πλήρους ενώσεως παραμένει μόνο ένα ιδανικό. Φαίνεται ότι οι Ανατολικές Ορθόδοξες Εκκλησίες δεν έχουν αρκετό θάρρος να αναγνωρίσουν ρητώς και πλήρως τις αποφάσεις της Δ’ Οικουμενικής Συνόδου, πιθανώς και δεδομένων των ιστορικών περιστάσεων, ενώ οι άλλες Ορθόδοξες Εκκλησίες αργούν την επίσημη επικύρωση του διαλόγου. Ο π. Νικόλαος Νεκούλα (Nicolae Necula) είναι μέλος της λειτουργικής υποεπιτροπής εκ μέρους της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Ρουμανίας» .
      Πόσο εύκολα αγνόησαν οι Ορθόδοξες επιτροπές την Δ’ Οικουμενική Σύνοδο της Χαλκηδόνος! Συγχρόνως παρατηρείται ότι η μονοφυσιτική μεριά (οι Κόπτες, οι Συροϊακωβίτες και οι Αρμένιοι) αποδείχτηκε σοβαρότερη στην αιρετική της προσέγγιση του διαλόγου και θαυμαστή κιόλας διότι, παρόλο που η Ορθόδοξη μεριά βιάστηκε να «άρη το ανάθεμα» από τους καταδικασμένους από την Σύνοδο της Χαλκηδόνος αιρετικούς, οι Κόπτες δήλωσαν ότι αυτό δεν ισχύει αμοιβαίως, δηλαδή οι Μονοφυσίτες δεν θα «άρουν το ανάθεμα» από τους αγίους πατέρες της Δ’ Οικ. Συν. της Χαλκηδόνος! Και να θέλανε οι Μονοφυσίτες να «άρουν το ανάθεμα» το πρόβλημα παραμένει, διότι το δικό τους ανάθεμα δεν ισχύει ούτως ή άλλως• εξάλλου το ανάθεμα των Μονοφυσιτών διαβεβαιώνει ότι εμείς έχουμε άλλη χριστολογία από αυτούς. Όμως, δεν ισχύει ούτε η από τους Ορθοδόξους άρση του αναθέματος επί των Μονοφυσιτών. Η ενδεχόμενη άρση των αναθεμάτων των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων επί των Μονοφυσιτών ή οποιωνδήποτε ετεροδόξων γίνεται μόνο διά της αποδοχής της ορθοδόξου διδασκαλίας της Εκκλησίας και όχι διά μιας μαγικής άρσης των αναθεμάτων, δίχως καμία δογματική βάση. Το βιβλίο του μονοφυσίτου πατριάρχου Σενούντα Γ’ παραμένει σημείο αναφοράς για τους Ορθοδόξους, για να καταλάβουμε ότι δεν έχουμε τίποτα κοινό με τους Μονοφυσίτες και ότι δεν πρόκειται για απλή ορολογιακή παρεξήγηση ή παρανόηση.
      Η Ιερά Σύνοδος της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Σερβίας έχει εγκρίνει ως επίσημο έγγραφό της το βιβλίο Πρόσωπο και Φύση (Personne et Nature) του κ. Jean-Claude Larchet, κείμενο πολύ καλά τεκμηριωμένο, το οποίο αποδεικνύει πατρολογικά το ότι οι αντιχαλκηδόνιοι παραμένουν ετερόδοξοι.
      Συμπερασματικά πιστεύω ότι ήρθε η ώρα να επανεξεταστεί από την Ιερά Σύνοδο της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Ρουμανίας το έγγραφο, που έχει εγκριθεί επίσημα στις 8-9 Δεκεμβρίου 1994, εξ αιτίας του οποίου και η ίδια η τοπική Εκκλησία της Ρουμανίας τηρουμένων των αναλογιών τίθεται υπό το ανάθεμα της Δ’ Οικουμενικής Συνόδου της Χαλκηδόνος και των επομένων Οικουμενικών Συνόδων.
      Επειδή γνωρίζω ότι Σας χαρακτηρίζει η αγάπη και ο ζήλος για την Ορθόδοξη πίστη, ταπεινά εκζητώ την πατριαρχική Σας ευλογία και ευχή.
      Ασπάζομαι την δεξιά Σας,
      π. Ματθαίος Βουλκανέσκου (Matei Vulcănescu),
      Πρεσβύτερος στην Ιερά Μητρόπολη Βεροίας, Ναούσης και Καμπανίας

  3. În atenția Preafericitului Părinte Patriarh Daniel și a Sfântului Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, în problema acceptării oficiale de către Biserica Ortodoxă Română (1994) a celor două declarații comune de la Chambesy (1990 și 1993) în cadrul dialogului cu necalcedonienii.

