Posted 25 November 2005 - 08:15 PM
dear Dr.Mathew and Friends,
it so long time since I posted ... because of the continuos exams and struggle ... I really missed all of you.
I think it is a very interesting thread title... I wanted to talk on that point : as I stressed before , there is an official agreement between the both orthodox famillies declaring that the both famillies shared the same tradition and same faith for the 2000 years , that's why the orthodox greek church here in alexandria accepts our baptism and we do too, waiting this historic step from the rest of churches.. noting that the romanian church mentions the name of HH Pope Shenouda III in its liturgies from 1994 as an orthodox patriarche.. and we see team work in the WCC preparing for : i) one dyptiches for mutual usage between the famillies. ii)"Surprise!!" Coptic and Greek church will held two masses .. one in the St.Mark Cathedral in cairo and the other in greece .. in a great festival will be held to partake Communion together. we need intensive prays for that step to be taken soon. these new I got them from inside the Ecumenism office of the church and the WCC Journals .from this very positive intorduction I shall begin my words .
I don't want to interrupt the topic but I want to focus on the following : the story of 'of two natures' and 'from two natures' are both cyrillian terminologies , however Cyril used the second one more as it is more accurate. St.Cyril used these terms in his epistle to ksistos bishop of rome ( excuse me for the spelling as I translate) which is the epistle no.53 :"(2)... I know that nature of God is not painable and inchangeable , though it is through his Human nature , the Christ is one in two natures , and from two natures." here, we see him talking about the essences ... in the same time we see him talking in his epistle to succensus about Mia-Physis tou theologo sesarkomeni (and not sesarkomenu) .. here he talks about the one Hypostasis of the christ which is composed of two essences .. but one single simple person (prosopon ) ... refusing the Nestorian definition about prosopic union ... stressing on the physical union which is directly defined according to cyril as Hypostatic union. the epistle to Flavian (I think it is no.50) St.Cyril explained the concept that The two natures are still exist inseparably , and then he goes directly to explain the one 'incarnated' nature , and how it is accurate since the distinguish between the natures is in thought alone (Ty theoria Mony). Getting back to secondly , Why did the OO church and especially St.Dioscorus stress on the Mia-Physis terminology. I belive that there was very critical circumstances in that time , Nestour managed to spread his ignorant teachings through Theododret of cyrus and theodore of Mopsuista and others , Attilla the Hun was attacking Rome from the north ... all that needed A RIGID TERMINOLOGY TO CUT OFF THE WAY and finish this issue. St.Athanasius in his defence for the councils of italy and arminum mentioned that St.Ignatius (one of the apostolic fathers who took the teachings directly from the apostles) used the term One nature ... I think it is the oldest source of christology to find one like Ignatius talking about one nature (one hypostasis). all that pushed dioscorus to use this term as his previous fathers. in the same time, Eutiches appeared and deviated totally from the truth, and there must be a way to stop him... but facing the word by word not by Sword. Eutiches lied to the 449 ephisus council and deceived the attendants , Prof.John Romanides mentioned about flavian that it is strange to find flavian talking about consubstantiality that the christ is consubstantial with the Virgin (not with us) , and in the same time he accepted the writings of theodoret which were refused totally and were described as ignorant writnings by Cyril. in this time , a smart and clever political person became the bishop of Rome and unfortunatly he played the political and christological issues in one game .. egypt was the reward or payment of unity between constantinople and rome to face the barbarian monster Attilla ... and we saw leo dealing with attilla ... and accepting the refused writings of Theodoret to challenge alexandria .. the earthly force cut off the story for the sake of rome in the Council of Chalcedon. no addition in faith was added , no rigid terminology was produced, in contrary .. a definition and a group of laws opened the door for a bigger area of discussion ... and this generates a chain of objections . in the time dioscorus was stressing on (From two natures ) and refuses Eutiches and Nestour , Chalcedon opened the gate -Practically- for the nestorians to move freely when theodoret's writings were accepted . this massive error needed another council in 553 to condemn the Crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret...AFTER A CENTURY ?! but what happened in that century? a good question. Leo prepared the way to accept the dogma of Roman papacy. the Encyclopaedia of Catholic new advent added the apologetic catholic writings... I read in the point of papacy how leo's writings supported it .. I remember a letter sent by him to dioscorus , telling him that the great pope of rome must accept the results of 449 and bless them as rome is the throne of Christianity. Bishop anatolius of Consantinople in the moments of Chalcedon Council declared it obviously that Dioscorus is Orthodox , but because he refused the tome of leo , we deposed (not condemned) him from his mission. in the modern ecumenical discussions , h.e Bishop Samuel OO bishop talked to romanides about the tome , and Romanides was clear in his answer saying that the Latin translation is not accurate , but the greek one is accurate!! besides , Chalcedon in the EO view cannot be understood separately from the other councils , but it must be interpretted IN THE LIGHT OF CYRIL'S CHRISTOLOGY AND THE COUNCIL OF 553 ... Chalcedon in my view point is like a youn chicken which need a chicken to nurse it . excuse me , It cannot be acceptable!! the roman Catholic church which is the church of papacy and the son of Leo reached a very shameful level of compromises on faith, they managed to put a christological agreement with the Assyrian Nestorian group (I can't say church) .. this Pushe H.E metropolitan Bishoy to leave the ecumenical meeting in the vatican and declared that the common christological agreement between the RCC and OOC is cancelled till they interpret their nestorian agreement with the assyrians. if there was a rigid terminology , the door would be closed early. that's why in the official agreement on the one faith of the EO and OO famillies , the 6th point mentioned that WE ACCEPT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ROMAN ORTHODOX CHURCH . but sure not chalcedon! getting back to the century between chalcedon and constantinople, Egypt suffered from a great persecution reached a sea of blood to force the egyptians to accept the error of chalcedon (i.e. accepting the theodoret's Crypto-Nestorianism) , but because the gos said : blessed my people Egypt on Isaiah , we managed to survive and managed to bear the persecution of chalcedonians till the Conquest of the Arab Barbarians in 641 , Amr Ibn-EL-AAS the islamic leader did not find the coptic patriache , then he knew that the Chalcedon CRISTIANS kidnapped him to force him to accept Leo's tome , that's why the muslims always say that : we saved you from the byzantine chalcedonians!!! if some you (any EO ) put yourself in my position ... Honestly, what will u say?
Modern view : I'm one of the side who call to put a condition before unity , which is : the EO church must apologize for : 1) hundreds of years accusing us of monophysitism since they knew that they misunderstood us (i'm not convinced by the word misunderstood)
2) the blood of coptic martyrs. but since there is a positive steps from EO familly , I can accept unity which is based on the fact of one faith , because I remember how John of Antioch prisonned Cyril , and cyril did not put that as an obstacle on the way of unity between them in 433.
in one Christ .