1,316
edits
Changes
m
{{Oriental}} '''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 ofChrist''". 2. Some Chalcedonian Fathers and theologians stated that the Tome of Leorepresents an insurmountable obstacle in the efforts made to unite with the non-Chalcedonians, for the latter believe that two "physeis and ousia" in oneperson is Nestorianizing. This is supported by the fact that Leo's Tome waspraised by Nestorius himself [1], and that the Tome, if taken alone by itselfcould have created the impression of an excessive opposition of two natures, asProf. Rev. Florovsky says[2]. 3. Kelly states that, unlike, their brethren in the East, the Westerns wereconcerned with the organization of ecclesiastical matters more than theologicalones. He also states that with the exception of Tertullian, the west made littleor no contribution to christological theology[3]. 4. We are in accord with the Tome in refuting Eutychianism and in confirming thatChrist's manhood was real, Christ entered the mundane plane of existence and thatthe unity of Godhead and manhood had been realized without change... but the Tomeconsists of three statements, those which some of the Fathers of Chalcedonthemselves 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 needto confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" one... 6. The Council of Chalcedon adopted the Tome of Leo. In Egypt many believers weremartyred for they refused to sign the Tome... The acceptance of the Tome as aprincipal 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 theNestorians 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 traditionalformulas of the Church, which confirm the oneness of the Person of Christ, as atrue unity, such as: "one nature of two natures" and "one nature of theIncarnate Word of God." I conclude my discussion of the Council of Chalcedon by referring to the words ofSellers who defends this council... "In the first place, it should be understoodthat the (Monophysite) theologians were not heretics, nor were theyregarded 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 theChalcedonian Churches. [[Category:Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council]]LOL INTERNET
with love from ebaums