Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.7K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
copts are not orthodox?
i found this really wierd website where some guy is sayin that the coptics were once led astray from the orthodox faith and are now returning to true orthodoxy.... can anyone help me understand this better because i know it cant be right.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx
Comments
If that's his understanding, of course he will think we are heretics. We are miaphysites.
The questions that I feel have to be posed are:
a) What made the other orthodox churches believe we were Monophysites?
b) Were we EVER monophysites and then converted to miaphysites?? As far as I know, we were always Miaphysites.
This is the issue! Most Chalcedonian churches, for some reason, see us as monophysites. We are not.
Finally, if we are miaphysites, then surely unity with them should not be soooooo complicated. Its as if they want us to apologise and repent for something that we never were.
Where on earth in our doctrine does it say we were ever (EVER!!) Monophysite!??
THEY ARE ALL WRONG. MAJORITY DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT. THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD IS NON-CHRISTIAN, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE PAGAN EXISTENCE TO BE CORRECT.
The previous post explains it well. There are plenty of other threads on this site that explain things.
The main reason for this misrepresentation, and outright cowardly lies relate to jealousy. Be it fact, the Coptic Church gave the world the vast majority of the definitions of the Theology, Doctrines, and Dogmas of Christianity. Not to mention the historical institutions which maintained Christianity, i.e., the formulation of the Holy Bible, monasticism, etc.
The bottom line is that in the Roman Church there seems to be a need to be a continuity and extension of the Roman Empire. In the Byzantine Churches there is a thought for their continuity to the Byzantine Empire. This includes all the history for every single monarch and their associated empires to maintain that continuity, e.g., Kaizers, Tsars, Caesars. All of these words have the same derivation, despite coming from different languages.
If you look at the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, whether through Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian sources, it identifies collusion on the part of the eastern and western imperial churches trying to divide the world between them. Leo of Rome was trying to sound like he knew more than the rest. The Roman Church in the previous Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus) did not have much of a voice or role relative to their limited participation. If the Pope of Rome was such a big leader for the Christian world, then why did he not feel the need to participate and take a leadership in these very important Councils. The truth is he was never and never will be the "Bishop of Bishops".
The Roman Churches role at Chalcedon came at a time when the western empire was falling to the barbarians invading from the north. It was their grasp to try to maintain some semblance of governance and power. They were trying to align with the Byzantines so that the "world would stay in balance". Their arguments were contrived to try to take a childish and improperly formulated theology to the realm of world prominence. The reality of the Tome of Leo was a neophyte attempt to sound proper. It is a cut and paste of Nestorius' teachings.
Nestorius, to mention exactly, was Patriarch of Constantinople. So much for the Imperial See of the Byzantine Empire for being a proper leader for the East.
The Roman Catholic Church has taken the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church of the East into communion into their fold. They never asked for them to renounce the name of Nestorius or his henchmen that are mentioned in the Assyrian Church's Diptychs. The Roman Church accepts Athanasius and Cyril as saints, as do all Apostolic Churches. It's funny they allow the Assyrian Church to insult and anathemize Cyril in the Assyrian Church's liturgy and rites.
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damyat, Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, poses these thoughts and questions in his book analyzing the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church of the East.
The Roman Church has a tendency over the centuries to compromise everything as "misunderstandings" of the times, and is willing to forgive as long as there is an acceptancy of Papal Supremacy to Rome. This is nonsense, dangerous in the Ecumenical realm, and in my personal regard as a heresy.
WE ARE MIAPHYSITES NOT MONOPHYSITES.
In our Common Declarations with the Chalcedonian Churches, we, as well as they, condemn: Arius, Nestorius, Eutychus.
Question: Why is the Roman Church in communion with the Nestorian Church?
Question: Why is the opinion of the Byzantine Churches being ruled by improper representations of the Coptic Orthodox Church as being guided by some monks on Mount Athos?
Question: Gee, if the Coptic Orthodox Church is a bastion of heresy, then why do they accept our Holy Sacraments as part of the signing of the Common Declarations?
Question: Our Coptic Church stays steadfast to the teachings and pronouncements of St. Cyril. This is accepted as the basis for proper theology, then why is there a need for all of the nonsense pronouncements afterwards (and that is specific for Leo's Tome)?