    Preafericite Părinte Patriarh Daniel,
    Sfântul Apostol Pavel ne spune că fiecare dintre noi suntem mădulare ale Trupului lui Hristos, de aceea atunci cand un mădular suferă sau este în oarece pericol, este normal ca celelalte mădulare ale Trupului lui Hristos să reacționeze, ca într-un singur organism viu. Din același motiv, ca unul ce sunt mădular al Bisercii Ortodoxe îmi exprim îngrijorarea referitor la ceea ce a semnat Biserica Ortodoxă Română ca ipostas local al Bisericii Ortodoxe Sobornicești, în Sfântul Sinod din 8-9 decembrie 1994, prin care se recunosc “Bisericile necalcedoniene” ca Ortodoxe.
    Cred că acest act adoptat în Sinod ar trebui reanalizat. In nici un caz nu sunt impotriva dialogului teolgic cu eterodocsii .
    Am văzut publicate pe site-ul oficial al Patriarhiei Române declarațiile de mai jos și mă gândesc la faptul că poate nu au fost verificate de teologi avizați. De aceea, cu smerenie vă atrag atenția :
    Conform site-ului oficial al Patriarhiei Române:
    “Biserica Ortodoxă Română a dovedit o mare deschidere față de acest dialog. A fost prezenta la aproape toate intrunirile neoficiale si oficiale (fara a IV-a neoficiala si a II-a si a III-a oficiala), prin prof. dr. Nicolae Chitescu, pr.prof.dr. Dumitru Radu, I.P.S. dr. Antonie Plamadeala, pr. prof. dr. Dumitru Staniloae si pr. prof. dr. Nicolae Necula.
    In sedinta Sfantului Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane, din 8-9 decembrie 1994, s-au acceptat in mod oficial textele celor doua declaratii comune. Astfel, Biserica Ortodoxa Romana a fost prima Biserica, care a aprobat oficial acest dialog dupa 1993.”
    Se pare ca cei care au adoptat aceste concluzii ale dialogului cu necalcedonienii, nu au fost deloc atenți la ceea ce au semnat:
    „Atunci cand vorbim despre ipostasul unic și compus al Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos, nu vrem să spunem ca în el se unesc un ipostas divin cu unul uman. Vrem să spunem că unul și veșnicul ipostas al celei de-a doua Persoane a Treimii și-a asumat omenitatea noastră, a naturii create, printr-un act care-l uneste cu propria sa natura dumnezeiască necreată, pentru a forma o adevarată ființă divino-umană , unită în mod nedespărțit și neamestecat, naturile deosebindu-se una de alta, doar prin contemplare” . „Acest ipostas al Celei de-a doua Persoane a Sfintei Treimi, născut mai inainte de toți vecii, din Tatăl, este acela care în zilele de pe urmă a devenit o ființă umană și s-a născut din Prea Sfânta Fecioara Maria. ” http://www.patriarhia.ro/ro/relatii_externe/dialog_intercrestin_1.html
    Prima formulare: “vorbim despre ipostasul unic si compus al Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos” nu este deloc clara, iar explicitatarea care urmeaza este si mai ambigua.
    Formularea “naturile deosebindu-se una de alta, doar prin contemplare” ar putea insemna ca firile (naturile) in Hristos sunt doar teoretice.
    In formularea “pentru a forma o adevarata fiinta divino-umana” se confunda notiunea “fiinta divino-umana” cu notiunea “fire divino-umana”, exact ca in formula ereticului Sever de Antiohia, anume fire compusa divino-umana.
    Formularea “este Acela care in zilele de pe urma a devenit o fiinta umana“ este iarasi impotriva invataturii Sinodului IV Ecumenic, pentru ca ipostasul Fiului nu “a devenit o fiinta umana” ci “si-a impropriat firea umana”. In Simbolul Niceo Constantinopolitan se spune ca Fiul ” S-a intrupat de la Duhul Sfant si din Maria Fecioara si S-a facut om” – termenul grecesc “ενανθρωπησαντα”, care s-ar traduce mai exact cu “S-a inomenit” adica “a luat firea umana“.
    Senuda al III-lea, in cartea sa “Firea lui Hristos“, vorbeste despre o fire a lui Hristos, mergand pe linia ereziei lui Sever. In aceasta nuanta consta erezia miafizita. Conform lui Senuda, Hristos are o singura fire divino-umană , interpretand eronat ceea ce spune Sfantul Chiril al Alexandriei: “o fire a Cuvantului întrupată ” . Formulare care, desi apartine unui mare Sfant al Bisericii, a fost evitată a se folosi de catre Sinodul IV Ecumenic, tocmai ca sa nu existe ambiguitati.
    Conform invataturii ortodoxe exprimate de Sfantul Ioan Damaschin in Dogmatica, Capitolul XVI (Catre cei ce spun:Daca omul are doua firi si doua activitati, este necesar ca Hristos sa aiba trei firi si tot atatea activitati ): “Tot ceea ce este comun si se observa in multi, fara ca sa fie in unul mai mult, iar in altul mai putin, se numeste fiinta. Prin urmare, pentru acest motiv, se zice o singura fire a oamenilor, pentru ca orice om este compus din suflet si corp. Despre ipostasa Domnului insa, nu putem spune o singura fire, caci fiecare din firi pastreaza, si dupa unire, insusirea fireasca si nu este cu putinta sa gasim o specie Hristos. N-a fost un alt Hristos, din Dumnezeire si omenire, acelasi si Dumnezeu si om.”
    Firea umana este enipostaziata in Persoana Fiului lui Dumnezeu, deci nu se poate vorbi de un ipostas propriu al firii umane.
    In cheia Sinodului de la Calcedon, fraza Sfantului Chiril poate fi inteleasa astfel:o fire dumnezeiasca unita cu natura umana, adica doua firi. Sfantul Ioan Damaschin in Dogmatica, III, capitolul 8 spune : Deoarece (firile) sunt unite dupa ipostas si au intrepatruderea reciproca, sunt unite fara amestecare, pastradu-si fiecare propria sa deosebire naturala.” iar in capitolul 3 spune: “Daca Hristos ar fi dintr-o singura fire compusa, si daca este deofiinta cu Tatal, atunci va fi si Tatal compus si deofiinta cu trupul, lucru absurd si plin de toata blasfemia“ . Iar Sfantul Maxim Marturisitorul spune: “nu este ingaduit a se spune ca Hristos e o fire compusa, pentru ca ar insemna ca si Trupul lui Hristos e de o varsta cu dumnezeirea” (Sf Maxim Marturisitorul, Epistola catre Ioan Cubicularul…Impotriva lui Sever, PSB81, p85-86) .
    In Minei, la Slujba Sfintilor Parinti celor din Calcedon, la Utrenie, cantarea 6 scrie: Chiril pe Hristos propovaduieste in doua firi, si in doua lucrari, eresul lui Sever celui fara de minte biruind”.
    Impotriva Sinodului IV Calcedon au fost “ridicate anatemele”
    „Ridicarea anatemei in contextul dialogului dintre Biserica Ortodoxa si Biserica Orientala Ortodoxa este bazata pe Declaratia hristologica comuna de la Chambésy si urmareste inlaturarea obstacolelor in vederea comuniunii eclesiale depline”. Intrebarea sincera este: De ce coptii, siroiacobitii si armenii nu accepta formularea Sinodului IV Ecumenic de la Calcedon?
    Raspunsul il gasim in cartea “Firea lui Hristos” a patriarhului copt Senuda al III-lea, in care se spune negru pe alb ca ca noi ortodcsii suntem eretici nestorieni!
    “Odata acceptat acordul comun privind hristologia, urmeaza acordul comun liturgic. Desi acum nu exista o separatie dogmatica, realizarea deplinei comuniuni ramane un ideal. Se pare ca Bisericile Orientale Ortodoxe nu au suficient curaj in a recunoaste categoric si deplin hotararile Sinodului al IV-lea ecumenic, probabil si imprejurarilor istorice date, iar celelalte Biserici Ortodoxe intarzie ratificarea oficiala a dialogului. In subcomisia liturgica este numit din partea Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane pr.prof.dr. Nicolae Necula.”
    Ce usor au trecut comisiile ortodoxe peste Sinodul IV Ecumenic de la Calcedon! Observăm totodată ca partea miafizita (coptii, armenii si sirienii) a fost mult mai serioasa în abordarea ei eretică, si chiar de admirat, pentru ca, desi partea ortodoxa s-a grabit sa “ridice anatemele” de pe ereticii condamnati de Calcedon, coptii au spus ca nu poate fi valabila si reciprocă, anume ca miafizitii nu vor ridica anatemele asupra Sfintilor Parinti de la Calcedon! Chiar daca miafizitii ar vrea să “ridice anatema” problema ramane, pentru ca anatema emisa de ei impotriva ortodocsilor este o anatema invalida (ea nu face decat sa confirme, din partea miafizitilor, ca avem alta hristologie decat ei). Insa si ridicarea anatemei contra miafizitilor de catre ortodocsi este invalida. Iesirea eventuala a miafizitilor sau a altor eterodocsi de sub anatema Sinoadelor Ecumenice se face prin primirea invataturii ortodoxe, nu prin ridicarea magica a anatemelor, fara suport dogmatic.”Cartea patriarhului miafizit Senuda rămâne ca reper pentru noi ortodocșii, ca să înțelegem că nu avem nimic în comun cu miafiziții, și nu e vorba de nici o neînțelegere terminologică.
    Sinodul Bisericii Ortodoxe a Serbiei a adoptat ca act oficial cartea domnului Jean-Claude Larchet, “Personne et Nature”, text foarte bine documentat în care se demonstrează patristc faptul că necalcedonienii sunt în continuare eterodocși.
    În urma celor expuse mai sus cred ca ar fi cazul ca Biserica Ortodoxă Română să reanalizeze documentul acceptat oficial în 8-9 decembrie 1994, prin care se pune într-o anumită măsură sub anatema Sinodului IV Calcedon și a următoarelor Sinoade Ecumenice.
    Pentru că știu că vă anima dragostea si ravna pentru credinta ortodoxa îndrăznesc să vă cer cu smerenie binecuvântarea patriarhală și rugaciunea.
    Cu fiască supunere, preot Matei Vulcănescu
    Cleric in Mitropolia Veriei, Nausei si Campaniei

  4. Metropolitan Bishoy, may God soften his heart, is a Coptic Metropolitan who is a stubborn man, a man who is filled with hatred, and deals with situations by suspending haphazardly without proper investigation. This was one of those cases. Similar cases include Dr. George Bebawi, Dr. Mina Hani Mikhail, Fr. Matta al Maskeen, a few other priests, and two bishops. Metropolitan Bishoy is a dictator, an ignoramus, and a fool. He thinks he knows theology, but continues to teach rubbish.

    Fr. Athanasius fell under the victimization of Metropolitan Bishoy. Every once in a while, the victims of Metropolitan Bishoy are becoming to have a soft spot in the hearts of Coptic people, who admire their love and courage of teaching Orthodoxy and keeping their allegiance to the Coptic Church and her saints. Unfortunately, Fr. Athanasius was one of those people who in being victimized decided to distort the situation he went through. He did not leave the Coptic Church because of Monophysitism. He pleaded after suspension by Metropolitan Bishoy to rejoin the Church. Now, tell me dear friends of this website, is it intellectually honest to accept the testimony of a person who was victimized seeking vengeance on the Coptic Church?

    You decide. I’ve done enough research on Coptic theology in history. And I can say with confidence there is nothing heretical in Severus of Antioch. He is word-for-word the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

    • will take a while to translate my letter in english that will hepl for better understanding that the Sever is heretic, he talk about the third nature, the Nature of Christ, like a superman, This is the heresy of Sever, he made a hybrid, a mixt nature of Christ. St Cyril talk about two natures and say: One nature for God the Logos, incarnated. (the divine nature is incarnated) in greek is more comprehensive- the divine nature is incarnated, that is means two nature: Divine and Human-that preached the IV Ecumenical Concile of Calcedon, that anatematized the Sever and his teaching of one nature-divine-human. Sever interpreted in a wrong way the frase of Saint Cyril.

      • I’m very well read of St. Severus, and I’ve read many scholarly studies of him. There’s no such theology of St. Severus. St. Severus very clearly teaches the full humanity and full divinity of Christ, each nature preserving its respective properties, energies and wills. He calls Christ „one incarnate nature”, where divinity and humanity is united without confusion, without alteration, without division, and without separation. This „superman” Christology is a misinterpretation. If you notice the interview you did with Fr. Athanasios, he talks about Dioscorus’ „stubbornness”. He is unable to prove to you any heresy he or Severus taught, because he knows very well they are Orthodox. He does a good job criticizing Pope Shenouda and Metropolitan Bishoy. That’s like saying the Greek Orthodox Church is Calvinist because of Patriarch Cyril Lukaris. It is a very twisted and dishonest logic. The Coptic Church is not Pope Shenouda.

        What is amusing about these videos is that Fr. Athanasios makes a lot of intellectually dishonest arguments, concerning the Coptic tradition of iconography, the tradition of deification, the Islamic Christology (which is an Ebionite/Gnostic Christology and has NOTHING to do with Nestorianism or Monophysitism), women in the Coptic Church, the Roman Catholic/Oriental Orthodox dialogue, etc. If you do the research, this interview you did with Fr. Athanasios is actually an embarrassment to your credibility. Fr. Athanasios is a desperate man, looking to „fit in”.

        I look forward to your „translation”. Which letter or writing from Severus did you get it from?

