Was wondering if anyone could help me find sources on the Coptic perspective of what happened from the Second Council of Ephasus to the Second Council of Constantinople.
For example: when 2 Constantinople clarified the opposition to Nestorianism, why did we not re-enter communion then? If Chalcedon can be interpreted in an Orthodox way, why was it rejected and why is it still rejected? What happened at 2 Ephasus? Why do we recognize it as valid (though not ecumenical) and the EO sees it as a "Robber council"?
Everything I've been able to find has been from the Chalcedonian perspective. Where can I find something from our perspective?
A sort of funny story about how scarily similar they are, when I first learned about this in 5th grade from Abouna, I looked him dead in the eyes and said "But that's the exact same thing! Those people were dumb. I should've been there." And the servants started laughing with Abouna :D But 5th grade me brought up an important point- they are in essence two sides of the same coin. Now, the split made was very deep, and efforts between both churches to re-enter Communion have been challenged by both internal and external issues. There was a common decision reached that said both OO and EO agree that the other church isn't a lying heretic, and that they will try to work towards closing the rift between them.
If I messed something up, please correct me!