Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- 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 368
- Technical Topics 368
History of Coptic Icon
I was interested to find pictures of some of the most ancient coptic icons, mainly icons that date back for the 3rd through 7th centuries. Does anyone know of good source that would have images of such icons as well as any explaination of the development of coptic art?
Comments
Welcome to tasbeha web site, it is your first post, I hope it will be followed by many post.
This web site is good:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Canvas/9460/coptic.html
The Icon is a Greek word which means a picture simulator or identical and in the orthodox tradition it is a picture that resembles a person (Christ, Virgin Mary, Saints... ) or a holy scene which is drawn on wood according to especial techniques and traditions.
Iconography has an organic link with Coptic theology indeed it is the other face and language in which its letters are being in harmony through colors and lines.
The growth of this Art hasn't been depended on human imaginations or his own experience, but it has been flourished and created its rolls and basis from eastern church theology. It has built its characters through out the generations of eminent artist.
From here, Icon presents integral religious beauty based on refusal of all common visual rolls of similarity, equality and dimensional view aiming by this to embody the right vision of faith and hope "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is not hope at all. who hopes of what he already has ?" Romans 8:24. "So we fix our eyes not on what of seen but in what of unseen for what is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal" II Corinthians 4:18.
Exceeding the period of symbols to gather with starting and flourishing of paintings and pictures in the beginning of the 4th Century, churches took after drawing icons aiming to ensure the real expression of Orthodox faith.
Nowadays Icons are not found only in churches, but you can find them also at homes and praying holes, and they may be obtained as especial and precious gifts.
If I find more sites, I will post them for you.
The earliest Coptic Icon I could find for you in any of my books, dates back to the 11th century. I will keep looking for Icons within the time period you requested, but for now, I will paste an article relating to the development of Coptic Icons from the 4th - 7th century, and I will scan and upload the 11th century Icon for you later.
[center]The Art of Iconography
by
Ilaria Ramzy
St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church
New Orleans, LA [/center]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art is a beautiful representation of not only images, but also messages aimed at the viewer. The art of iconography is a unique characteristic of our Coptic heritage that began with the intention of educating converts of the church. The works seen to be out of proportion to the viewer since the eyes and ears are quite large. However, these iconographers were not unaware of such elements. They knew quite well the rules to project icons that are considered a religious beauty and aimed to embody the visions of faith and hope. "For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who of what one sees?" (Romans 8:24). The main function of iconography is liturgical. Icons are an integral part of the Coptic worship, inspiring and teaching the faithful the mysteries of the Christian Church through the intertwining of the mediums of color. Iconography is visual theology. Icons stand between the material and spiritual realms.
First, one must understand the word "icon" finds its origin in the Greek word "eikon". Within the Greek Bible, icon appears in the verse, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image..." so God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created" (Genesis 1:26-27) and also in, "He is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). In other words, the word "icon" is "image" in Greek. Icons allow us to learn the mystery of the presence of God in the world in a way which is exclusive to the visual arts. They do not just represent worldly reality nor are they "religious" pictures. As Nicholas Zemov of the Russian Orthodox Church strongly states, "Icons are dynamic manifestations of man's spiritual power to redeem creation through beauty and art. The colors and lines of icons are not meant to imitate nature; the artist's aim at demonstrating that men, animals and plants, and the whole cosmos can be rescued from their present state of degradation and restored to their proper 'Image'. These icons are pledges of the coming victory of a redeemed creation over the fallen one." An icon of Jesus Christ affirms the reality of the reconciliation of the human and the divine and enables us to contemplate He who is the model for our these. The image in the icon must be equivalent to the Scripture as a revelation of the truth. A valid image is one that is faithful to its prototype. Fidelity to a sacred prototype means fidelity to a transfigured reality, and this rules our "photographic" realism, which would merely reproduce the likeness of the world in a state of corruption. An image changed to suit an individual's taste is as dangerous as a doctored Scriptural text as threatened in Revelation, "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to the, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in the book." (Rev. 18-19)
Coptic Iconography reached its peak during the Coptic period between the 4th and 7th centuries. This time coincides with Constatine's official recognition of Christianity. The Christian converts beginning to appear were illiterate. They had extreme difficulty comprehending the spiritual meanings, the history of the Church, and the events that took place in the Bible. Therefore, the Church leaders allowed icons to help the people assimilate Christianity and its doctrine aided by visual means. Icons were there to instruct and elevate. Patriarch Cyril I, the 24th Coptic Pope, permitted icons to be hung in the Patriarchate and all the churches of Egypt.