      • Jesus Christ is one Person made known in two natures, Hi is not one nature like the Sever say.
        The Sever misunderstand the Sf Kiril, and the formula of St Kiril is not represent the formula of the orthodoxia. The formula of the Orthodoxia is formulated in the IV Ecumenic Concile of Calcedon
        that the Coptic Church denigrate and do not accept. St Ioan Damaschin(Mansur) explain that Christ is not a new nature, In His Person united the divine nature with the human nature- this is the orthodoxia. And the Sever formula is a missinterpretation of the orthodox Dogma that lead Sever to heresy, and he is out of the Church.
        I talked with Fr. Athanasios and he said he did not ask to rejoin the Coptic Church. After the excommunication of Fr. Anthanasios, the Copts of Athens whom he served for 15 years wanted to know the reason of his excommunication and went to meet pope Shenouda in America and the people where confident that the pope will give to fr. Atanasios the blessing to rejoin the Church, but, they were shocked that the pope could do antthing, for the reason that the excommunication of Athanasios had political implications. The regime of Shenouda cooperated with the corrupted regime of Mubarak who dismissed Athanasios from the Coptic Church. Why? Because fr. Athanasios was an orthodox theologian in thinking who struggled for the revival of the Coptic national language of Egypt and this was not accepted by Mubarak and Shenuda. Athanasios was excommunicated because he defended the Coptic human rights and he wanted the Copts to come back to the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Calcedon, that meant the return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the Greek Orthodox Church. This is the real reason of the tragedy of fr. Athanasios.

  5. That is incredible. Your fifth ecumenical council allowed the Cyrillian language of „one nature” so long as it is interpreted in an Orthodox fashion. Now you are accusing Cyril of Monophysitism. That is incredible coming from you! It shows how we cannot take you seriously. „Mia Physis” is just as acceptable, and Severus only repeated what St. Cyril taught. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, John of Damascus criticized the use of the body-soul analogy for the natures of Christ, the same analogy used by St. Cyril. Your tradition actually criticized the theology of St. Cyril.

    Fr. Athanasios is not delusional. Pope Shenouda was not against the Coptic language. If anything, he encourages it. Ever heard of Fr. Shenouda Maher? He prefers to speak only Coptic if possible. Fr. Athanasios is just like Pope Shenouda. Both have high egos, and when you have two high egos and not one humble man, you have nothing but division. Pope Shenouda cooperating with Mubarak makes as much sense as the Russian Church cooperating with Putin. Give me a break. Who are you going to believe? Don’t waste your time with Fr. Athanasios’ delusions. I know many Coptic priests in California who teach deification/theosis, who teach proper iconographical theology, who consecrate female chanters in the Church, and who encourage the Patristic Orthodox tradition that Metropolitan Bishoy failed to accomplish. Your Fr. Athanasios is a liar. He gives you half truths. Pope Shenouda may have been a Cyril Lukaris, but the Coptic Church does have an Orthodox phromena, something that Fr. Athanasios lacked. He has an egotistical phromena, like Pope Shenouda before him.

  6. “The Lord Jesus Christ is God Himself, the Incarnate Logos. Who took to Himself a perfect manhood. His Divine nature is one with his human nature yet without mingling, confusion or alteration; a complete Hypostatic Union. Words are inadequate to describe this union. […] 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” (Shenouda III, “The Nature of Christ”, The Orthodox Concept Regarding the Nature Of Christ).

    If that is not the synthesis, the very essence of myaphisitism, the heresy speaking about ONE NATURE in Christ, „but” „without mingling, a.s.o”, DIFFERENT from the Orthodox Chalcedonian teaching: One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures …then, what is it?! Publicly confessed by the head of the Coptic Church.

    I know about the so-called missunderstandings, St. Cyril’s text a.s.o. Still, ONE (as it stayed, till nowadays, in Coptic teaching) and TWO (as it stayed in Orthodox teaching) are very easy to understand and uneasy to be confounded, and, definitely, DIFFERENT.

    Domnul Iisus Hristos este Insusi Dumnezeu, Cuvantul Intrupat. Care a luat o deplina omenitate. Firea Sa Divina este una cu firea sa omeneasca, insa fara de amestecare, fara a se confunda si fara schimbare; o completa unire Ipostatica. Cuvintele nu pot descrie aceasta unire. […] Ca rezultat al unirii celor doua naturi- Divina si omeneasca- in pantecele Fecioarei, S-A FORMAT O NATURA [fire], DIN CELE DOUA: „natura lui Dumnezeu Cuvantul intrupat”, cum a numit-o Sf. Chiril. (Shenouda III, “The Nature of Christ”, The Orthodox Concept Regarding the Nature Of Christ).

    Daca aceasta nu este sinteza insesi a miafizitismului, erezia care vorbeste despre O NATURA [fire], in Hristos, „dar” „fara amestecare, etc.”…atunci, ce este?! Marturisita public, de catre capul bisericii copte.

    Stiu- asa-zise neintelegeri, textul Sf. Chiril, etc. Totusi, UNA (asa cum a ramas, pana in ziua de azi, in invatatura copta) si DOUA (asa cum a ramas in cea ortodoxa) sunt termeni usor de priceput, greu de confundat si, cu siguranta, DIFERITI.

  7. Alexandru Iftime

    The heretical doctrines in the Coptic cult are not limited to Pope Shenouda. They date from Dioscorus, Severus and their early followers.
    A good source for this matter is the book Εἶναι οἱ Ἀντιχαλκηδόνιοι ὀρθόδοξοι (Are the Anti-Chalcedonians Orthodox?) published by the Holy Monastery of Grigoriou, in the Holy Mountain Athos, in 1995, and containing various texts, either of the whole Community of the Holy Mountain, or of other Holy Mountain monks, regarding the Anti-Chalcedonians, their doctrine and the Orthodox position regarding them and the ecumenist “dialogue”. This book was written and originally published in Greek (it was translated in Romanian, in 2007, and published by the Evanghelismos Publishing House, the edition that I am using; I am unaware of translations in other languages).
    The book lists numerous dogmatical mistakes of Severus of Antioch, e.g. in the chapter “A contribution to the inter-orthodox dialogue on the „orthodoxy” of the Anti-Chalcedonians”, point C: Dogmatical differences, pp. 69-100. Among numerous other heresies present in the miaphysite doctrine (they fill 31 pages…), Severus (quoted after Kahali Alemu, The Christology of Ethiopian anaphorals compared to the Chalcedon dogma, Thessaloniki, 1977, p. 105) says: „When we anathematize those that teach about the two natures of Emmanuel after the union, as well as about their actions (works) and properties, we do not condemn such people because they speak about natures or actions or properties, but because they say two natures after union and attribute actions and properties to each of them, dividing them between the two natures”.
    Clearly here Severus teaches a non-orthodox view of not accepting “two natures after union” (i.e. not accepting the Orthodox dogma as upheld by Chalcedon), and teaches monothelitism and monoenergism (which are condemned by the VIth Ecumenical Council) as well.
    Also, as observed by Saint Anastasios of Sinai and Saint John of Damascus, and confirmed by the Holy Mountanin fathers after analyzing the work of the Anti-Chalcedonian theologian V. C. Samuel, Severus follows the doctrine of partial essences (by which persons are partial essences, and which is also followed by Arius) – thus, in his acceptance as described by St. Anastasios of Sinai, “the one nature of Christ is composed of two partial essences and two halved hypostases” – a “composite nature” doctrine which is totally against Orthodoxy.
    As discussed further in the book (pp. 109-117), the Christology of Severus, as it claims the two natures of Christ as somehow (imaginarily, say the Holy Mountain monks) distinct but yet at the same time united in a composite one, and is avowedly monothelitist and monoenergist, indeed does not appear to upheld the non-mingling of the natures of Christ when under logical scrutiny.
    Thus, miaphysitism is explicitly monothelitist and monoenergist and (through the “composite nature” statements and the systematic rejection of the Chalcedonian formulation) implicitly monophysite despite the denial of “hard” Eutychian monophysitism.
    Also, the position of the Anti-Chalcedonians in the ecumenist „dialogue” is that “one united divine-human nature in Christ” is an acceptable formulation, as mentioned in the First Common Statement at Anba Bishoy, 1989. In the Second Common Statement, at Chambesy, 1990, the Anti-Chalcedonians do not explicitly adopt the Fourth Ecumenical Council and all subsequent Ecumenical Councils, but make use of a devious formulation to make the Orthodox accept their rejection of these Councils. This shows that the “miaphysite” doctrine is heretical and opposes Orthodoxy, and the two Common Statements quoted above are not proofs of the Orthodoxy of the miaphysites but unacceptable dogmatic concessions by the participating Orthodox. It is not the Ecumenical Councils that had a terminological misunderstanding, it is the modern ecumenist “Orthodox” that do not understand or do not consider the implications of the terminology they adopt.
    Copts wishing to express “an Orthodox phronema” should indeed explicitly reject all the doctrine of Dioscorus and Severus, and fully embrace the Orthodox teaching, that of all Ecumenical Councils.

