Your post allows me the opportunity to say that I entirely understand WHY there has been a deficiency in the Coptic Orthodox Church in the past. If we compare the situation with many other Orthodox communities they have been free to establish theological schools of the highest standards without the opposition of others in their homelands, and even with the support and resources of the state.
Even the Russian Church, which had suffered under communism for 70 years had a significant emigre population which was able to flourish in Western Europe and North America. This has not been the case for the Coptic Orthodox community. When I was born in 1963 there was, as far as I can see, no Coptic Orthodox Church in the UK at all. Now there are a great many congregations, and Coptic Orthodoxy is increasingly known, I will not yet say well known though. It also flourishes in the USA and around the world in many places where English is the first language and where the possibility of making the substance of our faith widely known exists.
There can be nothing but praise and gratitude to God for the way that a significant Orthodox community has remained faithful in Egypt over a period of 1400 years of persecution, and has entered the 21st century with a renewed vigour thanks to the spiritual leadership of His Holiness Pope St Kyrillos and His Holiness Pope Shenouda. But the new opportunities require us to accept new responsibilities. Those of us who are in the West and busy with studies and jobs are free to also engage deeply with our theological heritage. We must use that freedom while it is granted to us. Knowledge of our faith - and true theological studies are not sterile scholarship but are filled with light and life - is like the talent which the master gave to his servants. If we do nothing with what we are given then even the understanding we have will be taken away. If we seek to multiply the understanding which we have been given and offer our studies as service to God and the Church then our understanding will increase exponentially as God blesses our efforts.
You know that I have recently published a book about various Christological and other topics. I am not proud of it. It is deficient in many ways, but I have published it because there is so little other materials in circulation, and almost nothing about St Timothy whom I love. My hope is not that people will think I have written anything wonderful - I have not. Bur rather than many of the younger people on this forum will take up the challenge and appreciate the beauty of our theological inheritance and will write much better and more fruitful works of theological reflection than I ever could.
Godislove260, read "Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity" by Otto F.A. Meinardus. It goes through some of our dark times. I think he glossed too much of our maltreatment of Ethiopians.
Fr. Peter, I tend to agree, but maybe this is because our diocese in European countries are still maturing. I think we will develop this in years to come, but inroads must be made to properly and firmly establish theological colleges in Western countries that communicates with others to ensure quality, depth of research into deficient fields, and needs to be able to attract the educated clergy and laity. I think epidiacons at least should have some sort of formal diploma. But I think we also need to continue the tradition of ensuring asceticism is intertwined with theological education.
I wonder, are there any parts of our history that we are never told about because they are just too shamful?? Maybe this particular story in this specific movie isn't true, but is it possible that our church has in the past fallen into similar malpractices such as the ones the Catholic church was guilty of?? I mean corrupt leaders, crimes commited in the name of christianity etc.
I'll answer this a little in this separate post.
Generally the Oriental Orthodox are not guilty in the 5th/6th centuries of persecution of others. Those folk who always wish to malign St Cyril usually have an agenda. Of course city states in the 5th/6th centuries were rather violent places and the only way for the lower orders to make their opinions known was riot.
Many of the Oriental Orthodox bishops were sent to exile and death. Some were martyred. Monasteries were closed. Monks were forced into the deserts where they died. Any villages caught helping them were burned down. It was not easy for those who resisted the Imperial will. Often the intruding Imperial candidate for Archbishop of Alexandria came at the head of an army.
Of course there have been some patriarchs who were less than exemplary. But others were men of principle dealing with very difficult circumstances for their people. I can only think of a few incidents which the Alexandrian church is accused of. An accusation is not the same as guilt of course.
(These are just in brief)
i. Pope Theophilus was St Cyril's uncle. He had a falling out with St John Chrysostom and unjustly engineered his deposition. He also destroyed the last pagan temples in Alexandria. (385-412). He does seem to me to be guilty of bearing a grudge.
ii. During the patriarchate of St Cyril the pagan philosopher Hypatia was murdered by a mob. St Cyril's enemies said he had ordered her death, perhaps anti-pagan rhetoric was used as an excuse by the mob. I don't think he was guilty. There were issues between pagans and Christians and Jews and Christians, and certainly St Cyril spoke robustly about the threats to the Christian community, but it was the mob which was responsible for acting as mobs often do.
iv. At the ecumenical council of Ephesus in 449AD the case of Eutyches was reviewed, together with that of various Nestorian sympathising bishops. Eutyches presented an Orthodox confession of faith, but Flavian, the archbishop of Constantinople was found guilty of denying that one should say that Christ was 'one incarnate nature', and therefore of rejecting the teaching of St Cyril. It is said that Flavian was beaten to death by St Dioscorus. This seems to me to be entirely a fabrication of later times. It is known that Flavian was still sending letters 6 months after the council. Henry Chadwick, the famous modern Church historian believes that he disappeared into the Imperial quarters where some time later he died, either naturally or by the Imperial will.
iv. When St Dioscorus was taken away to exile and martyrdom the emperor imposed a new patriarch, Proterius. He had a mercenary army with him which he used to butcher those who opposed him. At the beginning of Lent he had only 5 names put forward for baptism, while St Timothy, the true patriarch elected after St Dioscorus' death, had so many thousands that the scribes could not keep up. Proterius was murdered by one of his mercenaries who had grown disgusted with being ordered to kill women and children. St Timothy was accused of the crime but he seems to me to have been entirely innocent.
iv. After the anti-Chalcedonians had been forced to consecrate bishops apart from the Imperial Church there was a period of controversy between the church of Alexandria and Syria over fairly petty matters which was rather shameful in the light of the difficult circumstances. Several patriarchs were consecrated for various parties in Alexandria and much of the dispute was over money and power. Thankfully this period came to a close and spiritual popes were restored.
After this the Persians invaded and then the Empire took control again briefly before the Islamic invasion. After that there were good and bad patriarchs but the Church of necessity became more isolated and less able to play a part on the international stage.
Regarding there being a deficiency with theology and patristic writings among the coptic church, I entirely agree with you. However, first and foremost it is because of a lack of resources. The Coptic church is not a wealthy church in which we have amazing resources to translate anything to english professionally. The first professionally translated book was HH book, "Have you seen the one I love?" Which was great actually.
Secondly, this deficiency has in fact been realized and there is a movement in the Diaspora(at least, I don't know of Egypt) of youth looking to the patristic writings themselves(and even a movement in at least the LA Diocese). The sayings of the fathers used to be something extremely rare and now they are being incorporated into Sunday School lessons and in LA I believe there is a new Theological library in the works. In the Southern diocese there is a theological Seminary headed by HG Anba Youseff, There is also another seminary in NJ. In Australia another. So I do believe the deficiency has been recognized and is being worked on correcting. However, its not an easy task.
I do agree with you, which is why I posted that I did understand why the Coptic Church was where it is on this issue.
But about translations, it seems to me that there are lots of members and friends of the Coptic Orthodox Church whose first language is English, and obviously a great many Copts whose first language is Arabic but who are competent in English. It should not be beyond our organising abilities to bring the two groups of people together, but there still seem to be translations from Arabic produced which do not seem to have had anyone whose first language is English check for spelling and grammar mistakes.
