It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The Coptic representation was withdrawn recently because of an argument on the council.
The Coptic Orthodox have been major participants on the council until very recently. It is a forum for local Church communities in the Middle East.I guess when the situation which caused the disagreement is resolved then the Coptic Orthodox will join the council again.Father Peter
Eutyches (y`tĭkēs), c.378–c.452, archimandrite in Constantinople, sponsor of Eutychianism, the first phase of Monophysitism. He was the leader in Constantinople of the most violent opponents of Nestorianism, among whom was Dioscurus, successor to St. Cyril (d. 444) as patriarch of Alexandria. Whereas Cyril had agreed with the Antiochenes in 433 that Christ had two natures, Eutyches and Dioscurus insisted that Christ's humanity was absorbed in his divinity and that to accept two natures at all was Nestorian. When Theodoret attacked Eutychianism (447), Dioscurus retaliated by anathematizing him, and Emperor Theodosius II, who was friendly to Eutychianism, confined Theodoret to his diocese (448). But Eutyches was accused of heresy and deposed by a local synod called by St. Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople (Nov., 448). Eutyches appealed to his friends, and Theodosius called a general council to meet at Ephesus, Aug. 1, 449. This, the famous Robber Synod (Latrocinium), was disgraceful from the beginning. Dioscurus presided and disenfranchised most of the clergy inimical to Eutyches. The so-called council reinstated Eutyches, declared him orthodox, and deposed Flavian and Eutyches' accuser, Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Flavian denied the council's authority; the papal legates denounced the council's proceedings. The soldiery, called in by Dioscurus, compelled an affirmative vote; Flavian was severely beaten by members of the so-called synod and died shortly thereafter. The legates barely escaped. Theodoret was deposed. After the death of Theodosius (450) his orthodox successors convened the Council of Chalcedon (see Chalcedon, Council of) to right the wrongs of the Robber Synod, and Eutychianism was ended. Eutyches was deposed and exiled.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I just cannot let this stand. ilovesaintmark said:
[quote]1. The MECC did nothing to help with the return of His Holiness relative to the exile and deposition imposed by Sadat in the 80's. Gabriel Habib, the Secretary General, would even block discussions when they would be brought to the floor for discussion. When inquiry would be made by the National Council of Churches of the USA, things would be fluffed. This is not a main feature, at this point, but I mention it because it sets the tone.
[b]2. The attempts of the Latin Church to bring the Assyrian Church of the East into the MECC as a full member. This was a resultant of the manipulations after the RCC reached rapprochment with the Assyrian Church of the East (the Nestorian Church). This was a very difficult debate.[/b]
3. Political manipulations within the Council. I will leave that vague--intentionally.
4. The rift between the two Jurisdictions of the Armenian Church. This actually carries to the United States, whereby His Holiness has instructed that there be no participation in dialogues unless both branches of the Armenian Church are present. To give background: the two jurisdictions try to one up each other, block each other, etc. Catholicos Aram I (of the House of Cilicia) brokered the protocol that has allowed for the fragile full reunion of the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian Church. As such, and for fraternal regard, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, wishes that full accord be granted to His Holiness Aram I and his representatives.[/quote]
None of the four points he raises make much sense to me. Point by point, here is why:
1. His post was made in 2010. That seems a bit late in the game to leave the MECC over the body's failure to adequately advocate for His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Thrice-Blessed Memory during the Sadat era of the 1980s.
2. The Coptic Church apparently succeeded in barring the entry of the ACoE in spite of what ilovesaintmark characterizes as "the Latin Church's efforts" to bring them in. (Was it really just the Roman Church acting unilaterally?) Why leave when you won the battle?
3. Deliberately vague political manipulations within the council - Who knows what this means?
4. The so-called rift between the Armenian jurisdictions in no way impacts upon the functioning of the MECC. Ilovesaintmark seems to be operating under the mistaken impression that Etchmiadzin is on the MECC but has "blocked" Cilicia from participating. He is flat out wrong. Cilicia is on the MECC, Etchmiadzin is not. This has nothing to do with one Armenian jurisdiction "blocking" the other, but rather with geography. Etchmiadzin is not in the Middle East so it is not on the MECC, just like Addis Ababa, Asmara, and Kerala. The Armenian jurisdictions don't "block" each other from participating in ecumenical bodies anyway. They are both represented in the WCC, the body that dialogues with the RCC, etc.
Ilovesaintmark is apparently just speculating.