You're welcome to that view, but you'll forgive me if I don't share it. The True faith was maintained in Constantinople, along with the rest of the Church...not in Alexandria by herself.
There is no equivalnce between Alexandria and Constantinople, for Alexandria is an apostolic Church, founded by a holy Apostle, whereas Constantinople is a church founded by an Emperor and always headed by an Emperor. As for maintaining the Faith, you will have a hard time finding any equivalence between Alexandria, which defended the faith, and Constantinople, where all the heresies came from and where heretics flourished and were held at highest esteem.
- Eusebius of Constantinople was an Arian, Athanasius of Alexandria is the one who saved your See from the Arian heresy.
- Macdonius was a heretic, and our beloved Alexandrian bishop, Timothy of Alexandria was the head of the council that saved your See from heresy.
- Nestorius was your bishop and your beloved Patriarch and he was excommunicated by St.Cyril, who you hate for his orthodoxy.
- Leo of Rome produced a fine Nestorian piece of heresy, and you still believe in his heresy together with the heresies of Thedoret, Ibas and Theodore.
The Russian Church realized the posistion it was in and dealt with it. The Tzar was gone, there was no hope of his return; the Communists were the de facto government. The non-Chalcedonians conspired Against the Empire even before the Moslem invasion, and when the Moslems did come, there are many accounts of them welcoming them as liberators and helping to undermine the Empire.
1) You are defending the Russian Church here based on "facing reality". Your standard is very low and befitting for pagans and unbelievers, for reality does not excuse denial of the Lord or betrayal of your fellow christians.
2) You treat Non-Chalcedonian territories as your God given natural inheritance. What were your ancestors doing in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, North Africa to begin with except rape, robbery and murder? Muslim occupation, as horrific as it is, is by far better than the Chalcedonian rule. The fight between Chalcedonian and muslims is nothing but a fight between thieves, and I wonder how you would expect any loyality to the Chalcedonian side after your ancestors killed millions of them. The struggle of the Copts was for their own country, and not for the CHalcedonian, Mongul-like butchers.
3) What are your sources on the arabic invasion of our countries , for I question your information due to the ignorance that you displayed many times in this thread. There is a debate between the scholars about whether Egypt, for example, was taken over. Was it by force or by a treaty signed by "Mekawkas", the Chalcedonian Patriarch and military ruler of the CHalcedonian side, who sold Egypt to the Arabs for his own safety. The princes under him left their armies without a real war, and the armies withdrew.
The only struggle against the arabs during the next couple of centuries came from the Copts.
4) Because you lack scholarship, you have no interest in backing up your information with primarr sources. The papyrus of John of Samanod details the arabic invasion to Egypt, and it dates back to the 7th century, and it details the massacres that happened to the Copts. Selling out does not make sense with massacres against those who sold out.
But you just gave me a reason to expose your arrogance. Talking about selling out, I want you to take a look at the following statement by H.H.PATRIARCH PARTHENIOS OF ALEXANDRIA, the EO Patriarch of Alexandria in 1982. Here we go:" The prophet Mohammed is an apostle. He is a man of God, who worked for the Kingdom of God and created Islam, a religion to which belong one billion people. ...Our God is the Father of all men, even of the Moslems and Buddhists. I believe that God loves the Moslems and the Buddhists...When I speak against Islam or Buddhism, then I am not found in agreement with God. ...My God is the God of other men also. He is not only God for the Orthodox. This is my position."
His quote is not the single blasphemy from an Chalcedonian Patriarch in Alexandria. Your shameful history is full of such blasphemous quotes. Sell-out.
I'm using St. Paul to Justify the enforcing of Godly Laws as promulgated by our Saintly Emperors, most August, and Patriarchs, Beloved of God.
No , you are using the devil misinterpretation of scripture to justify the crimes and massacres committed by your most-holy, saintly Church Fathers and Mothers.
I can understand the Turks' posistion, as I can the Greeks'. Since it is the Greeks who were the Christians I support them, but I can see where the turks are coming from, and their justification before their laws.
