The New Monophysites

[Mor Ephrem]

Which anti-Chalcedon church were you baptized into Mor?

I am Malankara Orthodox, one of the Churches not listed above. Based solely on those listed above, I'd come under the Syrian Orthodox.

On what you'd said if that's true then why won't you accept Chalcedon and all of our Chalcedon and post-Chalcedon saints?

Well, I personally do accept Chalcedon and the later councils after it as Orthodox in teaching. If I didn't accept that, then I couldn't honestly accept the findings of the Joint Commission. Do I accept them as ecumenical? I don't know, to be honest. It is an issue I'm wrestling with. In order to wrestle with them, though, I hope to do a lot of reading from both sides, in addition to, of course, prayer. My main problem with traditionalist Eastern Orthodox, including some/many on this site, is that they aren't willing to do any research of their own. I don't ask anyone to convert and join my Church, but I do wish people would do enough reading to get the facts straight, and the facts are that my Church and those I am in communion with do not match the definition of Monophysite that is presented in the article above, and in many others like it. I don't mind if you reject us; I just want you to reject us based on the truth about us, and not based on some very common misconception that is, nevertheless, a misconception. Anyway, this is an issue I'm wrestling with.

The saints? I'm not in the business of condemning people on either side vastly holier than I could ever hope to be.

It seems you're calling the Church Fathers of Chalcedon and later fools by saying that they're unable understand what they were speaking of? That it took an enightened modern humanity of 1500 years later to prove everyone believes the same thing? Maybe the Arians and the Nestorians and the Iconoclasts should say the same thing? Should they be allowed to rejoin the Church without accepting the councils and saints of the Church too?

Most traditionalists resort to this argument in my experience. That the "ecumenists" believe that they are more enlightened than the Fathers. I don't think that's true. I simply think that it is possible that mistakes were made based on a lack of correct information, and this resulted in the split. Certainly, my Church has always taught something which is clearly not the Monophysitism you guys pin on us...in fact, our Church also condemns that notion. This is the way it has always been, and this is what we have always taught. There is no other choice for me, then, than to believe that something went wrong that didn't need to go wrong, but because of the circumstances, did. Now, if you could prove from the Oriental Orthodox tradition itself (theology, liturgy, patristics, etc.) that our Church did/does indeed believe heretical ideas, then maybe my wrestling would stop, and I could concentrate on figuring out which of your Churches is the right one. But, sadly, no one seems to be interested in approaching the question from that angle, but rather everyone seems quite content believing false ideas about us, and making judgements based on that. Paradoxically, if the question was addressed in this way, and you guys were proved right, that would be the one thing I would need to confidently make the jump that I'm theoretically still considering.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I had shut my computer down for the night but Mor Ephrem’s post bothered me and eventually caused me to boot everything back up and here I am.

First, with regard to the article, the summary of Monophysite teaching described in it is more of a conclusion of that teaching, and not the teaching itself.

Mor, it seems you are taking this very personal, which doesn’t seem to be a good thing. I don’t believe anyone has been trying to “prove” you are a Monophysite, but rather that those pretending to represent the Orthodox Church of this age and of all ages past, have failed miserably in showing your church is not. This utter failure, and the communion which is preceding from it, reveals with even half as much attention as some people pay to sports entertainment, a dark spirituality that should frighten a tick off of a poodle. You must agree Mor that it is not always direct cooperation with evil that leads us into darkness, most of the time Satan uses trickery and deception to lead us away from Christ. He is cunning and he is the father of lies.

Therefore, it is not out of hatred for you or your church which motivates us to point out the awkward and hard realities which confronts us, it is a matter of our own salvation. This is something that should be of primary concern for anyone. These disagreements and divisions are a terrible thing, a result of men falling away, and no one is about to relish in it. But the peace and agreements for which the ecumenists are haggling is something infinitely more fearful. A fever is a very unpleasant thing, but it shows at least that the organism is reacting against something bad which has entered it. The peace which they wish to bring is not, unfortunately, that which comes from the victory over evil, but that which comes from defeat. It is the feverlessness of a corpse.

And it is not what you personally believe that is of anyone’s concern here; it is what your church believes. And like you say, have any of us even been to your church to know the first thing being taught? So what better place for us to discover these beliefs and how they apply to us than in the agreements that have been signed officially?

Now, on numerous occasions I have tried to delve into the actual texts of these signed agreements, sampling many miserable examples of a blatant disregard for the real issues. It is nothing less than a whitewash. Nowhere is anything new revealed, no saints have been recognized, no councils have been accepted or even agreed to, no acceptance of anything the Holy Fathers have stated, no, none of these things. Nothing. When one reads these documents one has a sense, like anything else you would read, you have a comprehension of what is being said. And as one reads and approaches the heart of the issue, where you finally say, “Yes! Finally the confession of Orthodoxy!”, you are not given any “bread”, only a big fat “stone”. They do not discuss any confessional differences, but simply try in every way possible to reveal and emphasize the elements of similarity and the points of contiguity. This language is intended to simply mislead the very few people who may have made the effort to investigate this “misunderstanding”. It presents them with a substitute of “love”, which is much easier to accept than a fight which would overturn much in ones personal life.