The reality of history is that the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Mark, who wrote the first Gospel; Anthony, the Father of Monasticism; Athanasius, Cyril the Defenders and Definers of Christian Theology. There is no other Church that has giants to that level. I can mention a longer and longer list of accomplishments, but the world should be thankful for the Miaphysite Church of Alexandria. It has survived persecutions, and is the largest Christian presence in the Middle East.
The Byzantines tried to instal their own lineage in Egypt, which is now retreating more and more and they are just a couple of thousand in Egypt. In fifty years, I doubt their will be any Byzantine Orthodox presence in Egypt. It was imposed upon us as an attempt to split the attachment to our Orthodoxy, but we survive because of the blessings of God and not by political whim or attachment. We do not want power and we do not want to rule the world, but we are "a light to the world".
Be strong in your attachment to the fathers that gave you Orthodoxy in the Coptic Church, and that includes profoundly Sts. Dioscorus and Severus.
Thank God for Pope Shenouda III for his leadership in his unique and personal formulation of the Christology that is being discussed and presented as the basis for reunion. God grant Pope Shenouda a long life to shepherd His (Christ's) People in the See of St. Mark. It is not just for his being that we ask, but in the blessings of Pope Shenouda's life we are blessed and elevated.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=6106.msg81154#msg81154 date=1200750764]
In fifty years, I doubt their will be any Byzantine Orthodox presence in Egypt.
Due to successful missionary efforts in East Africa, the EO Pope of Alexandria has more adherants today than ever before. There are now millions of EO Christians in Kenya, Uganda, etc. and the number will only keep growing in the next 50 years, and, given the significance of the Alexandrian See, I cannot imagine the Pope ever moving his residency from Alexandria.
I do not know how many adherents there are to the Byzantine See of Alexandria as it projects out to Africa. My comment was specific to the number of adherents there in Egypt proper (not inclusive of any other country). The numbers are decreasing in Egypt and for that matter churches have been turned over to the Coptic Orthodox Church in one way or another.
It is curious that the flag that flies over the "round" church of St. George in Old Cairo is the Greek flag. It just carries the point that the Byzantine See is a foreign presence to an indigenous church that of the Coptic Orthodox Church. This parallel aspect has been accepted no different than the Coptic Church is present in foreign countries such as a presence in: Rome, Milan, Jerusalem, etc.
My previous posting was not to be insulting, but to put things into perspective. It is frustrating, and insulting, to hear throughout one's upbringing, here in the United States, that the Coptic Orthodox Church is heretical and monophysite. The majority that look it up come up with that conclusion relative to the entries put together by so-called experts and a perpetuation of inaccuracies and outright lies.
The Assyrian Church of the East has never recanted from Nestorius or his evil.
The Coptic Orthodox Church makes/made a categorical (in this century and every century) denouncement of: Eutychus, monophysitism, and any flirting association.
Kyrie Eleison.
My comment was specific to the number of adherents there in Egypt proper (not inclusive of any other country).
The quote said "any" - i.e. that there will be none at all. I said a Byzantine presence (albeit a limited one) will remain in Egypt because it is the administrative centre for what is quite a large presence in East Africa. Not really. You'll see the same Greek flags in Jerusalem, the Patriarch of which always remained Chalcedonian. And until recently you'd see them in Syria, Lebanon, etc. where the Chalcedonian presence is far from foreign.
What these flags do signify, however, is that, while the priests and laymen are locals (Syrians, Palestinians, etc.), these Sees have, for many years, had hierarchs of Greek origin.
This is unfortunate, but thankfully it is changing. It would not surprise me if the EO soon have a Kenyan or Ugandan Pope of Alexandria - indeed, the previous Pope said he looked forward to this happening. When this happens the flags will go too, just as they disappeared in Syria when an Arab was elected Patriarch. I took no offense.
I am deeply troubled by the article that you have on Copts and orthodoxy. The article essentially sites Copts as monophysites and thus heretics. I agree with most of this sentences. To be a monophysite is to be a heretic but, with all due respect, Copts are not monophysites. A clear study of history will show that Copts were only called that after the Council of Chalcedon but never proclaimed it themselves. That is because, Copts are not monophysites, but are miaphysites. To be a miaphysite is to believe that Jesus Christ was fully human and fully divine (which chalcedonies define as two natures) but that his divinity never seperated from his humanity (and thus the idea of the one nature). Copts do no mix the divinity and the humanity of our Lord but they affirm that the two never seperated. This is in accordance with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria's definition of the Christian belief. Essentially, it is a misunderstanding of terms as is found out now through the discources between copts and other orthodox. Both groups believe the same thing but word it differently (just like the hypostasis, substance, and person term conflicts that occurred between Greek and Latin speakers which Pope Athanatius of Alexandria helped resolve). Based on this realization of the same belief, the Greek Orthodox Bishop in Alexandria, Egypt has agreed to be in communion with the Coptic Church. Such an agreement with the rest of the orthodox churches is still pending, but, through God's blessings, will hopefully be formed with the other churches.