I am very encouraged that the younger generation are starting to show a real interest in patristics, and I know quite a few well known posters in various forums who are clearly reading the Fathers. I am sure that we will see a proper renewal of patristic studies and thinking even in my lifetime. But we do need to be committed to it as something that strengthens our own faith, and not just as something for other people to do.
I guess what a person needs is just a godly desire to study the Fathers and learn from them. May we all find such a desire in our hearts. There is plenty to read in English already. And if you have French and German there is a lifetime of material already available thanks to the works of others.
Bishops and priests have a great responsibility. Do pray for us all.
I think the accusation of that Russian priest that we have no good theologians, nor have produced any good theological pieces of work, is a bit uncalled for. Let me explain why:
The CoC lives in the continuous past tense with respect to its theological achievements: it recites the works and lives off the work of scholars such as Saint Athanasious, Saint Cyril, Saint Gregory.
However, the EO have had contemporary theologians such as St Gregory Palmares -
I do agree however, that Theological education in the Coptic Church should be as much a topic of discussion and learning as hymn learning, if not more. I know hundreds of deacons who tire and spend hours learning hymns understanding how many vowels go into a Pekethronos hymn on Good Friday, but have absolutely no idea why Christ came to die, nor why or what the sacraments are.
A lot of Coptic Christians have a mentality of this: "Do not trouble yourselves nor try to understand theology. Just know that Christ died for you, and that is enough".
I cannot blame them for thinking this way; but ultimately, we end up with an ignorant yet obedient congregation. But what can they be expected to be obedient over ??
This is why such teachings are becoming dangerous now. Yes, it is good to be obedient to the Church, but we should (we must!) arm ourselves with its doctrines and the knowledge of our Church Fathers, and be obedient to that. We just say to ourselves: "Well, Im not going think deeply about anything because I'm not going to say anything heretical that way!" lol
By our own laziness, we will end up nullifying what makes our Church special. Whilst the CoC does not evangelise its own patristics (which is a problem), what has been entering in our Church is much worse: It is the contemporary knowledge of Protestant Churches who have made huge waves in reaching out to everyone. Their so called "patristics" - which is of mere men who are themselves heretical,by virtue of the fact they do not even believe that an Apostolic Church exists, have managed to educate our own faithful in their theology.
Current Sunday School Curriculum is not about the Nicene Creed, nor about Orthodox Soteriology.
I have NEVER attended a Coptic Orthodox Sunday School where someone has explained to me why Christ died.
No one has explained to me :Why. Of course, through my own readings, and through having a strong Christian family who talk often to me about their faith, we learn a lot - but as a family!!! Not as a Sunday School, or Church.
Our problem is that whilst we teach our faithful that it is OK to be ignorant and obedient, other heretical churches are doing the exact opposite. They are reaching out - especially through the internet, or through other means such as HTB:
Our youth, after each sunday, go to Holy Trinity Brompton, a protestant temple in London to worship.
These are our servants - our CHurch servants that go. Now, I appreciate VERY much Nicky Gumbell, and I've heard a lot of good things about him, and we both have the same social circles, but my problem is that whatever they learn from HTB, or the Alpha Course, they bring that stuff in our Church.
I dont know why/how it is that such people end up serving in other Coptic Churches. They do not realise that although we have spiritual tradition and strong roots in the Apostolic Church of God, we have the correct teachings and spiritual culture of the Apostles.
We do not SING/PRAY IN TONGUES!! We use our faith in the Eucharist to support us. They ignore this and devalue this completely!! We do not have Slain in SPirit events where people fall over like dominoes because apparently the Spirit of God filled them!!!!! I could go on and on...
But I am curious as to WHY they go to HTB??? Why isnt the food we are offering them in our Church not enough?????
The CoC lives in the continuous past tense with respect to its theological achievements: it recites the works and lives off the work of scholars such as Saint Athanasious, Saint Cyril, Saint Gregory.
However, the EO have had contemporary theologians such as St Gregory Palmares
Do we really know the works of St Athanasius and St Cyril? I have many books on these Fathers but they are all by Catholics and Protestants.
And I am not sure that Gregory Palamas is contemporary. :) He did die 650 years ago!!
But I agree with what you say. We do need some sort of evangelism for patristics within the Church. That is a great way of describing what we need.
The CoC lives in the continuous past tense with respect to its theological achievements: it recites the works and lives off the work of scholars such as Saint Athanasious, Saint Cyril, Saint Gregory.
However, the EO have had contemporary theologians such as St Gregory Palmares
Do we really know the works of St Athanasius and St Cyril? I have many books on these Fathers but they are all by Catholics and Protestants.
And I am not sure that Gregory Palamas is contemporary. :) He did die 650 years ago!!
But I agree with what you say. We do need some sort of evangelism for patristics within the Church. That is a great way of describing what we need.
Father Peter
You are right Father.
But what do they expect? We can't start adding to our dogmas for the sake of it. We have our doctrines, our dogmas, our faith. I mean, we could find ways perhaps to express the same things differently; but I dont see what is wrong with sticking to the rich apostolic history we have already, and getting it translated and organised properly.
I recently attended a Coptic liturgy. I sat next to a young man who was holding an annotated bible to which he frequently referred and prayed in a way more appropriate to a protestant form. He attended communion.
Afterwards he told me he had had a vision concerning me and told me he also attended HTB.
Can anyone explain this.?I wanted to attend an Orthodox liturgy not be waylaid by a protestant (named Mark!)
[quote author=aidan link=topic=9222.msg114637#msg114637 date=1274470708] Further to HTB question.
I recently attended a Coptic liturgy. I sat next to a young man who was holding an annotated bible to which he frequently referred and prayed in a way more appropriate to a protestant form. He attended communion.
Afterwards he told me he had had a vision concerning me and told me he also attended HTB.
Can anyone explain this.?I wanted to attend an Orthodox liturgy not be waylaid by a protestant (named Mark!)
Orthodox Christians should not be attending Protestant Churches, certainly not without the explicit approval of their priests for a particular purpose.
There is a place for ecumenical participation, and at the meeting at Lambeth Palace there was a useful opportunity for me to meet some of the Eastern Orthodox clergy. (I don't mean that as though I was anyone important). But there is a place I believe for careful participation in such events.
There is also a place for Orthodox laity attending the funerals and weddings of friends in Protestant churches and perhaps even some special event.
These special events, both for clergy and laity, can be properly condoned and permitted.
But there is no scope at all in the rules of the Church, rules which go back hundreds and thousands of years, for Orthodox Christians to randomly and regularly attend Protestant services, participate in them, and act as if it did not matter which community we belonged to. This is just not allowed, and it doesn't make sense either. If someone is Orthodox then they must surely accept the Orthodox ecclesiology. If they don't accept the Orthodox ecclesiology then their Orthodoxy is deficient, and attending a Protestant Church will make things worse not better.
There is a need to be rather strict on this matter. Otherwise by default we have allowed the generally held Protestant teaching that all Churches are pretty much the same to become part of our Orthodox life - when it is the opposite of what we believe. In my own church, I will add whatever services people will support so that there is no need to go elsewhere - and no time!
sorry to interrupt this 5 page discussion but what does monophysites and all of the other physites mean? i looked it up online and I still dont understand the meaning.
