Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker
Message-ID: <May.9.05.38.52.1993.27378@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 9 May 93 09:38:53 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Lines: 127
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Hello src readers,

Again the misconception that Copts among other Oriental Orthodox
Churches believe in Monophysitism pops up again. We had a discussion
about it a while ago. 

In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>
>The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
>heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
>grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
>are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
>temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
>and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox. 

Then OFM comments :

>
>
>[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
>things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
>different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
>don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
>Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
>without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
>a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
>suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
>orthodoxy as many had thought. 

With my appreciation to the moderator, I believe that further elaboration
is needed. This is an excerpt from an article featured in the first issue
of the Copt-Net Newsletter :

Under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as opposed
to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of Alexandria played
leading roles in  Christian theology.  They were  invited everywhere to speak
about the Christian faith. St. Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, was the head of the
Ecumenical Council which was held in Ephesus in the year 430 A.D. It was said
that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend  all their
time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics
started to intermingle with  Church affairs.  It all started when the Emperor
Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of St.
Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later  exiled, to this interference
was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church."  These political motives
became even more  apparent in Chalcedon  in 451, when the Coptic  Church  was
unfairly  accused of following  the  teachings of  Eutyches, who believed  in
monophysitism. This  doctrine maintains that the  Lord Jesus Christ  has only
one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.

The Coptic  Church   has never  believed  in  monophysitism  the way   it was
portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon!  In  that Council, monophysitism meant
believing in one  nature.  Copts   believe that the Lord   is perfect in  His
divinity,  and He   is perfect in  His humanity,  but  His  divinity  and His
humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word",
which was reiterated by St. Cyril of Alexandria.  Copts, thus, believe in two
natures "human" and   "divine"  that are   united in   one "without mingling,
without confusion, and without alteration" (from the  declaration of faith at
the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).  These  two  natures "did not separate
for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from  the declaration of faith
at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).

The  Coptic Church was  misunderstood in the 5th century  at the  Council  of
Chalcedon.  Perhaps the Council  understood   the Church correctly, but  they
wanted to exile the  Church,   to  isolate it  and to  abolish the  Egyptian,
independent Pope. Despite  all of this,  the Coptic Church  has remained very
strict  and steadfast in its faith.   Whether it was   a  conspiracy from the
Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church  as a  punishment for its refusal
to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus  didn't  quite go the
extra  mile to  make the  point that  Copts  are not  monophysite, the Coptic
Church has always felt a mandate  to reconcile "semantic" differences between
all  Christian  Churches.   This is   aptly  expressed by the  current  117th
successor  of  St. Mark, Pope Shenouda III:  "To the  Coptic Church, faith is
more  important  than  anything, and   others  must know that  semantics  and
terminology are of  little importance to us."  Throughout this  century,  the
Coptic Church has played  an important role  in the ecumenical  movement. The
Coptic Church is one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. It has
remained a member of that  council  since 1948 A.D.   The Coptic Church is  a
member  of the all  African Council of Churches  (AACC)  and the  Middle East
Council of  Churches (MECC).  The Church    plays an  important role   in the
Christian   movement   by   conducting dialogues   aiming  at  resolving  the
theological differences with the  Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, and
Evangelical Churches.

[...]

As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign
a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
Monophysitism.

Peace,

Nabil

          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'

[As I mentioned in a brief apology, the comment quoted above from me
is confused.  I appear to say that Nestorius was monophysite.  As
Andrew Byler correctly stated it, the Nestorians and monophysites were
actually opposite parties.  The point I was making, which Nabil
explains in some detail, is that some groups that have been considered
heretical probably aren't.

Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and
Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable
to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree
that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course
of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got
rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was
not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have
jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are
groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This
posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also
a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called
monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called
Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from
what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his
heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of
the Antiochene tradition.

--clh]
