True.
Why is it when they say, "Christ has only one nature," no one seems to understand that that is the very definition of Monophysitism?
Instead it is excused with comments like, "But they mean the same things we mean."
If that were true, it would not lead them to the conclusion that Christ has but one will - Monothelitism.
Why would those who do not accept the teachings of the Orthodox Church want union with the Orthodox Church?
I realize that this topic has apparently already been discussed here several times. But for me this is a fairly new revelation.
I had assumed, like so many others, that when the Non-Chalcedonians said, "We are Orthodox," they were telling the truth. I also - rather stupidly and without thinking - assumed that the schism of the 5th century was the result of a misunderstanding.
I have recently had my eyes opened as I have witnessed a minor invasion of another internet forum by aggressive Anti-Chalcedonians. The repeated attacks on the Council of Chalcedon by one of them in particular caused me to investigate this subject.
What I learned startled me. Now I fear the ignorance of rank and file Orthodox Christians, and the insidious liberalism of some of their leaders, may lead to a union with heretics and, ultimately, to an even worse schism as the true Orthodox react with horror.
If the Fathers called those who rejected Chalcedon heretics, who are these moderns to question them?
Are the ecumenical councils infallible or not?
Is there not but one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
This thing troubles me greatly, brothers and sisters.
Pardon what looks like an obsession, but this has come to me like a hammer blow, and I have learned a lot in a relatively short time.
Reprinted from Orthodox Life Vol. 45, No. 3 May - June 1995
PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW ATTEMPTS TO STRONG-ARM THE CHURCH INTO UNION WITH THE MONOPHYSITES
Unrestrained and unhindered, Patriarch Bartholomew proceeds to actualize union with the Monophysites. He impudently obliterated both movements opposing union with the heretical Monophysites. In the one case he condemned, with a "higher synod," the Patriarch of Jerusalem who opposed the union with the Monophysites. In order to mislead the public Bartholomew claimed that the Patriarch of Jerusalem intruded in another jurisdiction. In essence there was no such intrusion of any sort whatsoever. In the other case, as soon as he was informed that the Holy Community of Mount Athos had commissioned a study by a committee of abbots to suggest a course of action in the light of rumored unification, and before the Holy Community unanimously resolved and declared her decision to approve the condemnation of the unification with the Monophysites, the Patriarch proceeded to swiftly punish the Athonite monks. Thus they could not express their opinion as they did on the Balamand Agreement, and moreover he justified himself by claiming that they allegedly "displayed misconduct towards the Patriarchal Exarchate."
In the current year Patriarch Bartholomew inaugurated his visits with the heretical Patriarchate of the Monophysites. Patriarch Bartholomew conducted a visit following an invitation by the Monophysite Patriarch of Ethiopia between the 11th and 20th of January (1995). Bartholomew's synodia consisted of the Metropolitans Joachim of Chalcedon, Meliton of Philadelphia, Theoklitos of Metron, Michael of Austria, and Meletios Kalamaras of Neokopolis and Prevasa. He even chose the timing of the visit to coincide with the Monophysite feast of Theophany so that he could celebrate the feast with them for a second time. The media reporters alleged the crowd of Monophysites who arrived for the feast of Theo phany came because of Bartholomew. Besides why shouldn't the heretics in their delusion enjoy receiving a Patriarch, especially one who claims to represent all Orthodoxy that has "realized" her mistake and comes to reconciliate.
The real meaning of this visit is the expression of remorse and repentance. This official visit carries the message.. "You Monophysites assumed certain extreme positions in the past. But the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the Fifth, Sixth, and the Seventh that came thereafter likewise deviated. Times have changed and a new age has dawned on Orthodoxy, and the correction of the Ecumenical Councils and the new interpretation of the Bible has begun"! Church receptions, common prayers, and doxologies took place. In short, a complete recognition of the heresy of monophysitism.
In the city of Auxum, where he visited the ancient Monophysite Church of the Mother of God, Bartholomew said to the Ethiopian bishops:
"You are truly blessed. While the Old Israel laments destruction [of the Temple of Solomon], you rejoice in the divine services and the glorification of the Lord in this holy temple."! But, Bartholomew, the Lord does not dwell in man-made temples, neither does He rest in the "services" of the misbelieving heretics. God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, as the Lord said to the Samaritan Woman.
Addressing himself to all the Monophysites, Bartholomew said, "We came here as brothers to brothers in Christ, as members of the one, ancient and undivided Eastern Orthodox family that, having unfortunately lost her unity fifteen centuries ago, today seeks and rediscovers it by God's Grace. It was chiefly for the present reconciliation and unification that this trip was undertaken by us." (Apogevmitini, Jan.29, 1995)
Monophysites are not "brothers in Christ." Heretical Monophysites are not one family [a new ecumenical term] with the Orthodox. The reasons for their condemnation by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils have never been annulled, nor have they repented in order to become members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That trip's aim was a traitorous and strong-armed unification. Patriarch Bartholomew, following the example of the Patriarch of Antioch, came for ecclesiastical communion and common prayer with the heretical Monophysites. Communions such as this are no longer criticized, but they are passed in silence and downgraded to a mere formality. Bartholomew, pointing out the "mistakes" by the Ecumenical Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church said, "The large Christian family gathers again, and the Church has come out of her isolation that past mistakes and painful historical circumstances had imposed on her. As evidence we point to the current successful conclusion of the dialogue with the Ethiopian Church." (Nea, January ~, 1995)
All these events indicate the violation of the holy canons that prohibit ecclesiastical communion of the Orthodox with the heretics. Unfortunately, they are advancing unrestrained and completely unopposed towards the pan-heresy of ecumenism.
Translated by Demetrios Kekis
"Agios Agathangelos," January-February 1995
I really don't like to make any comments on the activities or words of a patriarch of the Church, but if the account posted by Nicholas is accurate, it certainly is disturbing, to say the least.
Someone recently told me there is a video of the EP on the GOARCH web site in which he says there is hope for union with the Non-Chalcedonians if they will accept all of the ecumenical councils. Now that sounds like a reasonable thing to say, although I would add that in so doing they must realize that they are also condemning the men they have hitherto regarded as "saints" and "fathers," men like Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Severus of Antioch, etc.
But I do not understand why any Orthodox patriarch would so fraternize with groups outside the Church and speak as if they were actually part of the Church.
It doesn't make sense, nor is it consistent with the patristic tradition.
Lucian wrote:Why is it when they say, "Christ has only one nature," no one seems to understand that that is the very definition of Monophysitism?
The term "monophysitism" can be broken down from the Greek to mean "one nature". The English term as I've seen it defined in secular and other sources, however, indicates the belief that the human nature of Christ either did not exist or was "swallowed up" by the divine nature of Christ (I've seen both). "They" don't believe this.
I am unclear about the distinction between "mia" and "mono" in Greek. My understanding is that both mean "one", but there is a difference. Can anyone inform me on this?