    Doctrinele eretice ale cultului copt nu sunt limitate la papa Shenouda. Ele datează de la Dioscor, Sever şi adepţii lor de la acea vreme.
    O sursă bună în această privinţă este cartea Εἶναι οἱ Ἀντιχαλκηδόνιοι ὀρθόδοξοι (Sunt anticalcedonienii ortodocşi?) publicată de Sf. Mănăstire athonită Grigoriu în 1995, şi conţinând diverse texte ale Sfintei Comunităţi a Sfântului Munte şi ale altor părinţi athoniţi despre anticalcedonieni, doctrinal lor şi poziţia ortodoxă privindu-i pe aceştia şi „dialogul” ecumenist. Această carte, scrisă şi publicată original în greacă, a fost tradusă în română în 2007 şi publicată la editura Evanghelismos, ediţia pe care o folosesc; nu am cunoştinţă să fi fost tradusă în alte limbi.
    Cartea listează numeroase erori dogmatice ale lui Sever de Antiohia, d. ex. în capitolul „O contribuţie la dialogul inter-ortodox asupra „ortodoxiei” anticalcedonienilor”, punctul C: Diferenţe dogmatice, pp. 69-100. Între multe alte erezii prezente în doctrina miafizită (ocupă 31 pagini…), Sever (citat după Kahali Alemu, The Christology of Ethiopian anaphorals compared to the Chalcedon dogma, Thessaloniki, 1977, p. 105) spune: „Atunci când anatematizăm pe cei care învaţă despre două firi ale lui Emanuel după unire, precum şi despre lucrările lor şi însuşirile lor, nu-i condamnăm pe unii ca aceştia pentru că vorbesc despre firi sau lucrări sau însuşiri, ci pentru că zic două firi după unire şi atribuie lucrările şi însuşirile fiecăreia dintre ele, împărţindu-le între cele două firi”.
    În mod clar, aici Sever învaţă o perspectivă ne-ortodoxă, ce nu acceptă „două firi după unire” (adică nu acceptă dogma ortodoxă aşa cum e susţinută de Chalcedon), şi învaţă de asemenea monotelismul şi monoenergismul (ambele condamnate de al VIlea Sinod Ecumenicl).
    De asemenea, după cum observă Sfinţii Anastasie Sinaitul şi Ioan Damaschinul, şi părinţii aghioriţi confirmă după analiza lucrării teologului anticalcedonian V. C. Samuel, Sever urmează doctrina esenţelor parţiale (după are persoanele sunt esenţe parţiale, urmată şi de Arie) – astfel, în accepţiunea lui, după cum o descrie Sf. Anastasie Sinaitul, „firea cea una a lui Hristos este alcătuită din două esenţe parţiale şi două ipostasuri înjumătăţite”, învăţătură ce ajunge la o „fire compusă” şi este total împotriva Ortodoxiei.
    După cum se discută mai apoi în carte (pp. 109-117), hristologia lui Sever, ce susţine că cele două firi ale lui Hristos sunt cumva distincte (distincţia fiind imaginară, spun părinţii atoniţi) şi în acelaşi timp unite într-una compusă, şi este pe faţă monotelită şi monoenergistă, într-adevăr, la o analiză logică, nu apare ca susţinând neamestecarea firilor lui Hristos.
    Astfel, miafizitismul este în mod explicit monotelit şi monoenergist şi (prin afirmaţiile despre „firea compusă” şi respingerea sistematică a formulării de la Chalcedon) în mod implicit monofizit, în pofida negării monofizitismului „pur” al lui Eutihie.
    De asemenea, poziţia anticalcedonienilor în „dialogul” ecumenist este că „o natură divino-umană unită” este o formulare acceptabilă, după cum se menţionează în Prima Declaraţie Comună de la Anba Bishoy, 1989. În cea de-a doua Declaraţie Comună, de la Chambesy, 1990, anticalcedonienii nu adoptă în mod explicit Al IV-lea Sinod Ecumenic şi Sinoadele Ecumenice ulterioare, ci folosesc o formulare evazivă pentru a face pe ortodocşi să le accepte refuzul acestor Sinoade. Aceasta arată că doctrina „miafizită” este eretică şi se opune Ortodoxiei, iar cele două Declaraţii Comune citate mai sus nu dovedesc ortodoxia miafiziţilor ci concesiile dogmatice inacceptabile făcute de ortodocşii participanţi. Nu la Sinoadele Ecumenice a existat o problemă de neînţelegere terminologică, ci „ortodocşii” ecumenişti moderni nu înţeleg sau nu iau în considerare implicaţiile terminologiei pe care o adoptă.
    Copţii care doresc să exprime „o înţelegere [phronema] ortodoxă” ar trebui, într-adevăr, să se lepede explicit de toate învăţăturile lui Dioscor şi Sever, şi să îmbrăţişeze deplin învăţătura ortodoxă, cea a tuturor Sinoadelor Ecumenice.

  8. Ioan C.

    Doamne ajută,
    Cu ajutorul Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos şi al Maicii Sale
    S-a definitivat studiul biblic ortodox “Taina Nunţii (Căsătoria) în Sfânta Scriptură”, ultimul definitivat din seria Celor şapte Sfinte Taine:
    http://binevestitorul.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/taina-nuntii-casatoria-in-sfanta-scriptura/

  9. Are the Antichalcedonians(Coptic-Ethiopians -Armenians -Syrojacobites)really ,theologically and historically Orthodox ?

    by the Archimandrite Gregorios Kapsanis

    The Abbot of Saint Gregorios monastery

    Mount Athos -Greece

    In his article „Orthodoxy and heresy of the Anti-Chalcedonians „(periodical Theologia ,vol.75.2.2005 ),Professor G.Marzelos argues that Anti-Chalcedonians have Orthodox doctrinal teaching „ideological Orthodoxy”,because their Christology does not differ essentially from this of St.Cyril of Alexandria.Despite this ,always according to prof. Martzelos , they are heretics because they have separated themselves from the Church by rejecting the Definition (Horos) of the Synod of Chalcedon(451) , they do not possess „ecclessiological Orthodoxy „.

    Prof.Marzelos supports his views with the claim that with the expression „they were separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of that document approved at Chalcedon. (see De Heresibus 83),St.John the Damascene reveals their dogmatic identity as heretics ,where as with the expression”in all other respect they are orthodox”(ibid) he recognises that in everything else and in their Christological teaching ,they are Orthodox.He attempts to certify their orthodoxy by calling upon the witness of theologians ,such as Prof.John Karmiris and Prof. Father John Romanides ,in addition to interpretations of historical and dogmatic facts. Namely a) that Dioscorus of Alexandria has not been desposed for dogmatic reasons , as Anatolius of Constantinople has declared , b)that the exclamations of the bishops , by which they anathematised Dioscorus,do not constitute a decision of the Synod ,c)that the (Robber) Synod held by Dioscorus in 449 of Ephesus was not recognised as heretical by the Fathers of Chalcedon ,d)that Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch have , in their writings ,rejected verbatim the confusion , blending and mixture of the natures of Christ.(συγχυσισ -ανακρασισ-φυρμοσ).

    Thus , when St. John the Damascene ascribes these terms to their Christology , he is acting as Prof. G. Martzelos claims , pastorally and not laying claim dogmatic exactitude , such as would be expected of contemporary acadenic analysis of the texts of the heresiarchs .Like wise he claims that the recognitionof an „ideological Orthodox” in the Anti-Chalcedonians is supported by the fact that other heretics,such as the Hiketae and the Autoproskoptae have been characterised by St. John the Damascene as „in all other respects Orthodox”He considers the eccclesiological criterion , by which the Church cuts off the heretics from her body ,to be so important as to leave the holy Fathers indifferent to whether the heretics have orthodox or heterodox dogmatic teaching !Finally he concludes that because the Anti-Chalcedonians possess an ideological orthodoxy and lack only an ecclesiological orthodoxy ,within the framework of the theological dialogue with them , we must,nt seek anything more more than to accept the 4 th ,5th , 6th , 7th , Oecomenical Synods .For , thus is the dogmatic cause which provoked their separation from the Orthodox Church lifted and the basic and necessary presuppostion for their reunion with her created.

    We have provided a response to prof. G.Martzelos theory because his proposal that „the Anti-CHalceonians to accept the Oecoumenical Synods ” ,even if correct and praiseworthy per se ,without accepting their dogmatic decisions conceals a danger for the unity of the Church .At the outset we observed that the recognition of an „ideological Orthodoxy” among the Anti-Chacedonians only goes to confirm the Conclusions of the Theological dialogue (1985-1993),which a great majority of the faithful has not accepted .Subsequently , we presented the following reasons why this theory is not consumed with the patristic and synodal tradition :

    a) The dogmatic identity of the Anti-Chalcedonians is determined by the entire anti-Severian (Anti-monophysite) collection of writing of saint John the Damascene ,the Church Fathers and Oecoumenical Synods but not only by the short excerpt „they were separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of that document (approved ) at Chalcedon ,where as in all other respect they are orthodox „.St. Anastasius of Sinai and John the Damascene refer to them as Monophysites and provide , in their extend treatises, the dogmatic meaning of this term .St. Maximus the Confessor developed an unprecedented line of argumentation by which he makes clear the heretical character of the Severian Chritology.

    b)When interpreted having as a rule the patristic , synodal , and liturgical tradition , the excerpt in question testifies to the heretical Christology of the Anti-Chalcedonians.The phrase „in all other aspects”, by which St.John of Damascene describes in what way they are orthodox ,refers to issues not pertaining to Christology .The judgement that the Severian Christology is a distortation of Saint Cyril,s Christology is based upon the patristic tradition itself.

    c)The published opinions of Prof.John Karmiris and Father John Romanidis regarding the orthodoxy of the Anti-Chalcedonians were a result of an early enthusiasm which soon thereafter gave way to positions of serious questions and much deliberation.

    d)The assertion that Dioscorus expressed an orthodox Christology ,since was not deposed for dogmatic reasons , according to St. Anatolius words , is shown to be unfounded ,St.Anatolius statement was arbitrary ,as is attested to the minutes of the Synod and by the way in which these minutes were understood by subsequent fathers.Likewise the claim that Dioscorus expressed an Orthodox Christology because the phrase „from two natures „is supposedly dogmatically equivalent to the phrase”:in two natures”is also lacking support.The phrse „from two natures „, even if orthodox in itself . if it is not combined with the phrase „from two natures „,cannot ensure there won,t be a deviation of the Christological outlook into that which is called Severian Christology .Although the initial definition (Horos) contained the phrase „from two natures „and was persistently characterised by the bishops of the Synod as orthodox,it did not possess the dogmatic fullness which the final Definition acquired with the phrase „in two nature s”.