Soon, Christians began to venerate the icon itself and to forget the event or person it portrays. An icon is meant to be a window into the spiritual world helping us to contemplate spiritual matters, lead us to a prayerful frame of mind, and remind us of events in the Bible, the life of Christ, and the saints. The icon is NOT to be an object of worship. Again, the stress is on contemplating the implicated scene within the artwork and not to bow before a picture. We kneel to Jesus Christ, not to pictures. We kiss these pictures as if kissing the Lord, His Mother, the Disciples who touched Him, and the Saints who precede us to eternal life. These are our true family: "Our Father who art in Heaven;" St. Mary the Virgin, Queen, Theotokos, and the Mother of the world; and our never-ending accumulation of brothers and sisters.
Due to the incorrect form of worship, in the 8th century a movement called the Iconoclast Controversy began. These Iconoclasts used the verse, "You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them," (Ex 20:4-5). An important figure, Lawon el-Esafiy, led the destruction of many icons during this period. This interlude coincided with the Muslim invasion of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Persia. Two Church's custom of icons were St. John o Damascus and St. Theodore of Studios within the 7th Ecumenical Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 787 A.D.
These Saints went back to the time that Jesus Christ was on earth and noted the first three icons presented in the Church. St. Luke is not only a doctor, a Gospel writer, but also an artist. He painted the icon presenting the Theotokos holding the Baby Jesus in her arms. This icon is now all over the world in a variation of churches. The historian Van Celub also claims that St. Luke even painted an icon of Archangel Michael in a Cathedral in Alexandria. The second icon is directly from our Lord Jesus Christ. King Abagar of Edessa sent a message to the Lord asking for a visit to heal him from his disease and inviting our Lord to come and live in his kingdom. The messenger returned with a cloth with Jesus' image imprinted upon it. The Lord's image healed the king. "All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit," (2 Cor 3:18). The third icon involves the woman cured from her twelve year bleeding in Luke 8:43. It seems this woman living in the village of Banias, near the source of the Jordan, drew on her house a representation of Christ and another of herself lying prostrate at His feet. These icons are recorded by the historian Eusebius of Caesaria in "The History of the Church." Eusebius specifically saw the image on the woman's house in the 3rd century. We may also consider the image on Veronica's sheet an icon where she wiped our Lord's face during His flight to Golgotha and received an imprint of Him.
The techniques remain the same over centuries. There are two that are employed. "Encaustic" an gesso is the name of the first style. It disappeared around the Iconoclastic period. It consisted of molten bee's wax made into an emulsion soluble in water. It was developed to a very high standard during the Graceo-Roman period (2nd century BC - 4th century AD) as can be seen in the beautiful funerary portraits from Fayoum Oasis, Southwest of Cairo, which can be considered the immediate predecessors of the Christian icon.
The second, "Egg tempera" an gesso, survived the Iconoclastic era. It remains the only technique used to this day, although unfortunately threatened by the use of modern media like oil or acrylic which cannot compare with the brilliance and subtlety of hue of tempera. Gesso is the name of the white ground upon which the icon is written. Its soundness is of paramount importance to the overall success of the work. Gesso is made up of white lime and glue and is spread on the panel in thin layers to achieve a hard, smooth surface. After a design has been applied to it, gilding takes place. Tempera is a Latin word meaning mixing in due measure. Egg tempera requires a process of illumination from dark to light, symbolizing the passage of the soul from darkness of the world to the light of Christ.
