if the coptic synod accepts chalcedon as orthodox,are they still OO,and why not be EO?

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''?


  • BTW,I honestely don't mean any offence to the Copts.I am sure you are fully orthodox,I just don't understand how technically you can still reject chalcedon ,three chapters,tome of leo while implicitely accepting it by calling the chalcedonians as always having been orthodox.

    look,Iagree the EO  today are orthodox,but that to me is because of a repentance done in constantinople.

    to say they have always been orthodox sounds ot me to be a afirmation of everything theyve ever upheld.

    pls correct me if Im wrong.I HOPE I am wrong.
  • If I understand correctly, you're saying that the Synod is saying Chalcedon was correct/we accept Chalcedon.

    If anyone told you that, that is a flat-out lie.
    However, hindsight is 20/20, and we now see that there was most likely a semantics issue between us. When I first learned about Chalcedon, I pointed out that they're almost saying the same things but in different ways. Many EO say Chalcedon was blown out of proportion, and many OO agree. H.H. Pope Shenouda III had been trying to reconcile the churches even til his death. There were plans for a council to reconvene to take another look at Chalcedon, but I believe it stalled or was cancelled. We say they are orthodox because they are following the correct tradition, as opposed to the Catholic church, whose rites and beliefs have been warped over the centuries. 

    About Synods:
    1) Egyptians are a funny bunch... we obey the Synod collectively, but we often disagree with them because we're all stubborn :))
    2) The Synod, we believe, is as close to infallible as possible. They are all wise men inspired by the Holy Spirit who make decisions (eventually) by poring over the Bible and sayings of the fathers. If they find a verse or saying that contradicts it, they either review the ruling or throw it out. Now, can they make mistakes? Yes. There are rulings that have been revoked or thrown out later because they see it as misinterpreted or they realize they were wrong, but that also takes time. Also, they've never done so with a major doctrinal ruling. Now to be fair, some rulings might be ignored by churches for the sake of comfort because, once again, Egyptians are stubborn.

    TL;DR- Synods are really really close to perfect, but still human. We say Chalcedon's rulings were wrong but only because of a wording issue and political tensions. Come join the Coptic church and you'll love it here :)

    Pray for me.
  • Hello Dear Daniel Kyrillos  this is the problematic text I am talking about

    9. In the light of our agreed statements on Christology as well as of the above common affirmation, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological Faith, and the unbroken continuity of the Apostolic tradition,though they may have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyality to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis of our unity and communion.

    10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifitng of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the councils and Fathers previously anathemized or condemned are not heretical.

    this is to me heretical.it implicetely accepts the three chapters and tome of leo.I hear some OO say tome of leo can be interpreted in a orthodox manner,fine.but the three chapters are blasphemous.

    I am going to be honest,I have my doubts about the status of the Coptic clergymen,the laymen are ignorant of this passage so I can forgive them,but the clergy if they accept this passage to me are accepting a blasphemous statement.

  • Do all OO churches accept this statement,that they have ALWAYS been orthodox?

    if so I guess the gates have overcome.
  • Three local churches from the Orthodox family (Alexandria, Antioch and Romania) and three churches from the Oriental Orthodox family (Alexandria, Antioch and Malankara-India) have declared their acceptance of the agreed statements and proposals from the Joint Commission. Although the 2014 working group acknowledged other churches have raised issues worthy of further discussion, the decision on the part of these local churches inspires us to believe the Holy Spirit is in our midst and restored communion within our reach.

    this is unsettling
  • I am reading http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=28731.msg453193#msg453193  ;

    it also seems the three chapters were not officially accepted by chalcedon only informally accepted by some chalcedonians

  • edited December 2017
    Are you worried about the true faith, or are you looking for literal wordings and councils that explain the true faith?

    You need to make a distinction here.  OOs do not venerate councils just because they're councils.  Orthodoxy is what makes the councils venerable, not the other way around.  Orthodoxy defines councils; councils do not define Orthodoxy.