Yet there is now communion?? Based on what? The answer is based on ecumenism. Now Anastasios may wholeheartedly disagree, but where is he or anyone else when I try to discuss the signed agreements? Shall we all be led by the “easily uprooted” feelings of his WCC friend or what we see concretely on paper and in action?

According to Saint Irenaeus, "Despite the fact that the Church, is dispersed throughout the world, but by virtue of the same Spirit of God abiding in it, and because of the continuity of the same apostolic calling, it preserves the same teaching everywhere. It has the same faith, as if having the one soul and the one heart; it preaches and teaches in the same way, as if speaking with one mouth. And though the languages in the world are not alike, the power of Tradition is the same. Churches founded in Germanic countries do not believe and preach faith in their own way; neither do the churches in Iveron, in Celtic lands, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia, nor the Churches founded in lands surrounding the Mediterranean lands. But like the sun, this creation of God, is the same in all the world, so the sermon of truth, being one and the same in the entire Church, shines and enlightens all" ("Against Heresies"; Book I, Ch. 10.) And not just across the expanse of geographic space, but also across time because there is an unbreakable bond between the Church in this world (however small) and Christ’s Kingdom.

At the Orthodox and most holy Synod of Chalcedon, the ballot was cast among the Fathers to declare their support for Leo or Dioscoros:

"The magnificent and most honored leaders said: 'Dioscoros said: from two natures I accept, of two natures I do not accept. The most holy Archbishop Leo said: We believe that the two natures are united in Christ, unconfused, without change, and undivided in the Only-begotten Son our Savior.' Then the Holy fathers were asked, 'Whom do you follow; the most holy Leo or Dioscoros?' The most reverend bishop cried, 'As Leo we also believe. All those who contradict are of the Eutychian heresy. Leo has spoken in the Orthodox way.'"

Shenouda III at the monastery of Anba Bishoy in 1989: "We believe that the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in his Humanity without confusion, without change, without separation and we are not talking about two natures after the mysterious union of our Lord". ("Episkepsis" #442, 7/1/1989, p. 10).

[Mor Ephrem]

I had shut my computer down for the night but Mor Ephrem’s post bothered me and eventually caused me to boot everything back up and here I am.

I appreciate it.

First, with regard to the article, the summary of Monophysite teaching described in it is more of a conclusion of that teaching, and not the teaching itself.

So then, what is the "teaching itself"?

Mor, it seems you are taking this very personal, which doesn’t seem to be a good thing. I don’t believe anyone has been trying to “prove” you are a Monophysite, but rather that those pretending to represent the Orthodox Church of this age and of all ages past, have failed miserably in showing your church is not.

OOD, I do not wish to come across as if I take this personally, yet I find it hard sometimes to fully express what it is I'm thinking.

It is statements like you make here that give me pause. You say that people have been trying to show that "those pretending to represent" the Orthodox Church have failed in demonstrating that my Church is not Monophysite. How is it that they have failed? It seems to me that the facts don't lie, and if it is true that our Church has always taught Cyrillian Christology, and if that Christology is Orthodox, then we were never heretics (acceptance of councils being, to me, a slightly different matter). Now, if the facts are wrong, then that is something else altogether, but thus far, no one has shown that. So with what support do you make the claim that world Orthodoxy has not succeeded in showing that we are not heretics? How do the traditionalists demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox Church, and not necessarily "world Orthodoxy" (assuming, as I presume you are, that "world Orthodoxy" is a sham and not the Church), with full knowledge of the true facts in the matter, rightly regards the "Oriental Orthodox" as heretics? It is very easy, in my opinion, to tout a council and some canons and whatever else and condemn anything in sight, but much harder to actually look into the matter and prove that that council and those canons and whatever else were right intrinsically and not merely because they were "rubber-stamped" by the Church.

This utter failure, and the communion which is preceding from it, reveals with even half as much attention as some people pay to sports entertainment, a dark spirituality that should frighten a tick off of a poodle. You must agree Mor that it is not always direct cooperation with evil that leads us into darkness, most of the time Satan uses trickery and deception to lead us away from Christ. He is cunning and he is the father of lies.

I agree. But what is there to be afraid of the truth?

And it is not what you personally believe that is of anyone’s concern here; it is what your church believes. And like you say, have any of us even been to your church to know the first thing being taught? So what better place for us to discover these beliefs and how they apply to us than in the agreements that have been signed officially?

Well, if the agreements are between what you regard as heretical sects and a sham organisation called world Orthodoxy, how would they apply to you? I would think that, if you wanted to know what we believe, you would be better served by reading the writings of our fathers and theologians, the texts of the liturgical services, etc., and not by reading paperwork issued by bodies you do not recognise.