The characteristics of the large and wide eyes symbolize the spiritual eye that looks beyond the material world since the Bible says, "The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light," (Mt 6:22). The large ears show ears listening to the Word of God, "Anyone who has ears to hear ought to hear" (Mk 4:23). Gentle lips are reminders to glorify and praise the Lord, "My mouth shall praise You with Joyful lips" (Ps 63:5). The eyes and ears are disproportionably large because a spiritual person spends more time listening to God's word and seeking to do God's will. Large heads indicate that the individual are devoted to contemplation and prayer. The mouth is small because it can be the source of empty and harmful words. The nose is also small since it is viewed as sensual. Notice that when an evil character is portrayed within an icon, it is always in profile since it is not desirable for one to dwell upon, meditate, or make eye contact with such a being. Also note that artists do no usually sign their names since this should not be a method of self-glorification. Those who choose to sing usually do so in the form of a prayer such as "Remember me O lord when You come into Your Kingdom." (Lk 23:42)
The icon usage and symbolism is the same meaning to Eastern Orthodox churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian...) and to Oriental Orthodox churches such as ourselves (Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian...). Miracles are often related to icons from the dripping of oil to the apparitions. This phenomenon has lead to many healed and encourages a renewal of faith for Christians.
Use these icons as windows into the spiritual world to achieve a prayerful mindset. They represent images of the Body of Christ for through Him we are all united. When you view the Crucifixion, recall that He is carrying your sins. The nails driven into Him are because of the evil decisions we choose. Contemplate such thoughts as to where we are extremely unworthy of such a Sacrificial Lamb. Let these thoughts lead you to try to be steadfast upon the road to eternal life. Observe the icon of a Saint and notice that he or she has defeated the world. Through such images, constant reminders of our goal here on earth, we are assisted in our struggle for our names to be written within the pages of the Lamb's Book of Life.
http://suscopts.org/mightyarrows/art.html
Just your luck; I found you the perfect site which is REPLETE with both images and commentary of Coptic Icons in the period you requested. I suggest you consider the books mentioned in the Bibliography; I have the first book listed "2000 years of Coptic Christianity" and although its dealing with Copitc Art is minimal, it's a great general overview of Coptic History. I presume the other two listed books would be exactly what you are looking for, since their titles suggest that Coptic Art is a main focus of the subject matter.
Here is the website: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/copticpainting.htm
Hope that helps,
Peace.
if anyone have more to share on this topic, please do.
We do have such an ancient and rich tradition that I feel I don't know as much about it as I should. That is what is prompting me to search into the different aspects of the coptic heritage.
Peace.
It is known that pope Kryllos IV was an Iconoclast and many ancient icons were tossed into fires due to his ruling on this, the Coptic Church Review did an article on it a few years ago (the CCR is presently offline, so I can't pull up the article for you right now). These have come in spurts due to various causes, usually Muslim and Protestant polemics.
This is true; Otto F.A. Meinardus speaks briefly on the subject in his Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. I doubt this one individual could have done any significant damage during such a short reign however; but then again, I'm just speculating.
Thank you for pointing that out nonetheless,
Peace.
The Protestants have indeed burnt down many churches when they entered Assiut and Cairo with their missions and they could not amount to any significant numbers so they resorted to violenace by the support of the Bashas who were bribed. WHat Meyendorff did is simply to transfer the responsibility for such actions from the protestant missionaries to the Pope. I believe that it was out of politics with the Protestants that he did so, and in the same time try to attack the Coptic Popes in an attempt to revive a dying EO church since 451 a.d.
The fact lacks actually support by facts, noting that the Ezbekia church in Egypt, the former center for the Pope in the time of Pope Cyril the IV, has icons that date back to the time of this blessed Pope himself. It would be ridiculus to support such fact (based on an ignorant and uneducated claim by Xaira) when the hard realities contradict such notion. Would an iconoclast heretic, as they try to portray St. Pope Cyril IV, actually consecrate new icons ?
