Antiochian Patriarchate's Communion with the Monophysites

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

Deacon Nicolai,

I thought he was a Reader with the Serbians?

Pensees,

Do you accept in full, without quible or argument, the Seven Oecumenical Councils led by the Holy Spirit?

If you do not, you, and your religion, are not Orthodox and are Heretical. What World Orthodoxy does is irrelevant, Heretical Rome was Orthodox once, as were your Heretical monophysite religious organisations.

With repentence of your heresy you, and they, can become Orthodox, it's very easy really and what all us Orthodox want.

In Him
SB

[ioannis]

"Official Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch
on the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches"

[Pensees]

Do you accept in full, without quible or argument, the Seven Oecumenical Councils led by the Holy Spirit?

Whether we accept your "Ecumenical" councils (a counil can't truly be ecumenical if half the Church rejected it) or not, we are not, and never heave been "Monophysite." Again, please do not use the term against us unless you actually are able to prove that our Christology is "Monophysite." We do not deny the humanity of Christ, and neither do we confuse the human and the divine. If we were "Monophysite," then so was St. Cyril and the fathers of Ephesus 431. You haven't proved the heresy of our position, but you have shown the ignorance and closedmindedness of your's.

The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis formula of St. Cyril - "The one incarnate nature of God the Word". The Cyrillian formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an orthodox formula. Now what do the non-Chalcedonians mean by the mia physis, the "one incarnate nature?". They mean by mia one, but not "single one" or "simple numerical one," as some
scholars believe. There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula. St. Cyril maintained that the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ, as Meyendorff puts it, "does not consist of a simple cooperation, or even interpenetration, but of a union; the incarnate Word is one, and there could be no duplication of the personality of the one redeemer God and man." http://www.coptic.net/articles/Monophys ... idered.txt

[尼古拉前执事]

Matthew, a few points:

1. Using Meydorf as a source here is not going to win you any points, as he was often rightfully characterized as as Ecumenist and Renovationist.

2. You, as a guest of an Orthodox Christian message board who accepts all Seven Œcumenical Councils, by the rules of formal debate which you should know, you are the one who has to prove your varying viewpoints. It is not us who have failed to prove those anathematized for the heresy of Monophysitism were never Monophysites, but rather you who have failed to show that those who were Monophysites never were and are not today.

3. The Church is not split with either side having anathematized the other. Only one side can be right as of Chalcedon. We did not believe the same things then and although union has been attempted for 1,500 years it has not happened because we still do not. Your saints are anathematized heretics to us, and the Anti-Chalcedonians have anathematized the saints of the Orthodox Church too.

4. You personally may not be a Monophysite, but that does not mean that your Church nor its "fathers" arenot and were not. If you accept Chalcedon as true, unlike "Ekristos Anesti" then you should leave the Anti-Chalcedons and join the Orthodox Church. You do not believe the same things as him, that much is clear!

5. In the last month you have argued that those anathematized as Monophysites are and never were Monophysites, that those anathematized as Nestrians are and never were Nestorians. What is next, will you be telling us that the anathematized Arius and his followeres were not Arians? That the Iconoclasts were not Iconoclasts? When you make these arguments you are saying that the Church is wrong and has been for over 1,500 years and putting yourself, a new convert to your Faith, as superior to the Church fathers and hierarchs that were guided in the Œcumenical Councils by the Holy Spirit. That is called prelest when in pride we think we know better than what the Church teaches. Do not try argue that the Church is wrong, instead read up and learn why She indeed was right.

6. One of the rules listed here in the FAQs is "Do I have to be a traditonalist Orthodox Christian to post here? No you do not. However, for our non-traditional Orthodox Christian guests, we ask that if you have concerns that you respectfully ask questions but not attack our Faith." By attacking the Church, Her Saints, and the Œcumenical Councils as wrong, then you are attacking the Church and the Faith of the Orthodox.

[Anastasios]

Dear Jean-Serge,

Code: Select all

   OrthodoxInfo.com used to have this very document on their web site, complete with the header and everything, but since he has left the Cyprianites and last I heard is with the Antiochians, I have been unable to find this document. I will however continue looking for it, as I have been for a while. I only found the text yesterday when searching for it, but have hopes of finding the actual document along with other synodal notes.[/quote]

He's with the Serbs up in Oregon, not the Antiochians.

[Pensees]

Again, if you are not able to prove that Oriental Orthodox Christians are, or ever have been, "Monophysite," you are not only insulting our church, but bearing false witness. You might consider yourself a "traditionalist" but tradition without love and understanding is shallow indeed.

[尼古拉前执事]

Again, if you are not able to prove that Oriental Orthodox Christians are, or ever have been, "Monophysite," you are not only insulting our church, but bearing false witness. You might consider yourself a "traditionalist" but tradition without love and understanding is shallow indeed.

It has been proven, just reread the many threads you have started on this topic and on the Nestorians.