It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I do have some questions per the reasons: mariology was mentioned......So how do you view her?
On ecclesiology, I am assuming that you consider yourself the Church of Christ and as having the full truth and so do we :).
And the filoque, where we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in the Nicene Creed - am assuming you say simply "From the Father", correct?
I know also that you, as monophysites, consider duophysitism to be heretical.
I know also that you, as monophysites, consider duophysitism to be heretical. That last one was very interesting for me, as I studied Russian and thus Russian Orthodoxy to an extent and they are duophysites. Peter the Great wanted a new Patriarch who was more amenable to his desires, so he replaced the one who was there and started a whole campaign of New Believers over Old Believers, and this included how to cross oneself. The Orthodox had been doing it with 2 fingers, to emphasise their belief in the dual nature of Christ, whereas the new way demanded 3 fingers to emphasise the Trinity. Sounds a bit off the subject, but I assumed, and wrongly, that all Orthodox believe in the dual nature and have been proven wrong. Just for anyone's interest, if you look at some of the Russian icons before Peter, they show Christ holding up 2 fingers... another fact just in case of interest - even though they were persecuted mainly for a political cause (as is often the case), the Old Believers still exist, albeit in small numbers.
I think the agreement might be with the Greek church, although I am not sure. I know I received at a Russian Orthodox Church once, but don't know if it was kosher now that I look back on it. The priest knew his tiny flock, and knew I didn't belong to it and still gave me Communion.
That might be due to the fact that they are duophysites as well as we are.
I don't know enough about the Catholic interpretation of Chalcedon to judge whether or not this is correct, but I do remember Vladimir Soloviev in his famous defense of the papacy suggesting St. Cyril's "one (mia) nature of the incarnate Logos" was an unintended error, something the Eastern Orthodox certainly do not believe since St. Cyril was both the standard against which Leo's Tome was judged at Chalcedon and was further ratified by the 5th Ecumenical Council.
The little treatise or rather Confession of S. Athanasius from which S. Cyril cites in his Book against Theodore is put by Montfaucon, S. Athanasius' Editor, among the dubia. Montfaucon's grounds for doing so are twofold; 1, that the very famous expression, One Incarnate Nature of the Word, seems to contradict what S. Athanasius says in other writings; 2, that the treatise was objected to by Leontius of Byzantium, at the beginning of the seventh Century. Of the first ground of doubt, no one but a student of S. Athanasius has any right to speak. The second dwindles to nothing. Leontius says, "They [the party of Severus, the ... Bishop of Antioch] put forward another passage as S. Athanasius', from his treatise on the Incarnation. It is on this wise, 'And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word.' To this we say, that first it in no wise opposes us, for neither do we hold two natures, one to be worshipped, the other not, but we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Next it is not S. Athanasius'. For when they are asked by us, where it is, and cannot easily shew it, in their perplexity they put forward some small treatise, about two leaves, in which this passage is: but it is evident to all, that all S. Athanasius' writings are very large."But what can we say, when they put forward blessed Cyril, citing this against Theodore, as being S. Athanasius?' To this we say, that it does indeed lie in the blessed Cyril's utterings against Theodore, yet it is an old error. For Dioscorus succeeding blessed Cyril, and finding his works, would perchance not have minded adding what he pleased: we might even conjecture that the blessed Cyril did not cite it against Theodore; and that it is so, is clear from this. For Theodoret speaking in behalf of Theodore, overturning all the passages which blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, has no where mentioned this. To this they say that Theodoret passed it over craftily: for not able to answer it as patent, he of purpose passed it by. To this we say that so far from passing it by if it had been there, when S. Cyril said elsewhere, One Nature Incarnate of God the Word, if he had known that this passage had been put by blessed Cyril as cited from S. Athanasius, he would not so unlearnedly have said, 'Who of the Fathers said, the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word?'But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by S. Athanasius that he said, 'As the Fathers have said.' To this we say that every one is anxious to shew that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, yet in sense." It is clear that no serious objection could be founded on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact of one's opponent passing over an objection would be no proof that the objection, which is confessedly there, was not made. The remainder of Leontius' objection lies in the, "perhaps Dioscorus added something."This confession was very well known by S. Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it in the beginning of his Treatise de recta Fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to shew that S. Athanasius used the term, Mother of God; S. Cyril also cited two pieces it, to shew that in his eighth chapter in which he says, that 'Emmanuel must be worshipped with one worship, he had but said what S. Athanasius too had said. In all three citations occur the words, One Nature Incarnate of the Word, and in the case of S. Cyril's defence of his eighth chapter, the whole passage is extant in the latin translation (believed to be by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator) which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion: besides that the citation forms an integral part of S. Cyril's Defence of his chapter.It is then proved that the words were cited as S. Athanasius' by S. Cyril, the same S. Cyril who had had his own mind moulded and taught by the writings of S. Athanasius, and who in A. D. 431, produced from the archives, probably of his own Church of S. Mark, an authentic copy of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus. If this Confession is not genuine, it is but an illustration of how, being but men, we make mistakes in what we know best.Montfaucon sums up, "I would not venture to say whether the extracts were added in the writings of Cyril after his decease or whether before Cyril a little book of this sort was made up and ascribed to Athanasius."
If that were so, shouldn't the Mother of God say " I am the mother of the immaculate conception", rather than, "I am the immaculate conception". Doesn't the "I" refers to her in this case.
Simply put, if the 'immaclate conception' in this case does not refer to the conception of God the Word, but rather to the Catholic heresy, then there is no way the apparition was genuine.
So if 'immaculate conception' refers to the Catholic heresy, Bernadette was either lying, mistaken or deceived.
Do you think Miracles and unexplainable appartions take place only in the Coptic orthodox faith?
You make it sound as if it is only ,the Orthodox church that overflow with Saints . The Catholic church and other churchs that are not in full communion with the Coptic church do also have as many Saints as the sand in the beaches.
I realise a big part of your (the Coptic Church's answer) will be based on how we see the nature of Christ, as One or Dual.