Miaphysis is taken as meaning 'one united physis'.
Now what does 'physis' mean? It has meant and means a variety of things. It can mean the nature of something in general, but it can also mean the nature of something in the concrete. In terms of theology and Christology, and in brief...
St Cyril and our other Fathers described Christ as 'one incarnate nature of the Word' meaning that the Word of God remained one being, one identity, one subject even when He became man. His opponents and ours have taken this as meaning that we think Christ is some sort of mixture of divinity and humanity. We don't. But we do believe that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are so united that they should not be considered as being separate and divided at any time. We also believe that the subject and identity of Jesus Christ is the same subject and identity as the Word of God. So there is one incarnate nature which means 'one concrete, real identity which has become human while remaining divine' and also 'one way of being' which is made up of two ways of being - human and divine - which do not cease to be distinct even though in the incarnate Word they are united in an incomprehensible manner.
The dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity, and many could not imagine how God could become man without ceasing to be God. Therefore the more extreme, and those who are definitely considered heretics, proposed that the Word dwelt in the man Jesus in such a way that the man Jesus became a living icon of the Word and represented him in the world. They were able to say that there was one person in Christ but they did not mean by this that there was one identity and subject, rather they meant that there was one appearance or representation in the world. They could not say that the Word of God had been born, or died, because they described two identities and subjects in Christ, essentially two people.
Moderate dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity in Christ, but this was never in danger in the teaching of St Cyril. The Eastern Orthodox have continued to have councils to try and exclude the more extreme versions of dyophysitism.
Miaphysitism is a modern term which was coined to try and represent the idea that we (Oriental Orthodox) do not believe in a single nature in general in Christ - either divine, or a mixture - but we believe in a single nature by union, a union which preserves the difference.
[quote author=Neniotee Ethoab link=topic=9222.msg114643#msg114643 date=1274473203] sorry to interrupt this 5 page discussion but what does monophysites and all of the other physites mean? i looked it up online and I still dont understand the meaning.
In a nutshell - we are miaphysites, and the BEST person to explain it is our priest when he reads the confession before the he gives the Holy Communion. Here's what abouna says:
Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, Saint Mary. He made It One with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration.
So, if we look at this carefully, we'll see exactly what we believe. The person of Christ took flesh and made it one with His Divinity. Two natures are united in the person of Christ. United - but not changed. United, but not separated. Because they are not separated, we stress the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos.
Let's say they were separated - that would be Duophysite.
Now, the problem is this dude:
Mono (as the name suggests) means 1. We have been accussed (FALSLY!) of being One Nature. That as if the Divine Nature is the only nature of Christ. But that is so illogical it is annoying everyone. It is completely illogical for us to be accused of this, for we know, even a baby knows that Christ was born of Saint Mary (a human being).
So, we are definately not monophysite. We are miaphysite.
So, if we read the the confession, we'll understand everything perfectly:
* He took it from our Lady - Saint Mary - the Theotokos. The term "Theotokos" means Mother of God. We stress this to refute the heresy of Nestorius who suggested that Saint Mary is to be called Christokos - the mother of Christ: as if to say that Christ was born as the annointed of God, but He became divine later on. We don't believe this AT ALL. We believe Saint mary is the THEOTOKOS - Mother of God: i.e that Christ was completely Divine and Completely Human. The properties of the Human Nature remained as they are (without changing/alteration), and so did the properties of His Divine Nature remained as they are (without changing).
What then is Duophysite? Well, perhaps Fr. Peter could correct me on this, but the RC said that Christ is of 2 natures: Divine and Human. Great.. so far so good. But they apparently said that Christ was Divine at certain times, and human at certain times. For example - when he changed the water into wine - He was God. When he created eyes for the blind man, he was God - when He was hungry after fasting, He was man.
So, we just refute this by saying there was NO confusion - no alteration, no mingling, NO SEPARATION!! Because of the fact that there is NO separation, we talk about the One Nature of the Word Incarnate (which was made up of 2 natures: Divine and Human).
Father Peter can correct me where I've made any mistakes.
No you have not made any mistakes, and I am glad that you have mentioned the words of the liturgy as an example.
One thing, it was not just the RCs who tended to think like this, indeed at the time of Chalcedon there was no RC church. It was a great many of those who supported Chalcedon who thought that it was necessary to divide up the things of Christ into those which were human and those which were divine and those which were mixed.
The problem with such an approach, as you suggest, is that we can end up with a view that sometimes Christ is God and sometimes he is just man. We believe that at every moment he was always and remains both God and man and that even in the human activities God the Word was divinely present and united with his humanity.
I would say this: not everyone who attends church and takes communion in the COC is indeed Coptic Orthodox.
This might not have been the case for you specifically with this young man sitting next to you, but very recently the Pope warned of a new technique the Protestans use in Egypt. A Protestant young man, well trained in his beliefs, goes to an Orthodox church and pretends to be Orthodox, he then enters into service and via his position he starts messing with people's minds, so as to confuse them and move their orthodox faith, of course, doing this as an 'orthodox' himself, he can get away with a lot... Now, this is not meant as an offence to anyone in particular, but this specific way of trying to 'win over' orthodox people to the protestant church is simply disgusting and should be condemned by anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ. HH also mentioned that for the past period, his main task was to rid the churches of such imposters...
Thank you Father Peter for your clarification, maybe if we had more knowledge about our true history, the good AND THE BAD we would be more humble and would not have the tendency to think that we are better than others..
Thanks Clay for the reference.. I will try to check that book out once I have more time
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=9222.msg114646#msg114646 date=1274475670] [quote author=Neniotee Ethoab link=topic=9222.msg114643#msg114643 date=1274473203] sorry to interrupt this 5 page discussion but what does monophysites and all of the other physites mean? i looked it up online and I still dont understand the meaning.
In a nutshell - we are miaphysites, and the BEST person to explain it is our priest when he reads the confession before the he gives the Holy Communion. Here's what abouna says:
Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, Saint Mary. He made It One with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration.
So, if we look at this carefully, we'll see exactly what we believe. The person of Christ took flesh and made it one with His Divinity. Two natures are united in the person of Christ. United - but not changed. United, but not separated. Because they are not separated, we stress the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos.
Let's say they were separated - that would be Duophysite.
Now, the problem is this dude:
Mono (as the name suggests) means 1. We have been accussed (FALSLY!) of being One Nature. That as if the Divine Nature is the only nature of Christ. But that is so illogical it is annoying everyone. It is completely illogical for us to be accused of this, for we know, even a baby knows that Christ was born of Saint Mary (a human being).
So, we are definately not monophysite. We are miaphysite.
So, if we read the the confession, we'll understand everything perfectly:
* He took it from our Lady - Saint Mary - the Theotokos. The term "Theotokos" means Mother of God. We stress this to refute the heresy of Nestorius who suggested that Saint Mary is to be called Christokos - the mother of Christ: as if to say that Christ was born as the annointed of God, but He became divine later on. We don't believe this AT ALL. We believe Saint mary is the THEOTOKOS - Mother of God: i.e that Christ was completely Divine and Completely Human. The properties of the Human Nature remained as they are (without changing/alteration), and so did the properties of His Divine Nature remained as they are (without changing).