In addition, the Pope at the time had Cairo and Alexandria under his direct jurisdiction , in addition to the his general Primacy over the Coptic Church, and all ancient churches in his direct jurisdiction and all over Egypt have icons that date back to the first centuries. In addition, in monasteries, which the Pope actually has a honory primacy over them, the icons stills stands since the time of the Pope.
this Pope, in addition, is known to be the "Father of reform" in our Church, having renewed the theological college, built the first schools ever in Egypt, has supported the teaching of the girls in an age where this is not heard of, and has made great contributions to the protect the faith by refusing to join the Protestant Churches or allow them to teach in our Church, and rejected the offers of Rome to join them. It does not add up that a man of such great convictions, and which the Church venerate as a saint due to his orthodox faith, would fall in such an elementary heresy.
Having exonerated the name of the great Pope from the ignorant accusations by haters of the Church, we must look at the basis for such heresy and what made it so prominent in the Chalcedonian Church that it required the required the convention a general council.
First, it must be noted that a council was called some years before the 7th ecumenical council, and this council, which decisions were held in strict observance unti the next council, has actually condemned icons as idolatry. This council summoned the leaders the current EO's and they went with the flow and with the Emperor's will, exposing this element in the history of the Chalcedonian church. They are a political Church which survives if there is a human force to protect them, and which cannot defy the rulers.
The fact that this council was cancelled by the the 7th ecumenical council by the Chalcedonian churches, among them the so-called Eastern orthodox churches like the Greeks, is nothing but a continuation of the series of contradictions in that body of churches. Chalcedon was abrogated by the fifth council (Constantinople II), the iconoclast council canceled by the 7th council and the contradiction continues.
The heart of the iconoclast heresy that the EO believed in for many years and have struggled with so much is the lack of understanding of the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos that is worshipped as ONE person. Because the Chalcedonians believed that Christ is IN two natures, using a crypto-Nestorian language that does not utilize any of the safeguards that protects it from heresy, the confusion occurs and the Chalcedonian cannot indeed worship the incarnate Logos as one person but tend to separate the two natures, worshipping the divine Logos, who cannot be portrayed in icons, and cannot in good conscience worship the "human" that the Logos assumed.
But, in consistent frame work that the Chalcedonian churches lack, the iconoclasts are more loyal to the ideas of leo of Rome, Theodret, Ibas and the other Chalcedonian leaders that Chalcedon exonerated while they were Nestorian heretics. Heresy does not come from vacuum, it must be rooted in a certain tradition. The Antiochian tradition, which is heretical, is followed by the Chalcedonians and as such must bring such fruits.
Because the Coptic Church never suffered from the Nestorian heresy, the natural consequence of such heresy manifested in the iconoclast movement never ever found ground in our Church.
In any event, I personally did further research into this matter a while ago, and of the three credible sources I found discussing this issue, two supported the conclusion that St. Cyril IV was responsible for some form of iconoclasm, whilst the third challenges these claims. The two sources in support of the claim are 1) Marqos Simaika in his “The Awakening of the Coptic Church,” page 739, and 2) Butcher, "Story of the Church", volume 2, pages 328-329. The source that challenges these claims is Iris el-Masri's "The Story of the Coptic Church", Volume 4, pages 335-336. Unfortunately, the last source has yet to be translated into english, so I have been unable to read el-Masri's basis for rejecting these claims - it was simply referenced to in another source that I was reading. I generally find Meinardus' book to be helpful, resourceful, succint and accurate on many matters. He may have erred with respect to this issue, but in so doing, he wouldn't be the only scholar to have erred on the matter, and I certainly wouldn't find it reasonable to attribute the cause of his error to some hateful agenda or malcious intention towards the Coptic Church. He has many great things to say concerning St. Cyril in fact; he mentions most, if not all, of the positive attributes you have mentioned in your post.
thanks for the correction. You are right about the historian, although it would not make much difference.
