I am a conver to miaphysitism,luckily in my city there is a eritrean church, a syriac church and an armenian church and a coptic church just a street away from me.I need to be baptized as my baptism was not done correctely when Iwas a child.
I recentely read that the coptic synod proclaimed the chalcedonians as always having been orthodox.I find that disheartening.that means the coptic synod considers the tome of leo and the three chapters as orthodox implicetely.if thats the case why reject chalcedon and are they still miaphysites since they implicetely accept the tome and the three chapters?sounds like a contradiction.
it was always my view that the chalcedonians were heretics until constantinople II.do all copts agree with the synod?are synods infallible?
should I just avoid the coptic church and seek another OO church that hasn't accepted the three chapters and tome as orthodox implicetely?
when I first considered orthodoxy I thought EO was safer than OO.because I saw the OO pander to the EO so much I thought in my mind:''well,the EO that I've encountered consider the OO heretics,but the OO consider the EO orthodox,so its safer to be with the EO''.of course before making a choice I studied deeply into the chalcedonian issue and am convinced chalcedon was nestorian.I sometimes see copts on other forums say the same thng,but Idon't know how they can when their church synod has officially vindicated chalcedon and everything the chalcedonians have ever believed.
maybe this joint statement is a fabrication?I hope so.
what do other OO think of the coptic church since the joint statement?just in error or are they right that the chalcedonians have always ''maintained the orthodox faith''?