What then is Duophysite? Well, perhaps Fr. Peter could correct me on this, but the RC said that Christ is of 2 natures: Divine and Human. Great.. so far so good. But they apparently said that Christ was Divine at certain times, and human at certain times. For example - when he changed the water into wine - He was God. When he created eyes for the blind man, he was God - when He was hungry after fasting, He was man.
So, we just refute this by saying there was NO confusion - no alteration, no mingling, NO SEPARATION!! Because of the fact that there is NO separation, we talk about the One Nature of the Word Incarnate (which was made up of 2 natures: Divine and Human).
Father Peter can correct me where I've made any mistakes.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9222.msg114644#msg114644 date=1274475133] Monophysite means 'one physis'.
Dyophysite means 'two physis'.
Miaphysis is taken as meaning 'one united physis'.
Now what does 'physis' mean? It has meant and means a variety of things. It can mean the nature of something in general, but it can also mean the nature of something in the concrete. In terms of theology and Christology, and in brief...
St Cyril and our other Fathers described Christ as 'one incarnate nature of the Word' meaning that the Word of God remained one being, one identity, one subject even when He became man. His opponents and ours have taken this as meaning that we think Christ is some sort of mixture of divinity and humanity. We don't. But we do believe that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are so united that they should not be considered as being separate and divided at any time. We also believe that the subject and identity of Jesus Christ is the same subject and identity as the Word of God. So there is one incarnate nature which means 'one concrete, real identity which has become human while remaining divine' and also 'one way of being' which is made up of two ways of being - human and divine - which do not cease to be distinct even though in the incarnate Word they are united in an incomprehensible manner.
The dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity, and many could not imagine how God could become man without ceasing to be God. Therefore the more extreme, and those who are definitely considered heretics, proposed that the Word dwelt in the man Jesus in such a way that the man Jesus became a living icon of the Word and represented him in the world. They were able to say that there was one person in Christ but they did not mean by this that there was one identity and subject, rather they meant that there was one appearance or representation in the world. They could not say that the Word of God had been born, or died, because they described two identities and subjects in Christ, essentially two people.
Moderate dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity in Christ, but this was never in danger in the teaching of St Cyril. The Eastern Orthodox have continued to have councils to try and exclude the more extreme versions of dyophysitism.
Miaphysitism is a modern term which was coined to try and represent the idea that we (Oriental Orthodox) do not believe in a single nature in general in Christ - either divine, or a mixture - but we believe in a single nature by union, a union which preserves the difference.
Sorry, this is still complicated.
Father Peter
ohhh. thanks. I know what it means but it sounds so much more complicated than it could have been. thanks!
one quick question. a roman catholic can easily say to me, "Christ has two natures but not at the same time. Prove to me that he was 100% divine and 100% human" Obviously telling them that it is based on faith is not suffice even though I truly believe it.
Dear Fr. Peter, I posted my explanation the same time as yours, but Im glad that the Confession at the end could be a useful example to give.
Nenioti Ethouawab -
Christ was 100% man and 100% Divine. There's nothing to prove. The RC believe this now anyway. Ask any of them. When I was growing up in a RC school, they taught the heresy of duophysism - i.e. I was taught that at certain times Christ was man and at certain times He was God. Now, they act as if they've been miaphysite. There's nothing to prove.
I would be interested in refuting monophysism, but seeing as the most ignorant of ignorant person knows that Christ was born of Saint Mary (human) and of the Holy Spirit (divine), then I fail to see how any explanation could resolve this - its just wicked to be labelled as heretical over something like this.
The Roman Catholic Church accepted the Assyrian Church of the East into Communion. So what does that say about an imperial embark--sacrificing theology and signed documents with the EO and OO for the sake of adding to the ranks in the RCC.
The Coptic Church does not have money. We are a poor people. There are plenty of theological books that are available in Arabic for the majority of the Church, which speaks Arabic. The translation process is being carried out. I have criticized it, myself, but I must admit, much has progressed. Such endeavors out of Cleveland (Ohio) and St. Shenouda the Archmendrite Society in California, and the like.
For many in the western cultures, and in the Byzantine branches, it does not make a difference what we say. They have a pre-conceived notion and it sticks.
In regard, to the Russian priest's comments, he probably has not read Pope Shenouda, Metropolitan Bishoy, nor Fr. Tadros Malaty.
As for the protestant infiltration, that cannot be stopped. People (with Protestant leanings) are trying to avoid their obligations, disciplines, and Sacraments of the Mother Church--the Orthodox Church.
The Coptic Church, has been hampered by so much over the centuries.
When I said that the Coptic Church gave the world Christianity. I still hold to it. I mentioned and gave credit that others contributed, but the codification of theology and dogma was primarily carried out by Alexandria. The hierarchical system, as documented, was first mentioned in completion to the Alexandrian Church. The Catechetical School of Alexandria was not matched by anything anywhere. The Setugiat was carried out in Alexandria, and the Canonical ordering of the Holy Bible was initiated and mostly completed by Alexandria. The Nicene Creed was formulated by an 18 year old Deacon and was codified and promulgated by the 318 Fathers.
If it will clarify things, I can say it this way: "The vast majority of Christianity was given to the world by the Coptic Church." I did not think that one would take it in the regard that absolutely every facet was from the Coptic Church.
I would mention my sources as being: History of Eastern Christianity--Aziz Atiya, Coptic Encyclopedia--Ed. Aziz Atiya.
I agree that that there is a nascence of English expression of our: history, theology, liturgy, chants, etc. There is still a long way to go.
We did not take up the sword against our fellow Christians. The sword and the spittle was taken up against us.
My mention of the Byzantine church in Old Cairo had to do with the use of the flag as a symbol equating theological correctness with the nationality of the Greek flag that flies atop the church.
Pope Shenouda ordained a bishop in Italy with the associated metropolis and did not do an offense as to make one with the title of "Coptic Bishop of Rome". The Byzantine Church has quite a title for their Patriarch in Alexandria. It is an inflated title to cover 5-10 k people in Egypt.
No doubt there has been simony, sexual misconduct, heresy, pride, arrogance in the Coptic Church. They are by no means accepted or condoned. However, they were limited issues not a mass effect as in other regards, in other portions of the expanse in East and West.
The Coptic Church is just struggling to survive. We have survived, and we will continue to survive. We do so because of a complete reliance on Almighty God; not on any jurisdiction in the East or West, nor any Tsar or Caesar.
The Roman Empire is dead. The Byzantine Empire is dead. Let them stay that way. I believe that any discussions between the families should be relative to Churches talking and negotiating, not for the establishment of an Empire.
The Coptic Church has done more in so little time and with so little resource in Africa and the Diaspora than any equivalent to the other jurisdictions.
I am proud of My Mother. It is my opinion. Others may have their opinion. So be it. I expect a whole series of replies to be fired, but I find flaws in comments made by others. I am not going to spend more time on the issue. I believe if someone wants to learn they will find a way. I find that the lazy and negligent generally look for every excuse, including blaming the Church for all of their flaws and illegitimacies.{I mean this for those who wander to other sects and religions, and not anyone on this forum--so there is no misunderstanding}.