There is a lot of demonic nonsense and slander against the Orthodox Church on the internet. The article you link to is saturated with typical logical fallacies, the primary one being begging the question. There is really not much to respond to. To these people we are heretics regardless of what the facts and evidence dictate because they believe so not on facts and evidence in the first place but by presupposing the infallibility of an authority they hold to but which they cannot prove to be legitimate authority in the first place.
Hi,
I couldnt agree more. But, the question remains :"why".
Why do the Chalcedonian Churches look at us as if we are heretics. Why do they not see that we are miaphysites like them? Who told them we were monophysites?
This is not just a simple website slandering our Church; but unfortunately, it is the spirit of most chalcedonian churches (with perhaps some exemption from the Romanian and Russian orders who truly respect our Coptic Orthodox doctrines). But, what is the reason they refuse to see that we consider ourselves miaphysite?
I would like to point out that you ARE monophysites insofar as you believe in the two natures becoming one. This is obviously different from the heresy of Eutyches but the authors of the articles are concerned that, in an atmosphere of easy ecumenism, people will gloss over differences and say we can accept the Pope of Rome as universal hierarch since he really upholds the same beliefs as the Orthodox or unite with the Copts. I find that many EO monastics adopt highly dismissive attitudes toward those of their communion they accuse of being Masons, closet Papists, overt ecunemists etc often on very flimsy evidence. Its a bit like the differences between the Front for the Liberation of Judea and the Judean Liberation Front (Life of Brian-sorry if you find it blasphemous, I don't)impossible for outsiders to make head or tail of.
Its all a bit sickening. We need to give a united Orthodox witness to our people. In England people are still joining the Roman Church (remember Mr Blair) because the Orthodox church has not attracted notice in any significant way.
Sorry for the condensed text.
In Christ
I would recommend for anyone unfamiliar with Coptic history to look up "The Story of the Copts" online. The whole book is online and everyone should read the part on the Council of Chalcedon, which, for the first time, explains the council through a Coptic viewpoint. It debunks much of the accusations against Pope Dioscorus and really shows how history can be seen through two completely different ways.
Secondly, I think we need to reflect on the two nature doctrine that Pope Leo introduced in his Tome. The implication of parts of the tome is that Christ is fully human and divine (which we staunchly agree with) but that at certain points of his life, his divinity was working without the humanity and vise versa. This is where we disagree. Catholics sometimes cite Jesus walking on the water as an example of this because he was doing this divinely but Copts would point out that his humanity was still there (he was still walking) and thus his humanity never separated from him divinity.
One final point: If we were truly heretics in what we believe then we would be looked down on by God, but we have seen God's blessings being showered on Copts before and after that unfortunate council. Just look at all our bishops, patriarchs, and saints who have performed a multitude of miracles even documented in books. What other church's prayers moved a mountain (the mokatam) through fasting and prayer. Sadly, the writer of this article thinks that all those miracle-workers should be disregarded.
To be fair, they believe we are monophysite because we did not delineate between nature and person.
Sorry, this is not a "fair" assessment in any sense of the word. We never confused the concept of nature and person in the first place. The One Nature of Christ is not a reference to the One Person of Christ.
Their accusations of monophysitism were purely polemically based. It was a cop-out response to the very cogent arguments of the Fathers against Chalcedonian Christology. Even if we assume that their charge was based on a genuine theological misapprehension, the fault lies with their inability to adequately understand St Cyril's Christology, their political ambitions which served to shut the door to any potential for them to properly understand the Orthodox point of view and to undo the mess they created for themselves in the first place.
Just look at how that article begins:
"The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. "
That's the opening argument; can you believe it? Talk about begging the question. You can take that opening argument as being reflective of most of their arguments against us. Here's another example:
"Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers..."
