|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Oriental}}
| + | LOL INTERNET |
| − | | |
| − | '''By The Very Reverend Father Tadros Malaty, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria''' (Excerpts)
| |
| − | | |
| − | We (Oriental Orthodox) reject the Chalcedonian formula for the following reasons:
| |
| − | | |
| − | 1. The formula: "one nature" has an evangelic base, and touches our salvation. H.
| |
| − | H. Pope Shenouda III clarifies this argument in detail in his book "''The Nature of
| |
| − | Christ''".
| |
| − | | |
| − | 2. Some Chalcedonian Fathers and theologians stated that the Tome of Leo
| |
| − | represents an insurmountable obstacle in the efforts made to unite with the non-
| |
| − | Chalcedonians, for the latter believe that two "physeis and ousia" in one
| |
| − | person is Nestorianizing. This is supported by the fact that Leo's Tome was
| |
| − | praised by Nestorius himself [1], and that the Tome, if taken alone by itself
| |
| − | could have created the impression of an excessive opposition of two natures, as
| |
| − | Prof. Rev. Florovsky says[2].
| |
| − | | |
| − | 3. Kelly states that, unlike, their brethren in the East, the Westerns were
| |
| − | concerned with the organization of ecclesiastical matters more than theological
| |
| − | ones. He also states that with the exception of Tertullian, the west made little
| |
| − | or no contribution to christological theology[3].
| |
| − | | |
| − | 4. We are in accord with the Tome in refuting Eutychianism and in confirming that
| |
| − | Christ's manhood was real, Christ entered the mundane plane of existence and that
| |
| − | the unity of Godhead and manhood had been realized without change... but the Tome
| |
| − | consists of three statements, those which some of the Fathers of Chalcedon
| |
| − | themselves rejected for their Nestorian attitude[4].
| |
| − | | |
| − | 5. Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice,
| |
| − | for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity. There was a need
| |
| − | to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" one...
| |
| − | | |
| − | 6. The Council of Chalcedon adopted the Tome of Leo. In Egypt many believers were
| |
| − | martyred for they refused to sign the Tome... The acceptance of the Tome as a
| |
| − | principal document of faith disfigured the Council in the sight of the non-
| |
| − | Chalcedonians.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 7. The "definitions" of Chalcedon admits the phrase "one hypostasis." Some of the
| |
| − | Nestorians objected on this addition, but they accepted it when the word
| |
| − | "hypostasis" was interpreted to them as an equal to "prosopon"...
| |
| − | | |
| − | 8. We do not recognize this Council because it ignored all the traditional
| |
| − | formulas of the Church, which confirm the oneness of the Person of Christ, as a
| |
| − | true unity, such as: "one nature of two natures" and "one nature of the
| |
| − | Incarnate Word of God."
| |
| − | | |
| − | I conclude my discussion of the Council of Chalcedon by referring to the words of
| |
| − | Sellers who defends this council... "In the first place, it should be understood
| |
| − | that the (Monophysite) theologians were not heretics, nor were they
| |
| − | regarded as such by leading Chalcedonians.[5]"
| |
| − | | |
| − | ________
| |
| − | | |
| − | 1. Methodios Fouyas, p.12,13.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 2. Christology according to the non-Chalcedonian Churches, p. 12-3.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 3. Terms: "Physis & Hypostasis in the Early Church", p. 30-1.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 4. Ibid 30f.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 5. The council of Chalcedon, SPCK 1961, p. 269.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The term "monophysite" was not used during the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries,
| |
| − | but was used later in a specific way and in a polemic spirit on behalf of the
| |
| − | Chalcedonian Churches.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council]]
| |