In regard to thoughts on the original question, as I was looking up a reference for your other thread, I add for you the following article from the same--Coptologia Journal.
"Monophytism vs. Diophysitism...Eutychianism Clarified (Vol. II, p. 73)
www.coptologia.com
I hope it is helpful. I think you will be impressed at the wide range of articles within this journal. Moreover, there is a huge resource of scholars and theologians. There are many names that you will see that you probably never heard of before. 90%, at least, are Coptic.
I am aware of your comment, but it does not detract from what the RCC did as an action just to extend Its reach. They sacrificed dogma and theology to add another 60,000 - 600,000 (depending on whose estimate you use as the size of the Assyrian Church) to their ranks.
Comments
Your post allows me the opportunity to say that I entirely understand WHY there has been a deficiency in the Coptic Orthodox Church in the past. If we compare the situation with many other Orthodox communities they have been free to establish theological schools of the highest standards without the opposition of others in their homelands, and even with the support and resources of the state.
Even the Russian Church, which had suffered under communism for 70 years had a significant emigre population which was able to flourish in Western Europe and North America. This has not been the case for the Coptic Orthodox community. When I was born in 1963 there was, as far as I can see, no Coptic Orthodox Church in the UK at all. Now there are a great many congregations, and Coptic Orthodoxy is increasingly known, I will not yet say well known though. It also flourishes in the USA and around the world in many places where English is the first language and where the possibility of making the substance of our faith widely known exists.
There can be nothing but praise and gratitude to God for the way that a significant Orthodox community has remained faithful in Egypt over a period of 1400 years of persecution, and has entered the 21st century with a renewed vigour thanks to the spiritual leadership of His Holiness Pope St Kyrillos and His Holiness Pope Shenouda. But the new opportunities require us to accept new responsibilities. Those of us who are in the West and busy with studies and jobs are free to also engage deeply with our theological heritage. We must use that freedom while it is granted to us. Knowledge of our faith - and true theological studies are not sterile scholarship but are filled with light and life - is like the talent which the master gave to his servants. If we do nothing with what we are given then even the understanding we have will be taken away. If we seek to multiply the understanding which we have been given and offer our studies as service to God and the Church then our understanding will increase exponentially as God blesses our efforts.
You know that I have recently published a book about various Christological and other topics. I am not proud of it. It is deficient in many ways, but I have published it because there is so little other materials in circulation, and almost nothing about St Timothy whom I love. My hope is not that people will think I have written anything wonderful - I have not. Bur rather than many of the younger people on this forum will take up the challenge and appreciate the beauty of our theological inheritance and will write much better and more fruitful works of theological reflection than I ever could.
Father Peter
Fr. Peter, I tend to agree, but maybe this is because our diocese in European countries are still maturing. I think we will develop this in years to come, but inroads must be made to properly and firmly establish theological colleges in Western countries that communicates with others to ensure quality, depth of research into deficient fields, and needs to be able to attract the educated clergy and laity. I think epidiacons at least should have some sort of formal diploma. But I think we also need to continue the tradition of ensuring asceticism is intertwined with theological education.
Generally the Oriental Orthodox are not guilty in the 5th/6th centuries of persecution of others. Those folk who always wish to malign St Cyril usually have an agenda. Of course city states in the 5th/6th centuries were rather violent places and the only way for the lower orders to make their opinions known was riot.
Many of the Oriental Orthodox bishops were sent to exile and death. Some were martyred. Monasteries were closed. Monks were forced into the deserts where they died. Any villages caught helping them were burned down. It was not easy for those who resisted the Imperial will. Often the intruding Imperial candidate for Archbishop of Alexandria came at the head of an army.
Of course there have been some patriarchs who were less than exemplary. But others were men of principle dealing with very difficult circumstances for their people. I can only think of a few incidents which the Alexandrian church is accused of. An accusation is not the same as guilt of course.
(These are just in brief)
i. Pope Theophilus was St Cyril's uncle. He had a falling out with St John Chrysostom and unjustly engineered his deposition. He also destroyed the last pagan temples in Alexandria. (385-412). He does seem to me to be guilty of bearing a grudge.
ii. During the patriarchate of St Cyril the pagan philosopher Hypatia was murdered by a mob. St Cyril's enemies said he had ordered her death, perhaps anti-pagan rhetoric was used as an excuse by the mob. I don't think he was guilty. There were issues between pagans and Christians and Jews and Christians, and certainly St Cyril spoke robustly about the threats to the Christian community, but it was the mob which was responsible for acting as mobs often do.
iv. At the ecumenical council of Ephesus in 449AD the case of Eutyches was reviewed, together with that of various Nestorian sympathising bishops. Eutyches presented an Orthodox confession of faith, but Flavian, the archbishop of Constantinople was found guilty of denying that one should say that Christ was 'one incarnate nature', and therefore of rejecting the teaching of St Cyril. It is said that Flavian was beaten to death by St Dioscorus. This seems to me to be entirely a fabrication of later times. It is known that Flavian was still sending letters 6 months after the council. Henry Chadwick, the famous modern Church historian believes that he disappeared into the Imperial quarters where some time later he died, either naturally or by the Imperial will.
iv. When St Dioscorus was taken away to exile and martyrdom the emperor imposed a new patriarch, Proterius. He had a mercenary army with him which he used to butcher those who opposed him. At the beginning of Lent he had only 5 names put forward for baptism, while St Timothy, the true patriarch elected after St Dioscorus' death, had so many thousands that the scribes could not keep up. Proterius was murdered by one of his mercenaries who had grown disgusted with being ordered to kill women and children. St Timothy was accused of the crime but he seems to me to have been entirely innocent.
iv. After the anti-Chalcedonians had been forced to consecrate bishops apart from the Imperial Church there was a period of controversy between the church of Alexandria and Syria over fairly petty matters which was rather shameful in the light of the difficult circumstances. Several patriarchs were consecrated for various parties in Alexandria and much of the dispute was over money and power. Thankfully this period came to a close and spiritual popes were restored.
After this the Persians invaded and then the Empire took control again briefly before the Islamic invasion. After that there were good and bad patriarchs but the Church of necessity became more isolated and less able to play a part on the international stage.
Father Peter
Regarding there being a deficiency with theology and patristic writings among the coptic church, I entirely agree with you. However, first and foremost it is because of a lack of resources. The Coptic church is not a wealthy church in which we have amazing resources to translate anything to english professionally. The first professionally translated book was HH book, "Have you seen the one I love?" Which was great actually.
Secondly, this deficiency has in fact been realized and there is a movement in the Diaspora(at least, I don't know of Egypt) of youth looking to the patristic writings themselves(and even a movement in at least the LA Diocese). The sayings of the fathers used to be something extremely rare and now they are being incorporated into Sunday School lessons and in LA I believe there is a new Theological library in the works. In the Southern diocese there is a theological Seminary headed by HG Anba Youseff, There is also another seminary in NJ. In Australia another. So I do believe the deficiency has been recognized and is being worked on correcting. However, its not an easy task.
Pray for me and my weakness
I do agree with you, which is why I posted that I did understand why the Coptic Church was where it is on this issue.