As you can see it's amusingly loaded. They have imported a major presupposition viz. that "Orthodox Fathers = Church Fathers = Chalcedonian Fathers" and their argument then rests entirely on that presupposition. Here we see that pride-drive narrow-mindedness I mentioned. Openly, the Bishop admits that it is their inability to question the integrity of their Fathers who were responsible for the schism which is the main reason behind their inability to admit to our Orthodoxy.
Here's a rather ironic comment: And we can likewise say: "Patrick, what do you really really expect Bishop Auxentios to say, that he is a heretic and that the Copts are actually Orthodox?"
The idea that we do not admit to being in heresy because "really, what heretic would admit to being a heretic?" is just a cop-out way of not dealing with the numerous and irrefutable evidence and reason-based arguments our Fathers, ancient and modern, have presented that have completely demolished any notion of our being heretical.
Take, also, consideration of the following article:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_humor.aspx
Can you believe such arrogance coming from a Bishop? Can you believe that after such a rant he would actually sign off as "Least among monks"? Really, need I say more?
May I ask another question? Years ago the Roman Catholic church said that Anglican orders were invalid, i.e. you couldn't receive the Mysteries from an Anglican minister. Now, the (EO) church has a different view on this. It's not the individual priest who has the gift of consecration but the Church as a whole. So my question is, seeing we orthodox have been out of communion for so many centuries, are we nevertheless both communing from the same Cup, even though we have differences in theology, or do we need to shift(EO to CO)in order to ensure our salvation?
Further to the orthodoxinfo website and the rather prissy letter from Archbishop Chrysostomos (unworthy monk). He belongs to the Synod in Resistance which is out of communion with the bulk of the EO church.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6106.msg81260#msg81260 date=1200923494]
To be fair, they believe we are monophysite because we did not delineate between nature and person.
Sorry, this is not a "fair" assessment in any sense of the word. We never confused the concept of nature and person in the first place. The One Nature of Christ is not a reference to the One Person of Christ.
Their accusations of monophysitism were purely polemically based. It was a cop-out response to the very cogent arguments of the Fathers against Chalcedonian Christology. Even if we assume that their charge was based on a genuine theological misapprehension, the fault lies with their inability to adequately understand St Cyril's Christology, their political ambitions which served to shut the door to any potential for them to properly understand the Orthodox point of view and to undo the mess they created for themselves in the first place.
Sorry Iqbal. Since I am not versed in these matters, I tend to think that "open-mindedness" is synonymous with "sympathesing", but it is not prudent for me to give opinions on something I have no substantial basis to make it on.
Please forgive me all.
As for the situation today, we know that limited forms of inter-communion have been initiated, but I wouldn't presume to draw any logical implications from that fact.
Please forgive me all.
I don't understand why you're apologising; no need to. And you can offer your opinion at any time; that's what this forum is for. That in turn gives me the opportunity to offer my own in disagreement, which may result in either one of us, or the both of us, learning something new, and even modifying our initial judgment in light of what we've learnt.
I agree, being open-minded involves being empathetic and sympathetic; but open-mindedness has to be balanced with being critical. It seems to me you sympathised with their contention against us, and then simply concluded it as fact i.e. you went from "the Chalcedonians think/perceive we confused the concepts of nature and person" to "we confused the concepts of nature and person." As far as my understanding is concerned, the term "nature" as it is used in St Cyril's mia physis formula is not a strictly logical equivalent of either "person" or "hypostasis" (and certainly not "ousia"); it has its own individual connotation. The distinction may be subtle, but it is nevertheless a distinction.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6106.msg81752#msg81752 date=1201956949]Sorry Iqbal. Since I am not versed in these matters, I tend to think that "open-mindedness" is synonymous with "sympathesing", but it is not prudent for me to give opinions on something I have no substantial basis to make it on.
Please forgive me all.
I don't understand why you're apologising; no need to. And you can offer your opinion at any time; that's what this forum is for. That in turn gives me the opportunity to offer my own in disagreement, which may result in either one of us, or the both of us, learning something new, and even modifying our initial judgment in light of what we've learnt.