I would suggest the book by Abona Menasah Youhana "The History of the Coptic Church", " The history of the Coptic Nation" by Yacob Nekehla, " El-Karidah El-Nafesah" by Bishop Isitheros, "
The Coptic Orthodox Church" by Fr. Tadros Malati, in which nobody even mentions based on primary sources that something like an iconoclast heresy. "El-7'etat El-Tawfiqia", a book that was documenting the Church affairs at the time did not mention it and it is used for governmental issues that would not fail to mention such big deal.
Iris Aziz El-Masry refutes this claim on the same basis that I refuted it, and it should be logical to conclude that man who rebuilt the church of Cathedral of Azabakia, and the icons still survive to this day, together with other churches under his direct jurisdiction cannot be an iconclast. This is hard evidence. In addition, the following reasons make such claim necessarily false.
- Such heresy might come from islamic influence, but the Church survived 1200 years under their rule and the Copts were never negatively influenced by the islamic teachings on idolatry. There is simply no evidence for that. Why should a great Pope, a saint if you consider our Church an authority on that (i know you do), and who is definitely a resourceful teacher about Orthodoxy as he was described fall in such a heresy out of nowhere ?
- Such heresy is , as I explained, the fruit of a corrupt understanding if the Incarnation of the Lord and has its basis in the Antiochian tradition that denies (in a way or another) the divinity of Christ and find its home in Chalcedon that worships Christ IN two natures. As such, the Logos cannot be drawn in icons which is the idea of the OT regarding God in general.
Again, never in our long history did we suffer from such heresy and its seeds (Nestorianism, Arianism,...antiochianism if you will) were never present in our Church. It is indeed against all logic that the Church that defended the Orthodox Faith against the heresies of Constantinople would fall 14 centuries later in the fruits of the heresy.
- St Cyril IV died poisoned by Said Basha, for refusal to cooperate with the English missions and government and his refusal to grant RC and Protestant missions access to the churches in Ethiopia. The Basha considered this a part of the deal with the English who were financing his plans and were his allies against the Turks and other Imperial forces. This rules out any Protestant convictions. A heretic, that he makes St. Cyril IV out to be, has his works overshadowed by his heresy. As we say in Egypt "El-semm fil 3asal" (Poison in honey). A heretic dies a heretic and it casts dark shadows on the Church that was led by such "heretics" and actually considers them saints. What his agenda is anybody's guess.
Thanks again for your reply. Informative as always.
I'd have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the motivation of the iconoclasts.
Their primary objection was that the material and lifeless depiction of a person could never represent the exact substance or likeness of that actual person. This is why they had an objection to all forms of iconocgraphy, whether it be a depiction of Christ or one of the Saints. Had Christological factors been the essential cause of this heresy, then no objection would have been made to the iconographic depiction of Saints.
With respect to Icons of Christ in particular, the main issue was that since Christ's divinity could not be depicted, then the true Christ who was both human and divine, could not be represented according to his exact nature and likeness. This would have been the case assuming they were Nestorians, Chalcedonians, or Miaphysite Orthodox, since such thinking would have been equally applicable to all three Christologies.
The Chalcedonian Church can only be praised for its role in the iconoclasm controversy. It was the first time that a solid sophisticated defense of Iconography was ever produced. Our Church rests heavily on the work of John the Damascene with respect to these issues. H.G. Bishop Daniel wrote a short book on Iconography and he refers to John the Damascene to support his points and arguments more than any other figure.
The Chalcedonian Church erred grievously in history, but we should nonetheless look upon her as a long lost sister, hoping and waiting for her return to the Church. I think we should acknowledge the fact that doctrinally, she eventually got back on her feet after her fatal fall at Chalcedon, and we should give her due praise where she has earnt it - knowing yet, in the back of our minds, that she has earnt such praise in spite of Chalcedon, and not because of Chalcedon. The way she handled the iconoclasm controversy is one of those occasions, I believe. If we get carried away trying to find errors and faults in other Church's, we soon begin to create errors and faults where they simply do not exist. This is something I have personally come to learn of.