But about translations, it seems to me that there are lots of members and friends of the Coptic Orthodox Church whose first language is English, and obviously a great many Copts whose first language is Arabic but who are competent in English. It should not be beyond our organising abilities to bring the two groups of people together, but there still seem to be translations from Arabic produced which do not seem to have had anyone whose first language is English check for spelling and grammar mistakes.
I am very encouraged that the younger generation are starting to show a real interest in patristics, and I know quite a few well known posters in various forums who are clearly reading the Fathers. I am sure that we will see a proper renewal of patristic studies and thinking even in my lifetime. But we do need to be committed to it as something that strengthens our own faith, and not just as something for other people to do.
I guess what a person needs is just a godly desire to study the Fathers and learn from them. May we all find such a desire in our hearts. There is plenty to read in English already. And if you have French and German there is a lifetime of material already available thanks to the works of others.
Bishops and priests have a great responsibility. Do pray for us all.
Father Peter
I think the accusation of that Russian priest that we have no good theologians, nor have produced any good theological pieces of work, is a bit uncalled for. Let me explain why:
The CoC lives in the continuous past tense with respect to its theological achievements: it recites the works and lives off the work of scholars such as Saint Athanasious, Saint Cyril, Saint Gregory.
However, the EO have had contemporary theologians such as St Gregory Palmares -
I do agree however, that Theological education in the Coptic Church should be as much a topic of discussion and learning as hymn learning, if not more. I know hundreds of deacons who tire and spend hours learning hymns understanding how many vowels go into a Pekethronos hymn on Good Friday, but have absolutely no idea why Christ came to die, nor why or what the sacraments are.
A lot of Coptic Christians have a mentality of this: "Do not trouble yourselves nor try to understand theology. Just know that Christ died for you, and that is enough".
I cannot blame them for thinking this way; but ultimately, we end up with an ignorant yet obedient congregation. But what can they be expected to be obedient over ??
This is why such teachings are becoming dangerous now. Yes, it is good to be obedient to the Church, but we should (we must!) arm ourselves with its doctrines and the knowledge of our Church Fathers, and be obedient to that. We just say to ourselves: "Well, Im not going think deeply about anything because I'm not going to say anything heretical that way!" lol
By our own laziness, we will end up nullifying what makes our Church special. Whilst the CoC does not evangelise its own patristics (which is a problem), what has been entering in our Church is much worse: It is the contemporary knowledge of Protestant Churches who have made huge waves in reaching out to everyone. Their so called "patristics" - which is of mere men who are themselves heretical,by virtue of the fact they do not even believe that an Apostolic Church exists, have managed to educate our own faithful in their theology.
Current Sunday School Curriculum is not about the Nicene Creed, nor about Orthodox Soteriology.
I have NEVER attended a Coptic Orthodox Sunday School where someone has explained to me why Christ died.
No one has explained to me :Why. Of course, through my own readings, and through having a strong Christian family who talk often to me about their faith, we learn a lot - but as a family!!! Not as a Sunday School, or Church.
Our problem is that whilst we teach our faithful that it is OK to be ignorant and obedient, other heretical churches are doing the exact opposite. They are reaching out - especially through the internet, or through other means such as HTB:
Our youth, after each sunday, go to Holy Trinity Brompton, a protestant temple in London to worship.
These are our servants - our CHurch servants that go. Now, I appreciate VERY much Nicky Gumbell, and I've heard a lot of good things about him, and we both have the same social circles, but my problem is that whatever they learn from HTB, or the Alpha Course, they bring that stuff in our Church.
I dont know why/how it is that such people end up serving in other Coptic Churches. They do not realise that although we have spiritual tradition and strong roots in the Apostolic Church of God, we have the correct teachings and spiritual culture of the Apostles.
We do not SING/PRAY IN TONGUES!!
We use our faith in the Eucharist to support us. They ignore this and devalue this completely!!
We do not have Slain in SPirit events where people fall over like dominoes because apparently the Spirit of God filled them!!!!!
I could go on and on...
But I am curious as to WHY they go to HTB??? Why isnt the food we are offering them in our Church not enough?????
And I am not sure that Gregory Palamas is contemporary. :) He did die 650 years ago!!
But I agree with what you say. We do need some sort of evangelism for patristics within the Church. That is a great way of describing what we need.
Father Peter
Dear Zoxasi, Do we really know the works of St Athanasius and St Cyril? I have many books on these Fathers but they are all by Catholics and Protestants.
And I am not sure that Gregory Palamas is contemporary. :) He did die 650 years ago!!
But I agree with what you say. We do need some sort of evangelism for patristics within the Church. That is a great way of describing what we need.
Father Peter
You are right Father.
But what do they expect? We can't start adding to our dogmas for the sake of it. We have our doctrines, our dogmas, our faith. I mean, we could find ways perhaps to express the same things differently; but I dont see what is wrong with sticking to the rich apostolic history we have already, and getting it translated and organised properly.
Thanks
I recently attended a Coptic liturgy. I sat next to a young man who was holding an annotated bible to which he frequently referred and prayed in a way more appropriate to a protestant form. He attended communion.
Afterwards he told me he had had a vision concerning me and told me he also attended HTB.
Can anyone explain this.?I wanted to attend an Orthodox liturgy not be waylaid by a protestant (named Mark!)
Further to HTB question.
I recently attended a Coptic liturgy. I sat next to a young man who was holding an annotated bible to which he frequently referred and prayed in a way more appropriate to a protestant form. He attended communion.
Afterwards he told me he had had a vision concerning me and told me he also attended HTB.
Can anyone explain this.?I wanted to attend an Orthodox liturgy not be waylaid by a protestant (named Mark!)
lol... Aidan, was that in St. Mark's Church??
This is too funny.
Orthodox Christians should not be attending Protestant Churches, certainly not without the explicit approval of their priests for a particular purpose.
There is a place for ecumenical participation, and at the meeting at Lambeth Palace there was a useful opportunity for me to meet some of the Eastern Orthodox clergy. (I don't mean that as though I was anyone important). But there is a place I believe for careful participation in such events.
There is also a place for Orthodox laity attending the funerals and weddings of friends in Protestant churches and perhaps even some special event.
These special events, both for clergy and laity, can be properly condoned and permitted.
But there is no scope at all in the rules of the Church, rules which go back hundreds and thousands of years, for Orthodox Christians to randomly and regularly attend Protestant services, participate in them, and act as if it did not matter which community we belonged to. This is just not allowed, and it doesn't make sense either. If someone is Orthodox then they must surely accept the Orthodox ecclesiology. If they don't accept the Orthodox ecclesiology then their Orthodoxy is deficient, and attending a Protestant Church will make things worse not better.
There is a need to be rather strict on this matter. Otherwise by default we have allowed the generally held Protestant teaching that all Churches are pretty much the same to become part of our Orthodox life - when it is the opposite of what we believe. In my own church, I will add whatever services people will support so that there is no need to go elsewhere - and no time!
Father Peter
Dyophysite means 'two physis'.
Miaphysis is taken as meaning 'one united physis'.
Now what does 'physis' mean? It has meant and means a variety of things. It can mean the nature of something in general, but it can also mean the nature of something in the concrete. In terms of theology and Christology, and in brief...