    So we do not take a literalist approach to the councils like EOs do.  That is why OOs are flexible.  If EOs, regardless of councils or men, agree with the Orthodox faith as OOs believe it, then fine, we will not demand that they condemn Chalcedon, but we require that they do not demand we accept it either.  

    That's the central principle here.  We should not hang by condemnations if Orthodoxy is professed.  This is how St. Cyril practiced, and this is how earlier fathers practiced as well.  We maintained this, but EOs unfortunately seem to hold a fundamentalist view on councils.  So as of yet, there is still work to be done in unity with EOs.  Otherwise, you should concentrate on the central Orthodox faith before you study the history.  This also means avoid stories regarding "miracles" that affirm or reject councils or people, because more often than not, these stories are meant to spiritually teach a lesson, not to be taken literally.

  • Some Questions to you Mina Soliman(I have asked the same question to fr.peter farrington and the syriac Diocese in america )

    1.since none of the patriarch's signed it but rather those below them ,is it binding on the church?2.even if all the patriarch's signed it,since it is not ratified in a ecumenical council,it wouldn't mean that the church has proclaimed chalcedon was orthodox despite its acceptance of Ibas's letter?3.the only way for me to consider the agreed statements as orthodox would be to interpret the two families having always maintained the same faith by rationalizing that we were one family until after constantinople II wich corrected chalcedon.so that technically when we were two families,we were both orthodox.the only problem I see with this rationalization is the fact the agreed statements say that all of the councils of the EO are not heretical.this to me is a dangerous statement,because Chalcedon DID endorse the letter of Ibas in its official acts.

    4.even if the patriarchs signed it ,not EVERY OO bishop on earth signed it,and even if they did the OO do not consider our bishops infallible unless in a ecumenical council?
    so the church would still technically have its mark of truth?any help would be apprecciated.

  • edited December 2017
    If you read between the lines of many Miaphsite theologians, at least the way I've interpreted them, is that they say "The EO are orthodox despite Chalcedon, not because of it" which would somewhat agree with an above comment in that councils are important and binding but not without criticism, especially Chalcedon. 

    Richard price who's a Catholic theolgian (A Chalcedonian) i believe went as far as to state that St Dioscoros was a second Athanasius. Given his resolve to not move an inch like his predecessor St Athanasius. He presented no new formula to the faith and believed that the faith did not need renewing or reformulating by a new council, given his presence in Ephesus. If not for the theology (which many say is the same, and Im willing to accept that) but at least the mistreatment of the OO saints of the time and the imposition of new orders on the Alexandrian churches in Egypt. A council must have proper theology and proper love. Love is the most important theology so that clear and proper understanding of the faith is realized.

    The ongoing battle in Chalcedon was heavily political and I say this without bias as an OO but most problems came from the Chalcedonian side. There are 2 versions of history on this council and depending on whose you believe will ultimately clear things for you. 

    With the EO's insistence on the miracle of St Euphamia and it's later realization that it was fictitious it doesn't lend a credible hand that even their Chalcedonian story is genuine regarding the imprisonment (or refusal to come out as they state it) of St Dioscouros, etc

    So I always say, the EOs are Orthodox despite this council not because of it. We do know it needed revision by a later councils. That is also another unavoidable blot in their history.

    With that being said I think the Coptic orthodox and Russian orthodox church who have probably suffered the most persecution have given to the world the richest spiritualities, saints and monastics. I learn much from Russian and Coptic (which unfortunately the vast extant still remains untranslated form arabic) spirituality and when compared to Coptic it is almost identical because of the similar persecution the russians underwent under the Bolsheivek soviets which demonstrates to me, at least in part, that the Holy Spirit operated identically in both churches enriching the both of them with the same experience and nourishing both churches to become beacons to the whole world.

    Perhaps persecution was God's way of demonstrating to us we are one and the same. As we both came out refined in similar fashion without changing our faith and traditions.
Sign In or Register to comment.