History of Chalcedonian Split

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?


  • Politics dang up everything.
  • dear OP

    V.C Samuel "The council of Chalcedon reexamined"
    Fr Shenouda Maher "Christology and the council of Chalcedon"

    You can purchase these books online or in local churches if they're sold there. 
    There are various articles online on several sites speaking from our perspective if you do the proper search.
    for example this talk by Fr antony paul

  • I was going to recommend the two books Tobit mentioned.
  • Short answer that isn't totally right: we don't care. We were gone after (first) Chalcedony, so we didn't care to pay too much attention to the councils following it. Also, remember that our split over Chalc. I was not over Nestorian, but rather, over the nature(s) of Christ. If I remember correctly, EO says that there is 2 natures, fully divine and fully man, that are inseparable and completing each other. We say that He is "One nature out of two", being both fully God and fully man at once.
    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!
Sign In or Register to comment.