St Cyril and our other Fathers described Christ as 'one incarnate nature of the Word' meaning that the Word of God remained one being, one identity, one subject even when He became man. His opponents and ours have taken this as meaning that we think Christ is some sort of mixture of divinity and humanity. We don't. But we do believe that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are so united that they should not be considered as being separate and divided at any time. We also believe that the subject and identity of Jesus Christ is the same subject and identity as the Word of God. So there is one incarnate nature which means 'one concrete, real identity which has become human while remaining divine' and also 'one way of being' which is made up of two ways of being - human and divine - which do not cease to be distinct even though in the incarnate Word they are united in an incomprehensible manner.
The dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity, and many could not imagine how God could become man without ceasing to be God. Therefore the more extreme, and those who are definitely considered heretics, proposed that the Word dwelt in the man Jesus in such a way that the man Jesus became a living icon of the Word and represented him in the world. They were able to say that there was one person in Christ but they did not mean by this that there was one identity and subject, rather they meant that there was one appearance or representation in the world. They could not say that the Word of God had been born, or died, because they described two identities and subjects in Christ, essentially two people.
Moderate dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity in Christ, but this was never in danger in the teaching of St Cyril. The Eastern Orthodox have continued to have councils to try and exclude the more extreme versions of dyophysitism.
Miaphysitism is a modern term which was coined to try and represent the idea that we (Oriental Orthodox) do not believe in a single nature in general in Christ - either divine, or a mixture - but we believe in a single nature by union, a union which preserves the difference.
Sorry, this is still complicated.
Father Peter
sorry to interrupt this 5 page discussion but what does monophysites and all of the other physites mean? i looked it up online and I still dont understand the meaning.
In a nutshell - we are miaphysites, and the BEST person to explain it is our priest when he reads the confession before the he gives the Holy Communion. Here's what abouna says: So, if we look at this carefully, we'll see exactly what we believe. The person of Christ took flesh and made it one with His Divinity. Two natures are united in the person of Christ. United - but not changed. United, but not separated.
Because they are not separated, we stress the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos.
Let's say they were separated - that would be Duophysite.
Now, the problem is this dude:
Mono (as the name suggests) means 1. We have been accussed (FALSLY!) of being One Nature. That as if the Divine Nature is the only nature of Christ. But that is so illogical it is annoying everyone. It is completely illogical for us to be accused of this, for we know, even a baby knows that Christ was born of Saint Mary (a human being).
So, we are definately not monophysite. We are miaphysite.
So, if we read the the confession, we'll understand everything perfectly:
* He took it from our Lady - Saint Mary - the Theotokos.
The term "Theotokos" means Mother of God. We stress this to refute the heresy of Nestorius who suggested that Saint Mary is to be called Christokos - the mother of Christ: as if to say that Christ was born as the annointed of God, but He became divine later on. We don't believe this AT ALL. We believe Saint mary is the THEOTOKOS - Mother of God: i.e that Christ was completely Divine and Completely Human. The properties of the Human Nature remained as they are (without changing/alteration), and so did the properties of His Divine Nature remained as they are (without changing).
What then is Duophysite? Well, perhaps Fr. Peter could correct me on this, but the RC said that Christ is of 2 natures: Divine and Human. Great.. so far so good. But they apparently said that Christ was Divine at certain times, and human at certain times. For example - when he changed the water into wine - He was God. When he created eyes for the blind man, he was God - when He was hungry after fasting, He was man.
So, we just refute this by saying there was NO confusion - no alteration, no mingling, NO SEPARATION!! Because of the fact that there is NO separation, we talk about the One Nature of the Word Incarnate (which was made up of 2 natures: Divine and Human).
Father Peter can correct me where I've made any mistakes.
One thing, it was not just the RCs who tended to think like this, indeed at the time of Chalcedon there was no RC church. It was a great many of those who supported Chalcedon who thought that it was necessary to divide up the things of Christ into those which were human and those which were divine and those which were mixed.
The problem with such an approach, as you suggest, is that we can end up with a view that sometimes Christ is God and sometimes he is just man. We believe that at every moment he was always and remains both God and man and that even in the human activities God the Word was divinely present and united with his humanity.
Father Peter
I would say this: not everyone who attends church and takes communion in the COC is indeed Coptic Orthodox.
This might not have been the case for you specifically with this young man sitting next to you, but very recently the Pope warned of a new technique the Protestans use in Egypt. A Protestant young man, well trained in his beliefs, goes to an Orthodox church and pretends to be Orthodox, he then enters into service and via his position he starts messing with people's minds, so as to confuse them and move their orthodox faith, of course, doing this as an 'orthodox' himself, he can get away with a lot...
Now, this is not meant as an offence to anyone in particular, but this specific way of trying to 'win over' orthodox people to the protestant church is simply disgusting and should be condemned by anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ. HH also mentioned that for the past period, his main task was to rid the churches of such imposters...
Thank you Father Peter for your clarification, maybe if we had more knowledge about our true history, the good AND THE BAD we would be more humble and would not have the tendency to think that we are better than others..
Thanks Clay for the reference.. I will try to check that book out once I have more time
[quote author=Neniotee Ethoab link=topic=9222.msg114643#msg114643 date=1274473203]
sorry to interrupt this 5 page discussion but what does monophysites and all of the other physites mean? i looked it up online and I still dont understand the meaning.
In a nutshell - we are miaphysites, and the BEST person to explain it is our priest when he reads the confession before the he gives the Holy Communion. Here's what abouna says: So, if we look at this carefully, we'll see exactly what we believe. The person of Christ took flesh and made it one with His Divinity. Two natures are united in the person of Christ. United - but not changed. United, but not separated.
Because they are not separated, we stress the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos.
Let's say they were separated - that would be Duophysite.
Now, the problem is this dude:
Mono (as the name suggests) means 1. We have been accussed (FALSLY!) of being One Nature. That as if the Divine Nature is the only nature of Christ. But that is so illogical it is annoying everyone. It is completely illogical for us to be accused of this, for we know, even a baby knows that Christ was born of Saint Mary (a human being).
So, we are definately not monophysite. We are miaphysite.
So, if we read the the confession, we'll understand everything perfectly:
* He took it from our Lady - Saint Mary - the Theotokos.
The term "Theotokos" means Mother of God. We stress this to refute the heresy of Nestorius who suggested that Saint Mary is to be called Christokos - the mother of Christ: as if to say that Christ was born as the annointed of God, but He became divine later on. We don't believe this AT ALL. We believe Saint mary is the THEOTOKOS - Mother of God: i.e that Christ was completely Divine and Completely Human. The properties of the Human Nature remained as they are (without changing/alteration), and so did the properties of His Divine Nature remained as they are (without changing).
What then is Duophysite? Well, perhaps Fr. Peter could correct me on this, but the RC said that Christ is of 2 natures: Divine and Human. Great.. so far so good. But they apparently said that Christ was Divine at certain times, and human at certain times. For example - when he changed the water into wine - He was God. When he created eyes for the blind man, he was God - when He was hungry after fasting, He was man.
So, we just refute this by saying there was NO confusion - no alteration, no mingling, NO SEPARATION!! Because of the fact that there is NO separation, we talk about the One Nature of the Word Incarnate (which was made up of 2 natures: Divine and Human).
