I'm just saying that you are disqualifying us from being Orthodox when you yourself belong to a Church not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.
And again, what does this mean? It means nothing to me, in terms of what it says about the Orthodoxy of our Church. The Chalcedonians are not our masters. They are no standard of Orthodoxy for us, as they apparently are for you. You are attempting to exploit the sad division between the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox so as to put your church on equal footing with one of us, because you know that as you currently are you cannot be acceptable to the Chalcedonians whom you apparently see as the paragon of Orthodoxy (and, yes, that apparently does put us in something of the same situation as far as concerns the Chalcedonians, but I submit to you that not all division is of the same magnitude, and there are many threads here on OC.net that will testify to the fact that the majority of the Chalcedonians, at least as far as concerns whatever quality sample that this board can be considered to be, see the OO as closer to them than any of the Romans or their compatriots). But again, since this is not how we operate, you will get no agreement from me that what you have thus far presented means that we are on equal footing with you, or any of the other things you have posted as "fact" or "in your estimation". Your estimations mean nothing, and your facts are not facts at all. Go be with your UGCC bishop. It does not have to concern us. Nobody brought up miaphysitism as a disqualifier of Orthodoxy until you ran out of justifications for your heterodoxy.
Sure, you believe your Church is Orthodox, fair enough. We believe our Church is Orthodox too, even the RCs think they are orthodox. So we all believe we are orthodox, aren't we all? I'm pretty sure the Anglicans and Lutherans think they are orthodox too, otherwise they wouldn't stay where they are, right? So what is the qualifer really? Everyone thinks that what they believe in is the right faith. So what is the unbiased qualifer for one to be truly Orthodox? Because anyone can say, "yeah we believe in the same thing." There will always be an expert somewhere saying the same thing. So to me all these, "we are Orthodox and you are not" is just polemics, unless you have some quantifiable way to say that you are, and others are not.
Ah, but it is not
a matter of personal belief. It is a matter of spirituality, praxis, consistency, historicity, and many other things that cannot be quantified or qualified as indisputable evidence that we are this and you are that. Everyone can claim anything and challenge anything. This does not affect our way of being Christian, any more so than your appeal to the Chalcedonians should fill us with shame and have us begging together with you to be found acceptable to Constantinople or Moscow. Nuts to that. Again, you will never see me grovelling before anyone. Yes, we believe in our faith not any less than anyone else, but we have faith that proceeds in the unbroken chain from St. Mark to HH Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory, even as the Chalcedonians deposed our sainted Popes and set up their own Chalcedonian hierarchies (and really, I wouldn't expect them to do anything else, as they were of the Byzantine rulers of Egypt and believed as they still believe now that we were wrong in rejecting Chalcedon; in that way, neither of our communions have moved, and sadly the lines have solidified, but for what I assume are necessary reasons), and all manner of evil may have befallen us at later dates. These are all later developments which are historically verifiable (it should be obvious that the "Chalcedonians" and "non-Chalcedonians" as distinct groups did not exist until several centuries after the foundation of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and the main division, such that there is one, was then between the Greeks and the native Copts, who then split off on separate roads following Chalcedon). Later still
is the establishment of your particular church, which is of absolutely no consequence
to the preexisting division between the supporters and the detractors of Chalcedon (as your church did not exist in 451), but that you naturally remained on the Chalcedonian side as this is the position of your Orthodox mother church, and of your new masters at Rome.
So I find your attempt to shoe-horn Chalcedon into this discussion for blatantly self-serving reasons to be quite pathetic, if I may be honest. Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, nobody who calls themselves Orthodox with the weight of history on their side (and let's be clear, this isn't a name that we've adopted in answer to the claims of the Chalcedonians that we are not Orthodox; the name of the Church in Coptic, a language which is a cultural asset of the Church that predates not only Chalcedon but Christianity itself, is "Ti-Ekklesia en-Remnkimi en-Orthodoxos"; I don't think you need to speak Coptic to know what that means) thinks that Rome or anyone in communion with her is Orthodox.