What you see or opined does not concern anybody, you still have to back up your blasphemy from common christian sources and justify the crimes of your ancestors, Church fathers and saints, and explain their excuse from their crimes against humanity. The actions of Justinian, Hercules, Maurice, Marcian and his bed companion and Leo of Rome are nothing short of the actions of Hitler, Ghangis Khan and Tymor Lenk.
St. Justinian, St. Leo the Great, and St. Maximos the Confessor are regarded as highly as they are, especially the latter two, because of their Defence of Orthodox Theology against the lies of Heresy.
-Leo of Rome is a Nestorian. His connection to Nestorians and his Nestorian writings condemn him. He started the waves of persecution by avenging the death of the puppet Patriarch of Alexandria with the death of thousands.
- Justinian is a heretic by Baptism and by believing in the Julianist heresy. He is a mass murderer and a criminal who killed millions as well.
- Maximos of Constantinople was an advisor to Emperor Hercules and among the imperial court before the arabic invasion and was part of the mutilation plan of Hercules against the Non-Chalcedonian. Glory be to God for for administrating justice to this person by the same poison of the Chalcedonian.
I've already given my sympathies for Diocletian, who was truly a great amongst the Pagan Emperors,
Thanks for being so clear about it. No comment necessary.
And the Emperors also made concessions to teh Church...as I said before there was a Synergy between the Two, resulting in the Glory of God.
...which is just natural considering the long history of heresies of the church of Constantinople and the fact that it is an emperial church, and the fact that the Patriarchs of Constantinople mastered politics and the art of moving the mob. There was no synergy. there was conspiracy against the faith.
Actually Christianity diminished in Asia Minor when the Greek Population was forcibly removed
No, christianity vanished in Asia Minor because the See of Constantinople was always protected by the Emperor and not by the Faith of the believers. In face of the first threat they sold out. The faith of your ancestors was simply very weak.
Constantinople 553 did nothing but reaffirm what Chalcedon had decreed, but in Summoning the Synod the Great Dogmas of Chalcedon were again Proclaimed to the World, and hence the Faith was preserved and advanced against the Heretics who would ignore or twist the Fourth of the Oecumenical Synods.
Wrong. By the definition of the 5th council itself, they corrected Chalcedon and deleted the documents that were accepted in the 4th unholy council. You can dance around this fact all you want, but you will not evade the reality of having one of your holy council accept heretical teachings and another council abrogating it.
Secondly, I was unaware that Julianism anathematized? Though I may be mistaken, what synod Anathematized it?
Julianism is anathemized by the OO side in the 6th century, and the fact that your church does not anathemize heresy is not a surprise. Yet, away from that, your apology is silly. Islam is not anathemized in any council, yet it is a heresy nevertheless. It is anathemized by its teachings that Justinian embraced.
If the arguments of the Non-Chalcedonians on this board are to be believed and the 'schism' was entirely political, they they died defending the political posistion of their illegitimate patriarch. If the fathers of both the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Church are to be believed, they died as Heretics.
I never said that the schism is political in nature. Please reply to existing statements and not arguments of your own imagination.
The schism happened because Chalcedon is a Nestorian council and we rejected this unholy council because it embraced heresy like the Three Chapter and the blasphemous Tome.
it Should be noted that the Orthodox Church yet survives in those Places, and still maintains considerable influence despite several invasions and occupations over the centuries.
For your own info, the EO numbers in Egypt does not exceed ten thousands at the most, most of them immigrants during the last couple of centuries from Greece and the Balkan. They would not have needed the massacres of the non-Chalcedonian if the CHalcedonian side had any real presence in Egypt or Syria.
Again, as you brought it up, and as we are speaking about the scandals of the Chalcedonians, it should be noted also that the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria, in 1982, confessed the prophethood of Muhamed and the legitmacy of Islam as a religion. Here is your holy Patriarch's statement:The prophet Mohammed is an apostle. He is a man of God, who worked for the Kingdom of God and created Islam, a religion to which belong one billion people. ...Our God is the Father of all men, even of the Moslems and Buddhists. I believe that God loves the Moslems and the Buddhists...When I speak against Islam or Buddhism, then I am not found in agreement with God. ...My God is the God of other men also. He is not only God for the Orthodox. This is my position."
He was not excommunicated and remained a Patriarch.