    C)The exclamations of the bishops , by which they anathematised Dioscorus , expressed the Catholic mindset of the Church , since all of Fathers expreesed themselves in onenness of heart not just a few or even many bishops.

    f)The „Robber ” Synod was heretical ,for it bypassed the Exposition of Renconciliation of saint Cyril and affirmed the heretical statement of Eytyches „two natures before the union, one nature after the union”.

    g)The term blending ,confusion,and mixture which are ascribed to Anti-Chalcedonians , are theologically accurate , for these terms are the normal consequences of the Severian Christology,s one composite nature ,in Christ .These are not pastoral terms which supposedly could be used in a way that is dogmatically impresise.The Holy Fathers have even used these terms in Confessions of Faith which undoutedly require precision.The term „without confusion” are employed by Severus of Antioch in the framework of a confession of the one composite nature , does not ensure the unconfused union of the natures.

    h)Disoscorus and Severus have been condemened for particular dogmatic teachings ,such that it is impossible for them to be included among the aftermentioned schismatic – heretics,

    By showing that Prof. G. Marzelos theory is erronous ,one may rightly conclude that in order for the union of Anti-Chalcedonians with the Church to occur which is consistent with the Orthodox Ecclesiology ,they must accept the 4th ,5th,6th,7th Oecoumenical Synods together with all that this acceptance involves i.e

    a)they must renounce the Severian Chrsitology

    b)They must accept the condemnations of the heresiarchs Dioscorus and Severus ,C)they must cesse ecclesiastical communion with all those who remain attached to their Anti-Chalcedonian mindset .This approach is in agreement with the experience of the Church gained f rom past union trials which were unsuccessful, as well as those which were successful im achieving unity > Among the latter are those which were made by St. Photios the Great. Any approach to union which would ignore the after mentioned elementary requiremments ,in the name of Oikonomia , will only be harmful to the Church.

  10. Pingback: VIDEO: sunt copții ortodocși? Interviu cu părintele Athanasios Henein, fost preot copt monofizit, convertit la Ortodoxie - † APOLOGETICUM: Ortodoxie, neam şi ţarㆠAPOLOGETICUM: Ortodoxie, neam şi ţară

  11. What do you say of these quotes:

    Quote number 1:

    And so, we unite the Word of God the Father to the holy flesh endowed with a rational soul, in an ineffable way that transcends understanding, without confusion, without change, and without alteration, and we thereby confess One Son, and Christ, and Lord; the same one God and man, not someone alongside someone different, but one and the same who is and is known to be both things. For this reason he sometimes speaks economically as man, in human fashion; and at other times, as God, he makes statements with divine authority. It is our contention that if we carefully examine the manner of the economy in the flesh and attentively investigate the mystery, we shall see that the Word of God the Father was made man and made flesh but did not fashion that sacred body from his own divine nature, but rather took it from the virgin. How else could he become man except by putting on the human body? As I have said, if we understand the manner of the incarnation we shall see that two natures come together with one another, without confusion or change, in an indivisible union. The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God; and similarly the Word is God and not flesh even if he made the flesh his very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of6 two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated: One Incarnate Nature of The Word.

    As to the manner of the incarnation of the Only Begotten, then theoretically speaking (but only in so far as it appears to the eyes of the soul) we would admit that there are two united natures but only One Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God made man and made flesh. If you like we can take as our example that very composition which makes us men. For we are composed of body and soul and we perceive two natures; there is one nature of the body, and a different nature of the soul, and yet one man from both of them in terms of the union. This composition from two natures does not turn the one man into two, but as I have said there is one man by the composition of body and soul. If we deny that there is one single Christ from two different natures, being indivisible after the union, then the enemies of orthodoxy will ask: ‘If the entirety amounts to one nature then how was he incarnated or what kind of flesh did he make his own?’

    Quote number 2:

    They also said the following: ‘If there is one incarnate nature of the Word then it absolutely follows that there must have been a mixture and confusion, with the human nature in him being diminished or ‘stolen away’ as it were. Once again those who twist the truth are unaware that in fact there is but one incarnate nature of the Word. The Word was ineffably bom from God the Father and then came forth as man from a woman after having assumed flesh, not soulless but rationally animated flesh; and if it is the case that he is in nature and in truth one single Son, then he cannot be divided into two personas or two sons, but has remained one, though he is no longer fleshless or outside the body but now possesses his very own body in an indissoluble union. How could saying this possibly imply that there was any consequent necessity of mixture or confusion or anything else like this? For if we say that the Only Begotten Son of God, who was incarnate and became man, is One, then this does not mean as they would suppose that he has been ‘mixed’ or that the nature of the Word has been transformed into the nature of flesh, or that of the flesh into the Word’s. No, each nature is understood to remain in all its natural characteristics for the reasons we have just given, though they are ineffably and inexpressibly united, and this is how he demonstrated to us the one nature of the Son; though of course, as I have said, it is the ‘incarnate nature’ I mean. The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. So, those who say that if there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, then it necessarily follows that there must have been a mixture or confusion with the human nature being diminished or ‘stolen away’, are talking rubbish. It has neither been reduced nor stolen away, as they say. To say that he is incarnate is sufficient for a perfectly clear indication of the fact that he became man. And if we had kept silent on this point there might have been some ground for their calumny, but since we add of necessity the fact that he has been incarnated then how can there be any form of ‘diminution’ or ‘stealing away’?

    • „As to the manner of the incarnation of the Only Begotten, then theoretically speaking (but only in so far as it appears to the eyes of the soul) we would admit that there are two united natures but only One Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God made man and made flesh. If you like we can take as our example that very composition which makes us men. For we are composed of body and soul and we perceive two natures; ”

      „he term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition.”
      Christ is one Person in two natures, two wills, two energies.

      • Mina

        You didn’t answer the question. What do you think of the quotes I posted? You just required them and answered with an obvious statement they clearly anyone with a sense of knowledge would expect you to believe. But that’s not an answer to my question that you are avoiding.

      • Mina

        You didn’t answer the question. What do you think of the quotes I posted? You just REQUOTED (correction from last post which had „required”) them and answered with an obvious statement they clearly anyone with a sense of knowledge would expect you to believe. But that’s not an answer to my question that you are avoiding.

    • Alexandru Iftime

      These quotes are from St. Cyril. How should his formulation be interpreted has been clarified long ago by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Chapters VIII-IX. Severus did not preach the Orthodox interpretation agreed by the Vth Ecumenical Council. His followers, including the „miaphysites” of today, still reject Councils IV, V, VI etc. – and are not Orthodox.
      Father Mathaios has already explained why the formulation of St Cyril is not monophysite/severianist, and implies two natures (and one hypostasis) after union. However, Severus rejected and condemned the formulation of „two natures after union”. He and his followers also have other heretical teachings, see my previous post.

      Aceste citate sunt din Sf. Chiril. Cum trebuie interpretată formularea sa a fost clarificat demult, de către al V-lea Sinod Ecumenic, capitolele VIII-IX. Sever nu a predicat interpretarea ortodoxă agreată de al V-lea Sinod Ecumenic. Următorii săi, inclusiv „miafiziţii” de azi, continuă să respingă Sinoadele ecumenice IV, V, VI etc. – şi nu sunt ortodocşi.
      Pr Matei a explicat deja de ce formularea Sf. Chiril nu este monofizită/severianistă, şi implică două firi (şi un ipostas) după unire. Însă Sever respinge şi condamnă formularea „două firi după unire”. El şi următorii săi au şi alte învăţături eretice, vezi postarea mea anterioară.

      • Mina

        „We do not wrong the concurrence into unity when we say that came into being from two natures; but after the union we do not separate the natures from each other not do we sever the one and indisivible into two sons, but we say one Son and, as the fathers have said, one incarnate nature of the Word.”

        St. Cyril NEVER said two natures after the union. Severus stayed true to that. In fact, the first person who confessed that there was no confusion or mixture was Dioscorus himself at Chalcedon:

        If Chalcedon didn’t give a tacit approval to the letter of Ibas of Mari, which pretty much said that St Cyril „repented” from „his error” in saying one nature, maybe „two nature after the union” would have been discussed and perhaps found acceptable within Orthodox grounds.

        Severus died much before the 5th council was convened. Justinian decided to beat up Pope Vigilius to a pulp in order to force him to accept the terms of the 5th council. As the Endemousa Synod exclaimed in condemning Eutyches, „faith under compulsion is not faith.”

        Any honest researcher would clearly see that just because a phrase is rejected doesn’t make someone heretical. If you wish to apply this judgment, you have condemned Leo of Rome and his representatives for rejecting Cyrillian phraseology, and supporting the letter of Ibas of Mari.

  12. Is the question about what did St. Cyrill say? [or not, as there is also another interpretation (namely the Orthodox one) to his words- that he spoke not about “one” “united” nature but about the divine nature of the Son, incarnated] Or is it about what synods decided, and not a single person, saint or no saint? And, isn’t it, finally, about the intrinsic God-given logic of Christian faith? – As St. Maximus the Confessor explained, such being as the Coptic (severian) “christ”, of only “one nature” couldn’t have saved anyone, as salvation required two conditions- the Saviour to be simultaneously of the same essence with God AND of the same essence with man. The strange severian hybrid with no place in existence either as God, OR man is useless, with respect to salvation. This is as obvious as the fact that TWO is DIFFERENT from ONE.