Now, on numerous occasions I have tried to delve into the actual texts of these signed agreements, sampling many miserable examples of a blatant disregard for the real issues. It is nothing less than a whitewash. Nowhere is anything new revealed, no saints have been recognized, no councils have been accepted or even agreed to, no acceptance of anything the Holy Fathers have stated, no, none of these things. Nothing. When one reads these documents one has a sense, like anything else you would read, you have a comprehension of what is being said. And as one reads and approaches the heart of the issue, where you finally say, “Yes! Finally the confession of Orthodoxy!”, you are not given any “bread”, only a big fat “stone”. They do not discuss any confessional differences, but simply try in every way possible to reveal and emphasize the elements of similarity and the points of contiguity. This language is intended to simply mislead the very few people who may have made the effort to investigate this “misunderstanding”. It presents them with a substitute of “love”, which is much easier to accept than a fight which would overturn much in ones personal life.

Then where is the critique of these agreements that addresses the things you want to see addressed, but doesn't misrepresent the teaching of my Church? If it exists, I'd like to read it.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Mor Ephrem,

It is very easy, in my opinion, to tout a council and some canons and whatever else and condemn anything in sight, but much harder to actually look into the matter and prove that that council and those canons and whatever else were right intrinsically and not merely because they were "rubber-stamped" by the Church.

From our perspective, holding to the decisions and decrees of an Ecumenical Council and the decisions of the Holy Fathers of the Church is not optional or up for debate, it is mandatory.

Please understand that if someone calling themselves Orthodox wishes to declare that an Ecumenical Council was wrong and in error, and not only that, but all Orthodox from then until now, well, I would say the burden of proof is on them and not me.

So if you could just point me in the direction of the document or confession of faith that shows the anti-Chalcedonians are Orthodox, it would save me allot of searching.

...if it is true that our Church has always taught Cyrillian Christology, and if that Christology is Orthodox, then we were never heretics (acceptance of councils being, to me, a slightly different matter). Now, if the facts are wrong, then that is something else altogether, but thus far, no one has shown that. So with what support do you make the claim that world Orthodoxy has not succeeded in showing that we are not heretics?

The support is the agreements that were signed. Not a single one of them offer any meaningful definitions. They are closer to a treaty than a confession.

I truly sympathize with you Mor, when you discuss these issues with people and read certain articles you read statements like "the teaching of Eutyches was condemned by the Orientals too." You might also read that the Orientals have always held to the Cyrillic teaching which we both accept..." ect, ect. What is important to understand when you delve into this subject is that there is not one type of Monophysitism, not two, or even three, there are many! Some resembled Orthodoxy very closley, some did not.

Before we can continue with this discussion, and before I can do anything further, I have to ask: I can say that my faith is in complete agreement, with very few exceptions, with all the Saints of my Church. Can you say the same thing? That is, that you share the same faith as Severus, Dioscorus, and others?

EDIT: I'm not trying to bait you or anything, but I have to know what it is your church believes, and what your fathers beleived. I would like to also write about why Monophysitism is so important, I think there are people who think this is just nonsense.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Mor,

Are you finished with this discussion?

I am saying this affectionatley as I can, that it seems there have been others times when the traditional Orthodox position was objected to, and it never fails that when it comes time to lay down the cards the thread becomes a ghost town.

I hope you are just busy - I will not be available myself tomorrow.

[Mor Ephrem]

Dear OOD,

Although I often find it hard to discuss things beyond a certain level with you because you are quite obviously more learned and farther advanced spiritually than I (and I'm not being facetious, I'm serious...generally speaking, I learn something new everytime I read something you write), no, I am not done with this discussion. Part of my delay in answering is that, in thinking about all this, I realise I need to do less talking and more learning. I know what I've learned my Church believes, but I don't know all the nuances. I want to learn more. Moreover, I move back to the dorms on Saturday, and so the past week has been busy, and my situation won't get any less hectic for at least another week. So, while I don't think I've finished, I think I need a time out. I hope you understand.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Mor Ephrem,

Please don't mistake anything I know with being "spiritually advanced". Depsite my spiritual bankruptcy, anything I know or have written had to be researched - so it is all borrowed from the Church, I am just passing it on.

The major problem with Monophysitism is the understanding that Christ is of one nature AFTER His incarnation, no matter how its flowered up, directly leads to monoenergism. Monoenergism, that is, that Christ always acted with both his Divine AND Human will at the same time, is the real problem.

The heresy of Monotheletism in the 7th century was really just a rehash of a boiled down version of Monophysitism - same thing like we have today, a union where we can dispell the language of the two natures as being the same but completley ignore the heresy of one will. You see, as long as Monophysites can profess one will they are happy, it doesn't so much matter about the two natures, as long as it can be said the two natures become one nature after the incarnation, even though they are still distinct natures which sends up a smoke screen the new-calendarists can use to hide the real issues, so long as it can be said one nature SOMEHOW, monoenergism can be professed.

I know I wrote this very poorly, if you don't mind Mor, I would like to put a few scraps together regarding Dioscoros and Severus - two of your Saints - and also about monoenergism. I will try to make it much clearer.

I can't do this now but I can see this is very important so tomorrow when I have some time.