Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
You are jesting?
Read message 45 at
The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.
Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologies
I got a copy of the page. I've seen it before, so I had an idea of its problems, but couldn't remember in detail.
Btw, since this Chalcedonian Orthodox doesn't have conniptions with Pope Shenoudah (nor, AFAIK, does Pope Theodore), but does have problems with the theologies presented at orthodoxinfo on this, I don't take this as EO/OO private fora material (though of course, the mods can move it if they find differently).
Monophysites, or Non-Chalcedonians—Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites—have, since the conclusion of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, been viewed by the Orthodox Church as heretical groups [1 Although many persons, at least in the aftermath of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, were received into the Church as schismatics.].
The Fathers at Chalcedon did condemn Monophysticism that Eutyches preached. The Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites never embraced that.
Then there is that little lump swept under the rug-the Henotikon, by which the EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus and (I presume) Georgia were in communion with the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox in 482. It didn't repudiate Chalcedon-which was passed over in silence-but it did explicitely specify the Twelve Chapters of Pope St. Cyril against Nestorius as dogma. Rome, with whom Orthodoxinfo usually (and rightly) has problems, alone refused, and anathematized the Patriarch of Constantinople. Old Rome sent to New Rome the "Formula of Hormisdas," its terms for reunion:
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse.
The Fathers of Chalcedon did NOT link Eutyches to Pope Dioscoros, nor did they anathematize Pope Dioscoros. They did depose Pope Dioscoros for ignoring the Council's summons, but they also restored Theodoret and Ibas, whom Pope Dioscoros had deposed for heresy. The Fathers of the Fifth Council rectified that error, while Pope Vigilius resisted, but the Fathers of the Sixth Council followed Pope Hormisdas here in misrepresenting the actions of the Fathers at Chalcedon (whose acts survive). If one misconstrues the actions of the Council as the Church's statement on Pope Dioscoros and his "Monophysism," as Pope Hormisdas does here, then we must, as Pope Vigilius did, contradict the Fathers of Constantinople II, and exonerate the Nestorian writings of Theodoret and the Letter attributed to Ibas, which the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't deal with, as the Non-Chalcedonians complained.
This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [”the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [”the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.http://becominghinged.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/formula-of-hormisdas/
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.
Pope Hormisdas demanded of the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople sign it, and every bishop who was to be in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, to seperate the "Monophysites" (by then Eutyches was long dead and anathamatized by the Miaphysites OO Non-Chalcedonians, and so there were no "monophysites") from the Orthodox as Orthodoxinfo advocates here. That wasn't what happened:
On another forum there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas." Mardukm, of course, is busy there. I thought we might get to the truth here.
The thread there was started on this:
where he makes the interesting observation:
It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.
As I've posted, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:
The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”
Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.
According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.
The Vatican's present the Ecumenical Council (869:Only promoted as such when the Vatican, embroiled in its own investiture contraversy dug up an anti-Photian treatise (the fragmentary record of the 869 Council only survives in this) and its canons. This was post 1054) required the members to sign on to the Formula of Hormisdas, which is odd as the apologists of the Vatican claim it showed papal supremacy in the sixth century. The 869 was dealing with the fact that as many bishops as the emperor couldn't strong arm (Pope Hormisdas told him to use force), refused to sign, included bishops under Rome.
So the Pope of Rome demanded, and got, the subscription from the bishops who represented the East at Constantinople IV (869), which deposed the Pillar of Orthodoxy, EP Photios the Great. But the Fathers of the PanOrthodox Council of Constantinople IV (879) exonerated EP St. Photios the Great, and voided all the actions of Constantinonple IV (869), including the subscription to the Formula of Hormisdas. Orthodoxinfo is free to overstep the bounds the Fathers set up and subscribe to the Formula of Hormisdas, but I'll join the actions of the Metropolitan of Thessalonika Dorotheos.
Throughout the pages, Orthodoxinfo takes as a given the Formula of Hormisdas Eutyches=Dioscoros=Monophysite=OO, such that it doesn't seem to think it has to explain what its complaint is. Since the OO followed Dioscoros in anathamatizing Eutyches long ago, and never subscribed to Eutyches' Monophysism that the Fathers condemned at Chalcedon. Orthodoxinfo seems to recongize that problem, but tries to explain it away:
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy.
The Copts rejected the errors of Eutyches' Monophysite heresy at the latest in 475, led by Pope Timothy II and Patriarch Peter of Antioch, whom the Henotikon restored, and 600-700 bishops at Ephesus, which the Formula of Hormisdas condemned along with their followers, the Non-Chalcedonian OO. that was the time for their reunion with Orthodoxy, and New Rome issued the Henotikon and Old Rome the Formula of Hormisdas. If we stand on the opposite side of the Henotikon and the Formula of Hormisdas, that doesn't leave much distance from the OO. And if the Copts "have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy" then there is a problem, as they can demonstrate a continuity to what they have been teaching for 1600 years, as we can demonstrate continuity over the same time within Chalcedonianism, whereas our fellow Chalcednians (to get back to the OP) who produced the Formula of Hormisdas cannot. How do the OO still resemble the Orthodox?
Hence the problem in the next paragraph:
Despite all the "scholarly discussion" trying to show that we are in fact "of the same Faith and Family as the Monophysites," the fact remains that these groups have not unreservedly accepted the Fourth through Seventh Oecumenical Synods (something which was required of them by the Orthodox participants in all prior reunion attempts throughout church history), nor have they decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Dioscoros, Severos, Eutyches, et. al.
The OO decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Eutyches, and the persistent invincible ignorance of that fact is the loose thread that unravels the rest, helped by trying to skip over the Henotikon, which did not "require of them....to accept the Fourth...Oecumenical Synod."
When those events occur (at the very least), union is imminent.
Indeed! The Henotikon was issued within the decade that the 6-702 bishops, condemned by the Formula of Hormisdas, solemly in council anathamatized Eutyches.
A Note to Coptic Christians: I fairly regularly receive emails expressing your frustation with being labeled as monophysite on this Web site. You are especially troubled by the article listed below entitled "Copts and Orthodoxy". You claim that you are "miaphysite", not monophysite. Your Christology is therefore supposedly Orthodox even though you do not accept the formulation agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). In other words, "it is supposedly evident that nothing separates us in Faith, that the differences hitherto observed are due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theological terminology, which the special theological experts now understand better than the holy Fathers, and that the original separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church was due not to theological but to political reasons."  Thus you frequently demand that I remove these claims from my site.
To this I can only respond that, from the traditional perspective of the Orthodox Church, you are monophysite.
He can, of course, post anything he wants on his website. But the truth would be nice. He can call the Copts monophysites, equating that with the heresy of Eutyches, but repeating mantras is not an Orthodox practice, and beyond repitition of "Eutyches=Miaphysism," he is wanting in any argument in support thereof, but what he is doing is adding his signature to the Formula of Hormisdas.
This is how the Orthodox Church has always viewed the Coptic Church. In other words, to us your "miaphysitism" is essentially "monophysitism". Moreover, you have been wrongly led to believe—whether by your own teachers or by Orthodox ecumenists —that the Orthodox Church has been mistaken,
The Fathers at Chalcedon misjudged Theodoret and Ibas, and Pope Dioscoros judged rightly. Did the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council-does that make them "ecumenists"?-wrongly led us to believe that the former's anti-Cyrillian writings and the letter attributed to the latter was heresy?
Some Orthodox clergy and teachers will agree with you, but I am persuaded by the Saints and teachers whose writings are listed below. I believe they represent the true teaching of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would seem we are at an impasse regarding your request.
Oddly, he doesn't list the Formula of Hormisdas.