Any fair observer has to acknowledge the fact that Chalcedon is Nestorian and that the above mentioned people are Nestorian in belief and convictions. This council is upheld by all Chalcedonians, and I cannot find any other explanation for that except that they hold the same beliefs as the Nestorian council that exonerated Nestorians. It was totally dependent on politics, and they were lucky enough to have an Emperor at the time of the 7th council who had sympathy to the icons, as opposed to another Emperor (Leo) who was an iconoclast. As you see, the Chalcedonian do not follow a certain faith, but they follow a certain Emperor and have always depended on an Emperor to protect their Church and could not face them with the Orthodox Faith. Marcian and Pulcharia are Mestorian, so goes the Chalcedonian camp, Emperor Leo is iconoclast, so goes the Chalcedonian group.
It is not surprising that the Byzantine Church vanished a few years after 1453 a.d., and the Russian Church collapsed after 1917 and Orthodoxy was found no more there. So, if it is an Emperial Church with corrupt fruits throughout history, so what is the history that should be praised ? I am not sure what you are refering to, but if the reference is to iconoclast heresy and its reasons, then you might consult the book of John of Damascus on the divine images. As confused as John of Damascus is regarding christology, he makes sense in this book as he writes against the iconoclast heresy. He refutes the logic of the iconoclasts, and clearly he would not invent strawman arguments that do not exist but was replying at the charges brought forth by his own people. He centers his apology on the divine images which were the center of the controversy. Icons of saints were a side issue and not the central one. The heresy is a continuation of the two councils that followed Chalcedon in which the Chalcedonian camp remained Nestorian regarding the faith.
I get the impression that you perceive the EO Church to be an enemy of some sort? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this is genuinly the feeling I get, so please correct me if I have misinterpreted you. We can both agree that we can't compromise the canonical boundaries of The Church, and as such the EO Church is strictly, as it stands, outside of the bounds of The Church. The practical implications of this, whilst difficult, can be evaded for the sake of keeping this discussion simple, but nevertheless, it shouldn't imply that they are automatically our enemy. Many individuals within that Communion i.e. those who vigorously and viciously work against us, would be considered as such, but in general I am quite content to regard the EO Church as a good witness to the Orthodox faith, and hence working for The Church even if she is technically outside the Church. I have read the Canons of the Iconoclast Synod, and substantial portions of John the Damascene's work on the issue; I simply do not recall either the Iconoclasts using a false Christology as the basis of their arguments, or John the Damascene accusing the Iconoclasts of basing their arguments on a false Christology. The primary issue that the Iconoclasts had was with the fact that the immaterial divine nature cannot be materially depicted. They thus held that any iconographic depiction of Christ leads to a false Christology (either Nestorianism or Monophysitism), since it would fail to depict His divinity. The primary defense therefore, was not to defend an Orthodox Christology, but to defend the ability to depict divine persons. As such the EO's even have icons depiciting the Father (who is usually represented as an old man).
It was not the subject of the icons that was the issue, it was rather the implications that that very subject had towards one's ability to depict that subject on an icon, and to venerate that very iconographic depiction.
hope you had a spiritual Pascha Week and a great Resurrection Feast. Sorry for my late reply. I am least concerned with the heresies the Chalcedonians hold and in what version they present it this day, for this is the very nature of heresy. It is developing, changing, evolving and heretics become more shreud everyday in the way they present it.
Is Chalcedon Nestorian ? Definitely. Can there be any doubt about the Nestorian convictions of Theodret and Leo, whose christology won the day at this unholy council ? No. Is the Tome Nestorian to the core ? Sure. Do the Chalcedonians, and chief among them the so-called Eastern orthodox adhere to Chalcedon as their standard for Christology ? No doubt. They have confirmed it when they accepted Leo of Rome's Nestorian Tome, exonerated a Nestorian leader in the person of Theodret, accepted a Nestorian letter by Ibas and have upheld the doctrines of Theodore (the father of Nestorianism together with Diodore) as their standard for christology.Moreover, they have confirmed their adherence to Leo of Rome as their Father of Christology in the heretical 6th council. Till this day, they require for any union with them (as corrupt a church they are) to confess Chalcedon, the abrogation of Chalcedon manifested in the 5th council, and then the abrogation of the abrogation of Chalcedon in the 6th council. What a pitiful joke. There is no doubt to any fair and intelligent observer who has no malignant intent like the false ecumenical traitors that Chalcedonians are unorthodox.