I agree, being open-minded involves being empathetic and sympathetic; but open-mindedness has to be balanced with being critical. It seems to me you sympathised with their contention against us, and then simply concluded it as fact i.e. you went from "the Chalcedonians think/perceive we confused the concepts of nature and person" to "we confused the concepts of nature and person." As far as my understanding is concerned, the term "nature" as it is used in St Cyril's mia physis formula is not a strictly logical equivalent of either "person" or "hypostasis" (and certainly not "ousia"); it has its own individual connotation. The distinction may be subtle, but it is nevertheless a distinction.
we haven't confused anything. The Eastern Orthodox have confused the concepts of nature and person. Their christological formula is wrong, and that's why they split away from us. they are heretics after all...
jasmine
Clerical errors were made on both sides, no dispute there. But the fact remains is that we chose to adhere to the definition of the nature of Christ set forth by St. Cyril as opposed to changing it, they rejected our definition, yet at the same time accept St. Cyrils in the 4th council. It is illogical. This is why I oppose unity with the eastern. I have alot of respect for them and their saints. I read their church fathers and accept them. But for there to be unity, they need to come to us, not us to them because this would be admitting that we were wrong, and we were not. If we do this then we turn our backs on St. Cyril and the definition he set forth. Let them be ignorant, we never unified with Rome as they did twice. Then they go back on their word and try to say that it was "false" union. At the council of florence only one bishop opposed unity, doesnt seem to false to me.
i recommend watching all of the back to basics series
i recommend watching all of the back to basics series
I have to say that while I admire many things of Fr. Messeh, one thing that kinda got me was I hear a sermon where he actually made a joke about Orthodox thinking they are the only people getting into heaven. I am sure someone said something because I cannot find that sermon anywhere. But I think they also produce that stupid red book filled with "wonderful" protestant rock songs or hymns, whatever they call them. Not too happy bout that book.
His popularity among the youth reveals how shallow the youth are. We cannot blame the youth, for they are longing for any spiritual food, even if rotten like the preaching of Messeh of Washington. We have to take a critical look at the system that has elevated persons like this man to the position of teaching and has created an alarming level of lack of discernment among the youth. This is not surprising for Messeh of Washington. I have heard statement to the same effect by others, mainly due to their ignorance and lack of Church experience, but with Messeh of Washington, although ignorant, I think he is deliberately spreading this garbage due to his affiliation with confirmed Protestant figures in the church.
He belongs to a school of Protestant "clergy" who have infiltrated the Coptic Church in the past 40 years. Their leader is Boulos of Kenya, the bishop of Evangelism in Africa, who joined the Pentecostal Church in Upper Egypt in his youth and continued there till his ordination as a Bishop in the Coptic Church. He was and still is a close disciple of Atef Aziz, the "charismatic" excommunicated leader of the Pentecostal group in Egypt.
Boulos of Kenya, as a layman, was kicked out of Assiout, a major Metropolitan city in Upper Egypt, and excommunicated alongside his teacher Atef Aziz, by H.E. Metropolitan Michael, for his protestant teachings. Ironically, Atef Aziz was excommunicated by Pope Shenouda many years after that, while his faithful disciple Boulos of Kenya became Bishop almost around the same time. They did ? ::)
Antony Messeh choose to hold two 40-days rounds to teach his servants the two books by Rick Warren, among other suspicious activities. I would not be surprised if he would produce a book with Protestant songs. One has to give them credit for their organization and their ability to raise tons of money with a huge marketing machine working for them.
Here in Toronto, a young priest who is a disciple of Boulos of Kenya, has invited Messianic Jews to preach to the youth and young adults during Vespers. :-\
He also invited a priestess from the United Church to talk to the same group about the "Truth". ;D
This priest left the church that he was ordained for to establish a new church within the Coptic Church, exactly five kilometers away from his old church. Why and how and what the purpose of this church is remains unclear, but he must have pulled some major strings to establish a new church.
Liberated from any supervision in his new church, he has organized a series of talks by invited speakers from all religions: Muslim, Protestant, Jehova Witness, Adventists, Buddhism, Hinduism, to preach the principles of their respective religions to his congregation. Justifying this series, he said: " We need to understand the differences between us and work to close gaps that separate us."
Have a blessed day.
It is better to not be Coptic but to be Orthodox, than to be Coptic and not truly Orthodox.
The Church belongs to all of us, and all of us belong to the Church. We all have a responsibility to insist that those things which do not belong to the Church are not allowed in the Church. I would not ever encourage any of my congregation to read Protestant books without discretion, especially those who were new or young in the faith. I would certainly never encourage anyone in my congregation to read anything by Rick Warren and his books will never feature as a study text in my congregation, nor, I am sure, in any congregation in the British Orthodox diocese.
Father Peter