Help on encounter friend leaving for copticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yitong
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dzheremi said:
He died seven years before it even began.
Click to expand...
And therefore he can’t be considered a heretic for not explicitly accepting it’s decrees.
dzheremi said:
Oh, wait, but he didn’t reject “Sola Scriptura”, either, so I guess he was really a Lutheran. But then, he didn’t reject baptism for the dead, so maybe he’s actually a Mormon.
Click to expand...
He held beliefs that were directly contrary to both of those.
 
devoutchristian said:
St.Cyril didn’t reject the Council of Chalcedon.

I was responding to a Catholic.
Click to expand...
The rejection of the Oriental Orthodox of the Council of Chalcedon was because they were unable to reconcile it with their understanding of the unity of Christ, as taught by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Their christology was not condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. The immediate issue that was addressed by Chalcedon was Eutychian monophysitism, which essentially denied the humanity of Christ. The Oriental Orthodox have never rejected the belief that Christ is fully divine and fully human.
 
devoutchristian said:
They refused the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council. That’s heresy.
Click to expand...
You’re making something of nothing. There have actually been joint statements issued by the Oriental Orthodox and the Holy See in which they agree on christology. I don’t know why that’s not good enough for you.
 
devoutchristian said:
They refused the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council. That’s heresy.
Click to expand...
If the Coptic Orthodox have a heretical christology, then the christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the other Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council are heretics, because the christology of the Coptic Orthodox is that of the Third Ecumenical Council.
 
The Catholic Church has officially recognized Miaphysitism as entirely orthodox.

Joint Declaration of Christology

If they’re heretics, and I don’t believe they are by any definition, it’s not because of Miaphysitism.

Peace and God bless!
 
Izdaari said:
So do I. And the Catholic Church didn’t officially believe it until 1870. 😛
Click to expand...
Using your logic, the Catholic Church did not believe that Christ was fully God and fully man until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon. And Mary was not the Mother of God (Theotokos) until 431 AD at the Council of Ephesus. :rolleyes:
 
Ghosty said:
The Catholic Church has officially recognized Miaphysitism as entirely orthodox.
Click to expand...
“The schism shouldn’t have happened” doesn’t mean “They’re orthodox”.
Ghosty said:
If they’re heretics, and I don’t believe they are by any definition!
Click to expand...
They deny Papal Infallibility, that’s undeniably heretical.
 
devoutchristian said:
The Coptic “Orthodox” are heretical.
Click to expand...
Devout,

I am not so sure that heretical would be the way I would put it…spin this around in your head…

The OHCAC is Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West…all celebrating Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist…and then the remainder of the OHCAC is all Baptized in the Trinitarian Formula…

after you spin that I ask you to reconsider the notion of heretical…
 
devoutchristian said:
He held beliefs that were directly contrary to both of those.
Click to expand...
But neither existed in his time, just like the Christology adopted by the Chalcedonians as expressed in the Tome of Leo did not exist in his time, either. That’s the entire point of the comparison. And he held beliefs that are contrary to the Tome of Leo, or else there wouldn’t be any non-Chalcedonians in the first place.

From the 12 anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria, accepted at the Council of Ephesus (431):

"If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema. "

From the Tome of Leo, accepted at the Council of Chalcedon (451):

“Each nature performs its proper functions in communion with the other; the Word performs what pertains to the Word, the flesh what pertains to the flesh. The one is resplendent with miracles, the other submits to insults.”
 
devoutchristian said:
What does that have to do with whether or not they’re heretical?

And therefore he can’t be considered a heretic for not believing in it.
Click to expand...
Devout,

Continue being devout…

Protestanism is heresy…Protestants of today are not the Protestants of the year 1500

Oriental Orthodox in disagreement in the early centuries are not Oriental Orthodox today

Eastern Orthodox in the year 1000 are not the Eastern Orthodox of today
 
I think a few people here need to read ‘Unitatis Redintegratio’ (Decree on Ecumenism) from Vatican II. The opening line of this decree states, "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. I don’t think using words like **‘heretical’ **nowadays helps a lot, or we will spend the next thousand years calling each other names on blogs. :eek:
 
devoutchristian said:
And therefore he can’t be considered a heretic for not believing in it.
Click to expand...
Not surprising, but you’re still completely missing the point. But believe whatever you want about St. Cyril and the Egyptian church. Nobody’s wrong, misguided opinion will change the truth of the Orthodox faith of St. Cyril, nor those following in his line until today in the Coptic Orthodox Church.
 
devoutchristian said:
What does that have to do with whether or not they’re heretical?
Click to expand...
If you are speaking of Miaphysitism…

St Cyril of Alexandria said that people who “maintained a difference of natures” are “understanding in simple thoughts (one translation says: “simple-minded”)”. He clearly considered “One nature of God the Word Incarnate” to be a more advanced understanding of Christ.

“But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think…” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:17

I am a Miaphysite. The Catholic Church accepted Miaphysitism as an orthodox explanation of Christ before Vatican II. St Cyril supported it (even after the reunion) above Dyophysitism. And Venerable Pope Pius XII accepted it as an orthodox understanding.

Those who call Miaphysitism heresy need to read the letters of St Cyril of Alexandria.

After the reunion with John of Antioch:

“Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying he was of two natures, but after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word [of God] made flesh.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 45:6 (to Succenus, Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria)
 
dzheremi said:
So we’ve got one of those OC.net-type jokers here, have we…? 😛 I swear, if I had a dime for every person who made this joke…no, nevermind. Scratch that. It’s not worth a whole dime.
Click to expand...
Did i say something wrong:blush:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top