To help you better understand my point, I do not believe in separate Churches, I only believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church, which includes only the Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, Eriterian, Indian, Armenian, British and French Orthodx communion. To me, it does not matter whether a person or a church is a heretic or schismatic, as long as cut of from communion with the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of God that consists of the above mentioned churches, then he perishes and is an unbeliever. There is only one Body for Christ, and being part of it is established ONLY by communion. To solve this obvious contradiction in the position of schismatic and hopeful traitors (i.e. false ecumenist), they invent heretical dogmas like Salvation outside the Church , which leads logically to Universalism, Apokastasis and Purgatory, all of them heresies that undermine the incarnation and salvation that we celebrated on Friday and completed today. A person who thinks is orthodox in belief but chosoes to worship in his basement without the Church or has established his own sect outside the Church, he is no better than a JW or a muslim. I appeal to St. Cyrian, martyr and theologian of the Church. Copts are 15 million in Egypt, whereas Chalcedonians are a few hundreds in Asia Minor. OO have undergone the same period of persecution under Turkish occupation, they survived and even continued to add to their glorious history many martyrdom period, and we continued to exist.
The Chalcedonian, under the slightest pressure, ceased to exist. Take into account that the Copts and Syrian have endured persecution 14 centuries before the dear CHalcedonian party ever fell under any sort of persecution.
I believe there should be no comparison between an Imperial Church like Constantinople and Russia, the leaders of the Chalcedonians nowadays, who have sold the faith on many occasions to appease their Emperors. As churches, they supported the persecution of us, Copts and Syrians, and have at many points of their history embraced heresy and have been a cause of shame to the name that is called upon us by conduct of their Emperor saints and evil hierarchs, and between the Orthodox Church that has always upheld Orthodoxy. Sergianism is also a prime example of selling out in Russia.
In 1982, the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria has declared that Islam is a religion of God, and Muhamed is a faithful prophet and servant of God. He was never deposed or even rebuked for his remarks, for he gained the blessings of the local media and the government of Egypt and as such continued the great political legacy of the Greeks and so-called EO. Not on a personal level. I know many EO and have decent relations with them. The EO individuals are by no means enemies. I see the false ecumenists , the many Judas who act to tarnish our pure legacy by their insistence that we and the Chalcedonian are one and the same, as the real enemies. I have been a member of a forum dominated by EO for quite some time, and they were by far more fair and respectful than certain moderators of a coptic site who were ignorant, arrogant and abused their moderator privilages because they could not survive an honest debate. It is not a personal beef that I have with EO or ethnic intolerance like some would like to believe to be able to discount the anti-ecumenism arguments.