    Se pune problema ce a spus Sf. Chiril? [sau n-a spus, având în vedere că există şi altă interpretare, şi anume cea ortodoxă, a cuvintelor sale, cum că a vorbit nu despre „o fire”, „unită”, ci despre firea dumnezeiască a Fiului, întrupat(ă)]. Sau, se pune problema ce au decis sinoade, nu indivizi, fie aceştia şi sfinţi? Iar într-un final, nu cumva este vorba despre logica intrinsecă, de Dumnezeu dată, a credinţei creştine? – După cum explică Sf. Maxim Mărturisitorul, o asemenea fiinţă precum „hristosul” coptic (severian), de o singură fire, nu ar fi putut mântui pe nimeni, din moment ce mântuirea cerea îndeplinirea a două condiţii, ca Mântuitorul să fie, simultan, deofiinţă cu Dumnezeu ŞI deofiinţă cu omul. Straniul hibrid severian, fără de loc în existenţă, nici ca Dumnezeu, nici ca om, este inutil, sub aspectul capacităţii de a mântui pe om. Acest fapt este la fel de evident precum acela că DOI este DIFERIT de UNU.

    • Mina

      Clearly you know nothing about St. Cyril. As I quoted, „one” was used as a synthesis, not the divine nature. If that is what Fr. Athanasios is teaching you, then he needs to go to the doctor to rule out a stroke from his reading comprehension.

      • In Greek the phrase of St Cyril is „μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη (not σεσαρκωμένου)” that means “One Nature of God Logos incarnated”(the Nature is incarnated) not „the One Nature of the incarnate Logos” You must learn ancient Greek. (This is the teaching of St Cyril not of fr Athanasios)

      • Mina

        Read this again:

        „The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. So, those who say that if there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, then it necessarily follows that there must have been a mixture or confusion with the human nature being diminished or ‘stolen away’, are talking rubbish. It has neither been reduced nor stolen away, as they say. To say that he is incarnate is sufficient for a perfectly clear indication of the fact that he became man. And if we had kept silent on this point there might have been some ground for their calumny, but since we add of necessity the fact that he has been incarnated then how can there be any form of ‘diminution’ or ‘stealing away’?”

        Tell me, when human soul and human body is „one human nature”, which nature is St. Cyril talking about in his analogy? The body ensouled or the soul embodied? Clearly the use of the analogy contradicts your interpretation.

      • We do not have the species Jesus Christ! no synthesis, Christ is God and Human! He is not synthesis of God and Human!
        We have the human nature, but not „the Christ nature”!

      • Mina

        When St. Cyril confesses the oneness of Christ as a synthesis, that doesn’t mean there’s a new species. You now align yourself with the heretical Ibas of Mari who made the same accusation against St. Cyril.

        The Coptic Orthodox Church confesses thus in her liturgy, a text added in the 11th century:

        „Amen! Amen! Amen! I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breathe that this is the life-giving flesh of Your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior, Jesus Christ. He made it ONE with His divinity WITHOUT MINGLING, WITHOUT CONFUSION, and WITHOUT ALTERATION. He took from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the Holy Virgin Theotokos St. Mary. He witnessed the good the confession before Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was buried, and on the 3rd day rose from the dead, ascended to the heavens, and is sitting at Your right hand, oh Father. Truly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity neither for a single moment not 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 is is very truth. Amen!”

        There is no new species. Stop making straw men arguments. May God forgive you for bearing false witness against our fathers.

  13. And maybe we all need to mind our business instead of talking to people whose arguments consist in deliberately eliminating any other viewpoint than theirs, and not by demonstration but… by default. I guess this is it. It was already clear (and at a historical level) that if heretics would have been inclined to admitting their problems and applying sound reasoning (instead of stuborness, I mean, not that they are unable to reason, stupid a.s.o.) they would have become Orthodox long ago. Farewell, Mina, and Lord have mercy.

    • How do you know you’re not the heretic for your continued stubbornness and bearing false witness against those who did not confess the heresy you are accusing them of?

  14. Alexandru Iftime

    Mina says:
    “We do not wrong the concurrence into unity when we say that came into being from two natures; but after the union we do not separate the natures from each other not do we sever the one and indisivible into two sons, but we say one Son and, as the fathers have said, one incarnate nature of the Word.”
    St. Cyril NEVER said two natures after the union.”
    Let us look again: „but after the union we do not separate the NATURES from each other not do we sever the one and indisivible into two sons”
    If St Cyril used the plural, „natures”, then he said and meant two natures after the union.
    And further he elaborates that they are not separated from each other, or Christ divisible into two sons (persons) i.e. he condemns nestorianism.
    Therefore, TWO natures but ONE person, i.e. hypostatic union – the dogma of Chalcedon and subsequent Orthodox Ecumenical synods. Why this is correct was also argued above by oiftime.
    St Cyril was Orthodox in thought, but Severus and his followers denaturate this and try to make him seem heretic.
    As for „one incarnate nature…” see postings by Father Mathaios and oiftime. Things are clear.
    Mina also says „maybe “two nature after the union” would have been discussed and perhaps found acceptable within Orthodox grounds.”
    Actually „two natures after union” is accepted by the Orthodox. But what he calls orthodox in that phrase is not Orthodoxy, The Orthodox Church is that which accepts ALL Ecumenical Synods, including Chalcedon and subsequent ones, up to the IXth.
    Copts do not accept this – whatever, this is their choice. But we cannot defer from stating the truth, just because some disagree. This disagreement in itself proves that we are not the same, and Copts are not Orthodox. QED, I might say.

    • „In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one.” (Select Letters 48)

      „But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the Son and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man.” (That Christ is One)

      And Severus of Antioch writes:

      „Know then, mighty man, (for I now return to make answer) that for us to anathematize those who speak of properties of NATURES (I mean the Godhead and the manhood of which the one Christ consists) is not permissible. Flesh does not renounce its existence as flesh, even if it has become God’s flesh, nor has the Word departed from his nature, even if he has been hypostatically united to flesh which possesses a rational and intelligent soul: but the difference also is |5 preserved, and the propriety in the form of natural characteristics of the natures of which Emmanuel consists, since the flesh was not converted into the nature of the Word, nor was the Word changed into flesh.” (Letter to Oecumenus)

      Sounds like according to your concern, by your twisted interpretation, Severus of Antioch implies „two natures after the union”. But if you want to be honest with yourself, either Severus says this, or Cyril doesn’t. So be scholarly honest, rather than choose to call someone a heretic that says the same thing St. Cyril says.

      Meanwhile, it’s very clear where Chalcedon sides with:

      „161. Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see, said through Paschasinus: ‘Now that the documents have been read, we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops that the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox. We therefore decree that both the honour of the episcopate and the church from which he was unjustly ejected in his absence should be restored to him. As for the most holy Bishop Nonnus who occupied his place for a short time, it is for the most devout bishop of the church of Antioch to decide what ought to be decreed about the matter.’

      162. Anatolius the most devout bishop of Constantinople Rome said: ‘The good faith of the most God-beloved bishops who sat in judgement and the reading of all the accompanying material prove the most devout Ibas innocent of the accusations brought against him. Therefore I shall now put aside all suspicion of him, since he has agreed and subscribed to the definition concerning the faith now issued by the holy council and to the letter of the most sacred Leo archbishop of Rome; and I judge him worthy of the episcopate and to take charge of the church where he was previously. As for the most devout Bishop Nonnus, the most devout Maximus bishop of Antioch will issue a decree.’

      163. Maximus the most devout bishop of the city of Antioch said: ‘From what has just been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be orthodox. I therefore decree that he is to recover the dignity of the episcopate and his own city, as has been resolved by the most sacred archbishops representing the most sacred Archbishop Leo and by the most sacred Anatolius archbishop of the imperial city. Clearly the most God-beloved Bishop Nonnus who replaced him should retain the same dignity of the episcopate so that I with the most God-beloved bishops of the diocese may come to a decision about him.’”

      So you have Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch, 3 great sees, who read the letter of Ibas to Mari, and in the minutes of Chalcedon, declared it Orthodox. In this letter, it is written:

      „Meanwhile Cyril, in his desire to refute the tracts of Nestorius, slipped up and was found falling into the teaching of Apollinarius: for like him he also wrote that the very God the Word became man in such a way that there is no distinction between the temple and the one who dwells in it. He wrote the Twelve Chapters, as I think your religiousness knows, asserting that there is one nature of the Godhead and the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it is wrong, he said, to divide the sayings that were uttered, whether those spoken by the Lord about himself or by the evangelists about him.

      they had also proclaimed and confirmed the Twelve Chapters composed by Cyril, which are contrary to the true faith

      One of these was the blessed Theodore, the herald of the truth and teacher of the church, who not only in his lifetime compelled the heretics to accept his true faith but also after his death bequeathed to the children of the church a spiritual weapon in his writings, as your religiousness discovered from meeting him and became convinced on the basis of his writings. But the one of limitless effrontery had the effrontery to anathematize publicly in church the man who, out of zeal for God, not only converted his own city from error to the truth but also instructed far distant churches by his teaching.”

