Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council - Saint Mina ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COULD THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON REALIZE A RECONCILIATION ? I do not wish to present detailed theological discussions, for I have presented them in brief, in the book: "The Terms Physis and Hypostasis in the Early Church." I only want to clarify that some scholars who feel that the majority of bishops of the Chalcedonian Council preferred the Alexandrian formula: "one nature of the Incarnation Word of God" or "one nature of two Natures." The Roman legates practiced pressure on the commissioners to offer a new formula: "in two natures (en dus fuzzes)", instead of "ek dus phuson" (of two natures), those scholars try to give a justification to the Council, that it did not reject the Alexandrian formula nor did it consider it heretical, but insufficient, therefore the new formula was issued just to clarify the old one. We reject the Chalcedonian formula for the following reasons: 1. The formula: "one nature" has an evangelic base, and touches our salvation. H. H. Pope Shenouda III clarifies this argument in detail in his book "The Nature of Christ," of which I wrote a summary as mentioned in this book. 2. Some Chalcedonian Fathers and theologians stated that the Tome of Leo represents an insurmountable obstacle in the efforts made to unite with the non- Chalcedonians, for the latter believe that two "physeis and ousia" in one person is Nestorianizing. This is supported by the fact that Leo's Tome was praised by Nestorius himself [1], and that the Tome, if taken alone by itself could have created the impression of an excessive opposition of two natures, as Prof. Rev. Florovsky says[2]. 3. Kelly states that, unlike, their brethren in the East, the Westerns were concerned with the organization of ecclesiastical matters more than theological ones. He also states that with the exception of Tertullian, the west made little or no contribution to christological theology[3]. 4. We are in accord with the Tome in refuting Eutychianism and in confirming that Christ's manhood was real, Christ entered the mundane plane of existence and that the unity of Godhead and manhood had been realized without change... but the Tome consists of three statements, those which some of the Fathers of Chalcedon themselves rejected for their Nestorian attitude[4]. 5. Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice, for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity. There was a need to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" one... 6. The Council of Chalcedon adopted the Tome of Leo. In Egypt many believers were martyred for they refused to sign the Tome... The acceptance of the Tome as a principal document of faith disfigured the Council in the sight of the non- Chalcedonians. 7. The "definitions" of Chalcedon admits the phrase "one hypostasis." Some of the Nestorians objected on this addition, but they accepted it when the word "hypostasis" was interpreted to them as an equal to "prosopon"... 8. We do not recognize this Council because it ignored all the traditional formulas of the Church, which confirm the oneness of the Person of Christ, as a true unity, such as: "one nature of two natures" and "one nature of the Incarnate Word of God." I conclude my discussion of the Council of Chalcedon by referring to the words of Sellers who defends this council... [In the first place, it should be understood that the (Monophysite) theologians were not heretics, nor were they regarded as such by leading Chalcedonians.[5] 1. Methodios Fouyas, p.12,13. 2. Christology according to the non-Chalcedonian Churches, p. 12-3. 3. Terms: "Physis & Hypostasis in the Early Church", p. 30-1. 4. Ibid 30f. 5. The council of Chalcedon, SPCK 1961, p. 269. The term "monophysite" was not used during the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries, but was used later in a specific way and in a polemic spirit on behalf of the Chalcedonian Churches. + . + .+ See also: Why I Am Oriental Orthodox Instead of Byzantine Orthodox (external Web site) http://www.geocities.com/mfignatius/others/byzantine.html 9
This PDF is freely available from: www.zeituneg.org/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_%2 8Chalcedon%2 9.pdf 10
Page 1 and 2:
Coptic interpretations of the Fourt
Page 3 and 4:
from the Virgin Theotokos the flesh
Page 5 and 6:
and Eutyches, Alexandria did agains
Page 7 and 8:
Agreed Official Statements on Chris
Page 9 and 10:
Cyril's Twelve Chapters. Evidently
Page 11 and 12:
the Emperor Marcianus intensified a
Page 13 and 14:
and on several occasions seemed on
Page 15 and 16:
is his fellow Christians he is tryi
Page 17 and 18:
Yet despite all of these difficulti
Page 19 and 20:
Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandri
Page 21 and 22:
When the judges started the order o
Page 23 and 24:
Grillmeier rather confusingly state
Page 25 and 26:
condemned to banishment with them,
Page 27 and 28:
y the thought that the anti-Chalced
Page 29 and 30:
Thus it came about that St Timothy
Page 31 and 32:
consideration. With this in mind Ba
Page 33 and 34:
that the doctrine of the real incar
Page 35 and 36:
Unfortunately, Acacius of Constanti
Page 37 and 38:
took flesh from the holy Virgin, an
Page 39 and 40:
it seemed to him that the Tome and
Page 41 and 42:
St Timothy has been unfairly treate
Page 43 and 44:
union of the Divinity with the Huma
Page 45 and 46:
when Arab Muslims conquered Egypt,
Page 47 and 48:
enemies, he wrote some of his most
Page 49 and 50:
Severus, be taken to stand for the
Page 51 and 52:
mode of how they are, and they are
Page 53 and 54:
anathema the fact of, or naming, na
Page 55 and 56:
agreement of Nestorius with the tea
Page 57 and 58:
Christ is known to be one from both
Page 59 and 60:
is both human and Divine, it does n
Page 61 and 62:
and humanity cease to exist in the
Page 63 and 64: “Our Lord Jesus Christ is, to be
Page 65 and 66: nature of flesh, we are not two, bu
Page 67 and 68: St Timothy reminds us that the huma
Page 69 and 70: A final passage from St Severus, si
Page 71 and 72: and agreed by the Holy Synod of the
Page 73 and 74: He does not seek for Himself a will
Page 75 and 76: APPENDICES A. WEB RESOURCES: 1. htt
Page 77 and 78: + ''Thus He who is consubstantial w
Page 79 and 80: Churches and to pursue further disc
Page 81 and 82: together, but that the one eternal
Page 83 and 84: + There was a suggestion for small
Page 85 and 86: 2. God's infinite love for mankind,
Page 87 and 88: Church. It is the teaching of the b
Page 89 and 90: two families constitutes: (a) a Con
Page 91 and 92: Church which imposed the anathemas
Page 93 and 94: A concrete form of methodology to b
Page 95 and 96: His Holiness Pope and Patriarch She
Page 97 and 98: Orthodox Co-president of the Joint
Page 99 and 100: comprising the joint text agreed up
Page 101 and 102: and energy. 4. Both families agree
Page 103 and 104: GENEVA, September 23 - 28, 1990 Ort
Page 105 and 106: (c) political, religious and social
Page 107 and 108: Edessa who insisted to divide the L
Page 109 and 110: circles, the imperial court and amo
Page 111 and 112: The delegates of Rome returned to t
Page 113: Euphemia [8] (a small chapel) inste
show all

Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council - Saint Mina ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?