As long as Chalcedonian stay away from our Church, they are fine. The only ecumenism and unity effort I support is that they renounce Chalcedon and declare Leo of Rome as a heretic, get their hierarchs rebaptized together with their congregations and be received back in the Orthodox Church. Nothing is impossible to God, but God will not sanction the falsehood and group-hugs going on now. It is simply not honest. I have seen their corrupt fruits infiltrating the Church because "hey, they are one and the same with us". I have seen their heretical books in our church bookstores, their malignant posters on our forums, and I have their preachers in our churches teaching heresies such as salvation after death. This I have seen and experienced. I strongly disagree here. I have come to despise their academics which usually produces heresies. With a heretic like Bulgakov being the head of one of their top academic circles, and heretics like Tarazi teaching on others, they have not much to offer in terms of support of Orthodoxy. They are on the footsteps of the school of Antioch, that DEVELOPED dogmas outside the authority of the church and that produced Arianism, Nestorianism, Macdonianism and all kind of heresy the Church suffered from. The iconoclast theologians have based their attack on the OT commandmant because the icons are one in essence with their prototypes and as such every image depicting God is an idol. That was their reasoning. They concentrated on the unlimited divinity that assumed Christ (after all, they are Chalcedonians) and forgot about the fact that his disciples actually touched the body of Christ before and after the resurrection. In this way again, the iconoclast denied the incarnation, just like Nestorians do, taking the other end of the spectrum as their reference point. It seems ironic that this actually resembles the Eutychian heresy, if such heresy ever existed in reality and was not the invention of Flavian and Eusebius. But as St. Philoxenos teaches us: Nestorianism and monophysite heresy (again, if it ever existed) are the two sides of the same coin. Both deny the incarnation. As such, the ancestors of the EO were overwhelmingly affected by their strong adherence to Chalcedon and their lack of understanding of the incarnation. In that, they follow the school of Antioch that has taken the denial of the incarnation as the basis for its christology.
If the Chalcedonian body that upheld heresy yet again in the iconoclast synod had any understanding that Christ is one incarnate nature, divinity and humanity in one incarnate nature without mingling or confusion or conversion, they would have admitted that Christ can be depicted in images.
By the way, I found it amusing that in his apology John of Damascus actually objects to the involvement of Emperor Leo in the synod affairs ;D . John , the staunch Chalcedonian, is a hypocrite or an ignorant person who did not study Chalcedon yet adheres to it.
What is definite about Chalcedon is that it was a council of schism; it was the one and only true Robber Synod, but with respect to the Christological aspect of Chalcedon, it is not as clearcut as declaring it either Nestorian or Orthodox; I believe that to be a grey area. Indeed, and I certainly do not respect or condone any notion of accepting the Council of Chalcedon under any circumstance, for the sake of re-union. Well, according to the intention that you make this statement, I concur. As I said you to earlier, we just have different semantics. The term "Church" can have many different connotations. It can refer to 1) a local parish (e.g. "St Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church"), 2) a local Church (e.g. "The Coptic Orthodox Church"), 3) it can refer merely to a community of Christians that share the same faith (e.g. "The Anglican Church") or 4) it can refer objectively to the community of Christians who not only share the same faith, but who share the One True Christian Faith, and who not only share the One True Christian Faith, but who also share in the Body and Blood of Christ (in this case there is only ONE e.g. "The Orthodox Church" which is synonymous with "The Oriental Orthodox Church"). When I refer to the Chalcedonian Church or the Roman Catholic Church, i'm using the term Church in the sense of 3). I mean how else would you have us label them? "The Chalcedonian Organisation"? I have divided your above statement into three sections so I can answer you in a more convenient manner:
Regarding (1): Agreed. A new Council must be convened.
Regarding (2): This wouldn't make much sense in light of the proposition presented in the dialogues of the Joint-Commission, that the anathemas be lifted. But then again, I am not sure if you support these dialogues or not. I do, primarily because respected leaders and theologians of our Church seem to, unanimously, and I trust them.
Regarding (3): St Severos of Antioch severely critisised the practise of receiving Chalcedonians into the Church via baptism. He instructed that they be received by chrismation alone.
Regarding (4): Agreed. We are the Church, and they must acknowledge that they are being received back into the Church. We cannot re-unit under any false pretenses regarding this matter. I think "usually" is a bit of an exeggeration, in my experience anyway. I have read many great works, particularly apologetics and polemics against exclusively RC and Protestant traits. Our own Church, despite being the One True Church, is struggling in the academic arena, at least in the western world. Let's be fair; Bulgakov is criticised as badly within the EO Communion, as Fr. Matta is within our own Communion. He has his supporters, just as Fr. Matta has his own, but I have read the works of many EO Bishops cautioning readers to approach his work with caution, if at all. What's wrong with Tarazi? Figures like John the Damascene and Maximus of Constantinople are usually even referred to as "neo-Chalcedonians" in Protestant scholarship.