      How do you expect men of good conscience to accept a council that found a heretical letter that condemned St. Cyril’s 12 Anathemas and hailed Theodore of Mopsuestia a „herald of the truth and teacher of the church” to be guiltless of heresy???!!! Those who find that Ibas was guiltless of heresy based on a heretical letter who would then go on to say that „two natures after the union” should be confessed, and not anyone, but ROME, CONSTANTINOPLE, AND ANTIOCH, how can any man of good conscience not find this letter heretical at Chalcedon? I read the letters of Chalcedon. I am confident my church fathers were justified in their condemnation while maintaining an Orthodox Christology consistent with St. Cyril and against the heresies of Theodore of Mopsuestia who Chalcedon praised.

      „I am fully aware, having been educated in the Faith, respecting Him (Christ) that He was born of the Father, as God, and that the Same was born of Mary, as Man. Men saw Him as Man walking on the Earth and they saw Him, the Creator of the Heavenly Hosts, as God. They saw Him sleeping in the ship, as Man, and they saw Him walking upon the waters, as God. They saw Him hungry, as Man, and they saw Him feeding (others), as God. They saw Him thirsty, as Man, and they saw Him giving drink, as God. They saw Him stoned by the Jews, as Man, and they saw Him worshipped by the Angels, as God. They saw Him tempted, as Man, and they saw Him drive away the Devils, as God. And similarly of many (other) things. But in order not to make much din (trouble) in writing, I will leave the matter for the purpose of collecting testimonies of everyone of the heads together; and I mean to collect them, by the help of God, when a convenient opportunity bids me to it.”

      Letter of Dioscorus to the monks of the Hennaton

      May the Lord have mercy on your souls who bear false witness against Orthodox men

      • Alexandru Iftime

        „The natures, however, which combined unto this union were different, but from the two together is one God the Son, without the diversity of the natures being destroyed by the union. For a union of two natures was made, and therefore we confess One Christ, One Son, One Lord.” St Cyril, Homily 1 to Luke 2: 4-8.
        „It was not as though the distinctness of the natures was destroyed by the union, but divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together marvellously and mysteriously combining to form a unity. So he who existed and was begotten of the Father before all ages is also said to have been begotten according to the flesh of a woman… If, however, we reject the hypostatic union as being either impossible or too unlovely for the Word, we fall into the fallacy of speaking of two sons.” St Cyril, Epist. II ad Nestorium.

        Clearly the Christology of St Cyril is complex. Clearly also, he does not deny (let alone condemn) „two natures after union”, although he may occasionally appear to say otherwise (why, it is a lengthy discussion – he stresses the divine nature of the Son), but suffice to say that as seen above he accepts the formula of hypostatic union: TWO natures, ONE person.
        Contrarily, Severus explicitly condemns those who use this formulation – see my first posting. In your quote he only speaks of the properties of the natures after union, not of two natures after union. The difference is major.

        As for Chalcedon, it also condemns the Nestorians. It is less important how the Council got to its final formula, the discussions, controversies etc. It is important whether that formula is dogmatically correct. And it is, as demonstrated by St Maximus the Confessor (see postings by oiftime on this thread). The Chalcedon formula does not distort the representation of Christ and therefore does not lead people to worship a false christ, as the Nestorianist and Severianist perspectives do.

      • Alexandru Iftime

        The letter of Ibas, later condemned by the Vth Ecumenical Council, was not accepted as Orthodox by the Chalcedon council.
        „The condemnation of the Three Chapters in 553 was not therefore an undermining of the work of Chalcedon, as the (largely western) defenders of the Chapters claimed: it was rather the clarification of the doctrinal work of Chalcedon by correcting a major source of ambiguity” – The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated with an introduction and notes by R. Price and M. Gaddis. p. 273, and the probable source for your quotations.
        The discussion is lengthy, but see note 19 on p. 271, which also contains the following: „Harder to explain away were the verdicts of two of the senior bishops at Chalcedon, the papal legate Paschasinus and Maximus of Antioch (161, 163), who cited the Letter to Mari as evidence of Ibas’ orthodoxy, a fact appealed to in defence of Ibas in around 550 by both Facundus, Defence of the Three Chapters 5.1.1–5, and Pope Vigilius, First Constitutum, PL 69. 105. It was argued NOT UNREASONABLY at the Council of Constantinople of 553 that these two verdicts did not express the mind of the majority (ACO 4.1 p. 145).”
        Also, the acts of Chalcedon speak respectfully about St. Cyril and his teaching, not as if they accepted the famous letter.

        So, with the Vth Ecumenical Council stating it, and also modern analysts stating the same thing, it would remain no doubt that the letter of Ibas was not accepted as Orthodox at Chalcedon.

      • Truly indeed, Christ speaks wisdom in his condemnation against hypocrites:

        „Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”

        Severus is very clear humanity and divinity are unconfused elements in Christ, but you continue to search for differences when there are none. You call St. Cyril’s christology „complicated” and Severus’ „wrong”.

        „You see that we must also confess the difference between the natures from which the one Christ is, and avoid the cutting into two, and extol one Son and Christ, and one incarnate nature of God the Word. ” Severus of Antioch to Maron

      • Alexandru Iftime

        Severus says „the natures FROM which the one Christ is”. This is NOT admitting two natures after the union. It’s the formulation „from two natures” (which is also compatible with the Eutychian heretic formula „two natures before the union, one nature after the union”) instead of the dogmatically fuller formula „in two natures”. (Re)read Fr. Mathaios’ older posting on this, quoting Archimandrite Gr. Kapsanis, points d) and f).
        Severus says he ANATHEMATIZES those teaching about two natures after the union, remember?

        As I see it, this discussion is starting to turn circular, as we revert to facts already discussed and clarified.

      • Mina

        Same argument can be made about „in two natures”. It is a phrase used by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the same church father the representatives of Leo extolled.

        St. Cyril always used the phrase „ek duo physein”.

      • Archmandrite Gregorios’ article you posted proved nothing. It made assertions that some of the arguments made were unfounded. For instance, the idea that Archbishop Anatolius was trying to show that „ek duo physein” used by Dioscorus was not heretical. What is amazing about the article of the good Archmandrite is the assertion that the Formula of Reunion of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch was rejected by Dioscorus and Ephesus 449 (so-called „Robber Council”). That is not true at all. The Formula of Reunion used „ek duo physein”, which is the same phrase Dioscorus used.

        The fact that the legates of Leo rejected the Cyrillian phrase comes to show how ignorant the men were. Earlier I proved to you these same men who caused such a nuisance to remove „ek duo physein” from the definition also claimed to have read the letter of Ibas to Mari and claimed it as Orthodox. Whether or not this was done sincerely, one still has to show that such unwise actions from the men who represented Pope Leo of Rome was tantamount to the whole council being questioned in its sincerity. Lip service to St. Cyril of Alexandria does not suffice (if it did, you wouldn’t call us heretics). Condemning Nestorius but praising Theodore of Mopsuestia indirectly from a heretical letter proclaimed Orthodox in Ibas does not suffice. The use of „en duo physein”, a phrase not used in the Formula of Reunion does not suffice. What happened in Chalcedon was not a council of reconciliation of theological schools, but a council with a vendetta. Years later, the anti-Chalcedonians brought together 500+ bishops in Ephesus in the year 475 AD presided by Timothy Aelurus, successor of Dioscorus, and they did a couple of things:

        1. They reaffirmed Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus 431 as Orthodox and binding councils
        2. They stated that Ephesus 449 confirmed those 3 faithfully
        3. They anathematized Eutyches and anyone who confesses mixture, confusion, or alteration of either the divinity or humanity of Christ
        4. They anathematized the Tome of Leo and C/halcedon as insufficient to confess a Christology that protects against the supporters of Theodore of Mopsuestia

        The fact that the 5th Ecumenical council happened to condemn the 3 Chapters and to make clear that many phrases can be used to confess an Orthodox Christology is a good development, but it only proves that it was held to fix the problems Chalcedon created, not as a continuance of Orthodoxy. The fact that the letter of Ibas to Mari was declared Orthodox only proved that the council had a mixture of Orthodox and semi-Nestorian men, and not a pure defense against the heretics.

        Many Chalcedonians find it convenient for them to completely ignore this important part of the minutes of Chalcedon at the first session:

        Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture.’

        I leave you with another quote by Dioscorus of Alexandria, written while in exile in Gangra:

        „I am fully aware, having been educated in the Faith, respecting Him (Christ) that He was born of the Father, as God, and that the Same was born of Mary, as Man. Men saw Him as Man walking on the Earth and they saw Him, the Creator of the Heavenly Hosts, as God. They saw Him sleeping in the ship, as Man, and they saw Him walking upon the waters, as God. They saw Him hungry, as Man, and they saw Him feeding (others), as God. They saw Him thirsty, as Man, and they saw Him giving drink, as God. They saw Him stoned by the Jews, as Man, and they saw Him worshipped by the Angels, as God. They saw Him tempted, as Man, and they saw Him drive away the Devils, as God. And similarly of many (other) things. But in order not to make much din (trouble) in writing, I will leave the matter for the purpose of collecting testimonies of everyone of the heads together; and I mean to collect them, by the help of God, when a convenient opportunity bids me to it.”

        May the Lord have mercy on those who bear false witness against anyone. Anatolius of Constantinople spoke wisely in Chalcedon, it wasn’t for faith that Dioscorus was opposed. To which I will personally add, it was Roman Papal malice that Dioscorus was deposed.