Father Peter can correct me where I've made any mistakes.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9222.msg114644#msg114644 date=1274475133]
Monophysite means 'one physis'.
Dyophysite means 'two physis'.
Miaphysis is taken as meaning 'one united physis'.
Now what does 'physis' mean? It has meant and means a variety of things. It can mean the nature of something in general, but it can also mean the nature of something in the concrete. In terms of theology and Christology, and in brief...
St Cyril and our other Fathers described Christ as 'one incarnate nature of the Word' meaning that the Word of God remained one being, one identity, one subject even when He became man. His opponents and ours have taken this as meaning that we think Christ is some sort of mixture of divinity and humanity. We don't. But we do believe that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are so united that they should not be considered as being separate and divided at any time. We also believe that the subject and identity of Jesus Christ is the same subject and identity as the Word of God. So there is one incarnate nature which means 'one concrete, real identity which has become human while remaining divine' and also 'one way of being' which is made up of two ways of being - human and divine - which do not cease to be distinct even though in the incarnate Word they are united in an incomprehensible manner.
The dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity, and many could not imagine how God could become man without ceasing to be God. Therefore the more extreme, and those who are definitely considered heretics, proposed that the Word dwelt in the man Jesus in such a way that the man Jesus became a living icon of the Word and represented him in the world. They were able to say that there was one person in Christ but they did not mean by this that there was one identity and subject, rather they meant that there was one appearance or representation in the world. They could not say that the Word of God had been born, or died, because they described two identities and subjects in Christ, essentially two people.
Moderate dyophysites wished to preserve the distinction between the humanity and divinity in Christ, but this was never in danger in the teaching of St Cyril. The Eastern Orthodox have continued to have councils to try and exclude the more extreme versions of dyophysitism.
Miaphysitism is a modern term which was coined to try and represent the idea that we (Oriental Orthodox) do not believe in a single nature in general in Christ - either divine, or a mixture - but we believe in a single nature by union, a union which preserves the difference.
Sorry, this is still complicated.
Father Peter
ohhh. thanks. I know what it means but it sounds so much more complicated than it could have been. thanks!
one quick question. a roman catholic can easily say to me, "Christ has two natures but not at the same time. Prove to me that he was 100% divine and 100% human" Obviously telling them that it is based on faith is not suffice even though I truly believe it.
Nenioti Ethouawab -
Christ was 100% man and 100% Divine. There's nothing to prove. The RC believe this now anyway. Ask any of them. When I was growing up in a RC school, they taught the heresy of duophysism - i.e. I was taught that at certain times Christ was man and at certain times He was God. Now, they act as if they've been miaphysite. There's nothing to prove.
I would be interested in refuting monophysism, but seeing as the most ignorant of ignorant person knows that Christ was born of Saint Mary (human) and of the Holy Spirit (divine), then I fail to see how any explanation could resolve this - its just wicked to be labelled as heretical over something like this.
The Roman Catholic Church accepted the Assyrian Church of the East into Communion. So what does that say about an imperial embark--sacrificing theology and signed documents with the EO and OO for the sake of adding to the ranks in the RCC.
The Coptic Church does not have money. We are a poor people. There are plenty of theological books that are available in Arabic for the majority of the Church, which speaks Arabic. The translation process is being carried out. I have criticized it, myself, but I must admit, much has progressed. Such endeavors out of Cleveland (Ohio) and St. Shenouda the Archmendrite Society in California, and the like.
For many in the western cultures, and in the Byzantine branches, it does not make a difference what we say. They have a pre-conceived notion and it sticks.
In regard, to the Russian priest's comments, he probably has not read Pope Shenouda, Metropolitan Bishoy, nor Fr. Tadros Malaty.
As for the protestant infiltration, that cannot be stopped. People (with Protestant leanings) are trying to avoid their obligations, disciplines, and Sacraments of the Mother Church--the Orthodox Church.
The Coptic Church, has been hampered by so much over the centuries.
When I said that the Coptic Church gave the world Christianity. I still hold to it. I mentioned and gave credit that others contributed, but the codification of theology and dogma was primarily carried out by Alexandria. The hierarchical system, as documented, was first mentioned in completion to the Alexandrian Church. The Catechetical School of Alexandria was not matched by anything anywhere. The Setugiat was carried out in Alexandria, and the Canonical ordering of the Holy Bible was initiated and mostly completed by Alexandria. The Nicene Creed was formulated by an 18 year old Deacon and was codified and promulgated by the 318 Fathers.
If it will clarify things, I can say it this way: "The vast majority of Christianity was given to the world by the Coptic Church." I did not think that one would take it in the regard that absolutely every facet was from the Coptic Church.
I would mention my sources as being: History of Eastern Christianity--Aziz Atiya, Coptic Encyclopedia--Ed. Aziz Atiya.
I agree that that there is a nascence of English expression of our: history, theology, liturgy, chants, etc. There is still a long way to go.
We did not take up the sword against our fellow Christians. The sword and the spittle was taken up against us.
My mention of the Byzantine church in Old Cairo had to do with the use of the flag as a symbol equating theological correctness with the nationality of the Greek flag that flies atop the church.
Pope Shenouda ordained a bishop in Italy with the associated metropolis and did not do an offense as to make one with the title of "Coptic Bishop of Rome". The Byzantine Church has quite a title for their Patriarch in Alexandria. It is an inflated title to cover 5-10 k people in Egypt.
No doubt there has been simony, sexual misconduct, heresy, pride, arrogance in the Coptic Church. They are by no means accepted or condoned. However, they were limited issues not a mass effect as in other regards, in other portions of the expanse in East and West.
The Coptic Church is just struggling to survive. We have survived, and we will continue to survive. We do so because of a complete reliance on Almighty God; not on any jurisdiction in the East or West, nor any Tsar or Caesar.
The Roman Empire is dead. The Byzantine Empire is dead. Let them stay that way. I believe that any discussions between the families should be relative to Churches talking and negotiating, not for the establishment of an Empire.
The Coptic Church has done more in so little time and with so little resource in Africa and the Diaspora than any equivalent to the other jurisdictions.
I am proud of My Mother. It is my opinion. Others may have their opinion. So be it. I expect a whole series of replies to be fired, but I find flaws in comments made by others. I am not going to spend more time on the issue. I believe if someone wants to learn they will find a way. I find that the lazy and negligent generally look for every excuse, including blaming the Church for all of their flaws and illegitimacies.{I mean this for those who wander to other sects and religions, and not anyone on this forum--so there is no misunderstanding}.
In regard to thoughts on the original question, as I was looking up a reference for your other thread, I add for you the following article from the same--Coptologia Journal.
"Monophytism vs. Diophysitism...Eutychianism Clarified (Vol. II, p. 73)
www.coptologia.com
I hope it is helpful. I think you will be impressed at the wide range of articles within this journal. Moreover, there is a huge resource of scholars and theologians. There are many names that you will see that you probably never heard of before. 90%, at least, are Coptic.
I am aware of your comment, but it does not detract from what the RCC did as an action just to extend Its reach. They sacrificed dogma and theology to add another 60,000 - 600,000 (depending on whose estimate you use as the size of the Assyrian Church) to their ranks.