I can understand saying that one must accept the branch theory in order to believe Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox (I don't think one must accept the branch theory to believe that but more on that later).
However, I cannot, just cannot, accept you all's notion that today's Copts fall under the condemnation of the 4th ecumenical synod. I am so tired of this...the Copts DO NOT BELIEVE IN ONE DIVINE NATURE OF GOD THAT TRUMPS THE HUMAN NATURE as Eutyches the heresiarch taught and which was condemned by the 4th ecumenical synod.
Copts and other Non-Chalcedonians simply express themselves with St. Cyril's terminology. You can call Copts schismatics since they are not in communion with you if you'd like but to keep calling them monophysites when then disavow such beliefs is frustrating.
Paradosis had his smart one liner "ecumenism" as a response but really you can't blame the big bad ecumenism for everything. Why is there traffic today? ECUMENISM! 
Anastasios,
I appreciate your sincerity. It is, however, not a matter of sincerity, but of altering and overturning the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods. We Orthodox regard the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods as infallible, because they were reached with the supervision of the Holy Spirit as proven by the timeless recognition of the conscience of the Church of all the ages. Who dares to assail the authority of the Ecumenical Synods with interpretations and theological sophistries which ultimately concludes all Ecumenical Synods since the third to be in error?? Who?? Will Mr. Hopko say he knows more than St. John of Damascus? How about “Professor” Meyendorph, does he think himself more “sophisticated” than St. Athanasios? What about Mr. Erikson, is he so ready to shamelessly step forward and declare himself a better spiritual light than St. Leo?
Well, along with them, this is exactly what you are doing Anastasios on this board. I find it absolutely incredible that so much confidence is given to the egotistical modern rationalists as to overturn all the authority, every tradition, and each and every truth the Church has ever known; because this is EXACTLY what they are doing. As soon as they are given authority to “wage war against the saints” and overturn this truth of an ECUMENICAL SYNOD, there is NOTHING which is not laid at their feet for them to kick around. These spiritual savages would do well to humble themselves.
And when you consider the position of the neo-Orthodox has been single handedly fermented only in the last few years by the same rabid ecumenist heretics who sign Balamand Agreements, I just cannot theorize the extraordinary mutations in ones logic to give anything more than a laugh to these people.
Here is an example of how the “misunderstandings”, which deserve great attention, have been cleared up. Paragraphs 4 and 7 of the 1990 Declaration, clearly shows a compromised view on the teaching of the Church, which is mutilated and an attempt is made to identify Orthodox Christology with heresy. Both Paragraphs are an example of ecumenical cunning these enemies of Christ have.
Paragraph Four: The two families accept that the two natures with their own energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished only in the thought. (!!)
Paragraph 7: Here it also speaks of the distinction of natures and wills of the Savior only in thought. However, the usage of expressions "only in thought", "in imagination", or "only in speculation" may be interpreted completely in the spirit of Monophysites, i.e. as an absence of this distinction in reality.
The Athonites wrote a letter which also draws attention to this fact; when speaking of the Joint Declarations of 1989 and 1990, they note that they "contain many expressions acceptable from the Monophysite point of view and similar, for example, to the teaching of Severus: "a single united divine-human nature" (First Joint Declaration) and the "natures are distinguished only in the thought" (Second Joint Declaration) .
You said, “the Copts DO NOT BELIEVE IN ONE DIVINE NATURE OF GOD THAT TRUMPS THE HUMAN NATURE as Eutyches the heresiarch taught and which was condemned by the 4th ecumenical synod.”
Do you know that Eutyches was anathematized by almost all Monophysites already at the end of the 5th century? This is nothing new to the Orthodox, this is not some marvelous revelation or discovery of the ecumenists.
Please Anastasios, show us the clear statement where the Monophysites accept the Tome of Leo. Surely you will not suggest, now that all of the “misunderstandings” have been cleared up, that the Monophysites are having difficulties accepting this most Orthodox confession?
Or could you show us within the signed agreements that have so quietly lifted the anathemas against the Monophysites, where they have confessed Orthodoxy?
I’m sorry if I have offended you, but I find this just so incredible.
OOD,
Basically you and I are arguing on different levels.
No one is saying Chalcedon should be overturned. It was right at the time, and it is right now. Anyone professing the monophysite position is a heretic.
My whole point is that Non-Chalcedonians do not profess the monophysite heresy.
That point above that you quoted "in the thought" I just don't take the way you do. How can you define the distinction between God's human and divine natures? Of course they are distinct but how? The Athonite monks (who are not the sole criterion of Orthodoxy--why you don't even think they have grace!)--are simply wrong on this issue.
This is not something invented by ecumenists--this dialogue has been going on and off for centuries.
The issues of Leo's tome are different; no the Non-Chalcedonians have not accepted this and that is why I said above it would be fair for you to call them schismatics since they are not in communion with you.
I am arguing in a very limited way here--all I am arguing is that they are not monophysites. I personally believe them to be Orthodox but you can take that wherever else you'd like--of course from your POV they should be converted, and that's fine. I on the other hand support efforts for corporate reunion preserving their rites. I believe they should accept wholesale Chalcedon and Leo's tome along with a Chalcedonian apology for assaulting the hieararchs of their church.
Don't attack Professor Erikson whom you do not know. He is a pious and humble Orthodox Christian and you would do well to imitate him. I see him on a day to day basis and yours and Patrick Barnes's assaults on him are meaningless.
I also do not mean to offend; I agree that the truth is paramount and I argue with you because I believe you are wrong, plain and simple. I still like and respect you though.
Anastasios,
I repsect you and love you Anastasios, I am also painfully aware of my solemn duty to refute you to the ends of the Earth.
Your statements that Chalcedon is not being overturned is COMPLETLEY contrary to everything that is happening. They have lifted its anathemas and condemnations; they have declared the holy fathers to be in error; they have renounced their decisions. And not just of the Fourth council, and not just the FIfth, Sixth, and Seveth, but they have also renounced St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Anastasius of Sinai, St. John Damascene, St. Photius, St. Theodore Studite, St. Theodosius, and all the other holy teachers and confessors who had tirelessly, and often until they died a martyric death, struggled against the Monophysite and the Monothelite heresies. And you are saying there really were no Monophysites?
Is Severus a Saint, as believed by the Copts and who by doing so declare they share his faith, or is he a heretic, as believed by the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and all of our Saints?
"... we solemnly decree that this Council, while preserving intact the common body of Christ our God, and, succinctly speaking, of all the men who have distinguished themselves in the Church of God and have become luminaries in the world, 'holding forth the word of life' (Phil. 2,16), is committed to holding the faith firm and sure, even till the consummation of the age, and that it shall remain immutable and unaltered, as well as their God-imparted writings and dogmas; and rejecting and anathematized, on the ground that its authors were enemies of the truth, and snortingly and ravingly uttered vain things against God and made injustice and unrighteousness the highest objects of their study and meditation. If, however, there be anyone in the world who does not care to hold and embrace the aforesaid dogmas of piety, and believe and preach thus, but, on the contrary, attempts to by-pass them, let him be anathema, in accordance with the definition (or rule) already previously promulgated by the aforesaid holy and blessed Fathers, and let him be cursed and expunged from the Christian Roll like an alien, and as one not belonging to our faith. For we are fully resolved and have been determined not to add anything to or to remove anything from what has previously been decreed..." (Rule One of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:Anastasios,
I repsect you and love you Anastasios, I am also painfully aware of my solemn duty to refute you to the ends of the Earth.
To the ends of the earth, eh? So you Old Calendarists not only have bad astronomical calculations but you believe in a flat earth, too? just kidding!
anastasios