      • Alexandru Iftime

        1. The point is, as Archimandrite Gregorios actually shows, that Severus and Dioscorus do not accept the hypostatic union formulation (TWO natures after union, ONE person in Christ). St Cyril used „from two natures” but as shown by what I quoted he meant two natures after union, not one. In fact, St Cyril also said „Christ is one in both natures and from both natures” (Letter 53 to Pope Sixtus of Rome).
        St Cyril wrote before Chalcedon. The Fathers at Chalcedon later rejected „from two natures” because it leaves place for the Eutychian heresy, as I told you above. St Cyril’s thinking is in harmony with Chalcedon, because in what he taught he never rejected what the Chalcedon Fathers later approved.
        The Robber Council in Ephesus 449 was before Chalcedon 451 when „from two natures” was rejected. The Robber Council approved of Eutyches and proclaimed one nature after union, which is heretical.
        2. The Council at Chalcedon did not find Ibas’ letter to Mari Orthodox. I have already written to you on this. Two or three people stating that the letter is right does not make a Council decision. The Council decision was not to approve of the letter but to restore Ibas to his see after he rejected Nestorianism and approved of St Cyril, see: „Eunomius the most devout bishop of Nicomedia said: ‘Now indeed the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent from what has been read. For as regards the statements in which he seemed to accuse the most blessed Cyril by speaking ill of him, he made a correct profession in his final statements and rebutted those in which he had accused him. Therefore, since he has anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches and their impious doctrines and assented both to what was written by the most holy Archbishop Leo and to this ecumenical council, I too judge him worthy of the episcopate.
        Eunomius’ commendation of Ibas for correcting his earlier statements by his later ones was understood by some to refer to the final section of the Letter to Mari. Ibas’ critics at the council of 553 argued, however, that Eunomius was referring not to any part of the letter but to Ibas’ submission to Bishops Photius and Eustathius at the Council of Tyre (IX. 7); see the discussion in the conciliar acts (ACO 4.1 p. 146) and Justinian’s letter to the council (PG 86. 1085).” – The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated with an introduction and notes by R. Price and M. Gaddis. p. 308.
        Nestorianism was thoroughly rejected at Chalcedon. One cannot argue otherwise. Even Ibas anathematized Nestorius at Chalcedon. The charge of „not sufficient protection against nestorianism” is absurd for a Council that repeatedly condemns Nestorius and his teaching and explicitly confesses two natures and ONE person (hypostasis) in Christ as opposed to two persons in Nestorius’ teaching.
        3. The Anti-Chalcedonian council of Ephesus in 475 did condemn Eutyches while still approving of Ephesus 449 where Eutyches was approved (!). Meanwhile they rejected the Chalcedon dogma and still did not accept two natures after union.
        4. Dioscorus said „We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change” but he also said – „I accept “from two [natures]”; I do not accept “two”” – The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated with an introduction and notes by R. Price and M. Gaddis, p. 194. If one accepts Dioscorus’ „from two natures” but not two natures after union, then „We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change” is contradicted. One nature cannot come „from two natures” without confusion or change.
        The quote from Gangra is rhetorical. He doesn’t say two natures after union.

      • You have already written to me about Chalcedon and the letter of Ibas yes, but you forgot that it’s not a few unimportant bishops. It’s the representatives of Leo. Imagine the representatives of Leo come to you to give you the Tome, and then the same men also found the letter of Ibas Orthodox. I’m lead to believe therefore that the Tome when it says:

        „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.”

        That like the letter of Ibas extolling Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Word of God and the man Jesus performs two totally different things. That is Nestorianism.

        Again, your interpretation of St. Cyril is deceptive and illogical. There is no phrase in St. Cyril that confesses „two natures after the union”. He says „natures”, and as I have shown you, so does Severus of Antioch. But as you like to use your own infallible logic rather than honest discussion, you like to think St. Cyril is „complicated” and Severus is „heretical”, even though they both say the same thing.

        Your semantical argument will get you no where. The next generation of Orthodox will read this and those with simple minds will see nothing but Pharisees debate each other over terminological differences. It is very clear Dioscorus and Severus believed God was fully human and fully divine without alteration, without confusion, and without mixing. The fact that you see this as merely linguistic embellishments reminds me only of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. No matter what you tell the Pharisees, they will never believe in the faith in Christ. I think at this point I’m done here.

        May God bless have mercy on all of us and enlighten all our hearts and minds.

      • Alexandru Iftime

        What you quote from the Tome of Leo is not Nestorianism. It is simply attributing specific actions and properties to each of Christ’s two natures. Rejecting this position leads to the heretical opinion that Christ suffered in His divine nature (which Miaphysites cannot avoid, since they only recognize one nature after union). Nestorianism is defined by other positions: dyoprosopism, rejection of Theotokos, etc., which we do not accept. As for the letter of Ibas, I think what I have argued is enough. The Chalcedon decision on Ibas was to reinstate him as bishop, not to accept the letter, whatever some may have said as individuals (some of which maybe did not even mean the letter of Ibas to Mari when they spoke about Ibas’ writings – as argued above). Ibas publicly rejected Nestorianism at Chalcedon.
        St Cyril clearly means two natures after union in the quotes I gave you earlier (9.03.’14) and also says “IN both natures” (formula which means two natures after union, which is why Dioscorus rejected it), see the quotes above. Severus explicitly condemns “two natures after union”. That’s not saying the same thing.
        The rest of what you say is also rhetoric.

  15. And how do YOU know about yourself? What are we, postmodernists? If this is your argument then mine is ok, then, let us wait the Second Coming and see who was right. Till then, one should no more bring any (theo)logical argument, Many things have been said, in the Church and resumed here against severianism, the most important being that about the objective logical necessity of the two natures for Christ to be our Saviour, An atheist or someone who is not Christian but obeys logic and acknowledge the coherence of an argumentation would say „I do not believe in that God you are talking about, but if your premise is salvation of man cannot be performed by someone else than a being that is of one nature with God and of one nature with man, simultaneously, then the Orthodox are right”. We can prove this, if you want. Do you accept the bet, Mina? But, this is it, as I said before, heretics do not follow logic, it is one of their typical traits.

    • If heretics do not follow logic, then clearly, you have judged yourself. May the Lord have mercy on your soul.

    • The Orthodox faith is not a bet. You can present your argument. But I do not seek a „bet” in the faith. I am strengthened and confident in my faith in the Lord Christ and in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is worth more than betting on it. It’s a way of life, it’s the life of the saints. It’s living the life of the Holy Spirit, and partaking of the divine nature. I will never bet that, for that is too precious for me. But I am willing to hear what you have to say about your silly condemnations against my Church fathers.

      • The bet was on people choosing the logical version which îs not only common but also the logic of faith. Please, do not „distract the audience”. What about your condemnations against a few hundred Holy Fathers that confessed faith in a series of Holy Synods? How silly îs that? Let us not start bringing sentimentalist rhetorics, instead of arguments.

      • Mina

        Ever hear of Ephesus 475? Hundreds of bishops were there too. So you logic completely falls on its head.

      • Alexandru Iftime

        It’s not about sheer numbers but about the logic of faith. The point was, you also condemn OUR Fathers just as we condemn YOURS (Severus, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus and their followers). It’s not about „ours or yours” but about what teaching is logically consistent.
        Speaking of logic – at Ephesus 475, Eutyches was condemned while accepting Ephesus 449 (which approved Eutyches). Therefore, at Ephesus 475, Eutyches was condemned and implicitly approved also.

      • Because in Ephesus 449, Eutyches clearly confessed Christ’s humanity was fully consubstantial with our humanity. He confessed clear Orthodox faith of Christ’s humanity. Whether or not that was sincere is of a different story.

      • And I’m glad you agree with me on numbers. Tell that to olftime who believes that numbers apparently equates Orthodoxy. Athanasius stood alone against the whole world of Arianism. Therefore, we as anti-Chalcedonians find ourselves in good company against the persecuting Roman empire that wanted Chalcedon to be accepted by force.

        Fr. Athanasios decries how two brothers were split. Indeed, Cain has killed Abel, and thank God Abel’s witness is still alive today in the Coptic Church. Because we all know those who are of the Orthodox faith do not persecute, but are usually persecuted.

      • Alexandru Iftime

        Still, Eutyches comes out as simultaneously approved and condemned at Ephesus 475.
        Nope, oiftime didn’t say that numbers equate Orthodoxy. I tried to explain you that on 11.03, but apparently you didn’t get it.
        As for persecution – it’s a sentimental argument and not a theological one. It’s not right to use force but that doesn’t automatically make the persecuted party right.
        However, Miaphysites also made use of force, e.g. at Ephesus 449, then against St Proterius the bishop of Alexandria, etc.
        Really, this discussion ceases to be theological and starts drifting into other stuff.

        BTW, you have been drifting from one position to another since this thread began. At first you claimed that the Coptic cult has an Orthodox phronema, and only Pope Shenouda (and Metrop. Bishoy?) was (were?) somewhat eccentric. Then you try to prove (against evidence) that Miaphysites cling to the theology of St Cyril and nothing else. Then you accuse Chalcedon of Nestorianism (a classic of Miaphysites) and finally you resort to sentimental “arguments”, the last of which is basically “we’re persecuted, so we’re right” – not to mention allusions to Pharisees, Cain and other “subtle” rhetoric. Is all this consistent and coherent? No.
        This thread really has to end. It has amply proven that Copts are not Orthodox (with an invaluable Coptic contribution to this). In this it has fully met the expectations of our blogging host. But as the relevant theological points have been made, we should stop before sliding into irrelevant talk.

  16. Pingback: IPS Serafim rezumând ereziile majore. Sf. Ap. Petru, model pentru eterodocşi şi pentru ortodocşii ecumenişti | Bine aţi venit...

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s