Shout out to all my Miaphysite Catholic Brothers and Sisters!

  • Thread starter Thread starter coptsoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coptsoldier

Guest
Hey,

This is a shout out to all my miaphysite Brothers and sisters. I am a convert from the Coptic Orthodox Church. My Christology, in accordance with Christological Agreements between Rome and Alexandria, has remained the same. This is the beauty of the Catholic Church.

Anyone else out there feel free to say hi.
 
Hello Father david, pleased to meet you. My Coptic Orthodox priest is named Fr David 🙂
 
You realize you must abandon a miaphysite expression of Christology? Cyril didn’t mean to suggest it was correct even though he used the exact term mia physis - it is heretical and not in conformity to the expression of diaphysis.
 
coptsoldier said:
Hey,

This is a shout out to all my miaphysite Brothers and sisters. I am a convert from the Coptic Orthodox Church. My Christology, in accordance with Christological Agreements between Rome and Alexandria, has remained the same. This is the beauty of the Catholic Church.

Anyone else out there feel free to say hi.
Click to expand...
Ehelen, tsharrifnaa.* What led you to decide to become Catholic?

*Almost all the people that have given me Arabic instruction have been Lebanese, rather than Egyptian.
 
MorEphrem said:
You realize you must abandon a miaphysite expression of Christology? Cyril didn’t mean to suggest it was correct even though he used the exact term mia physis - it is heretical and not in conformity to the expression of diaphysis.
Click to expand...
Yes…Because your average Syriac Farmer in the turoye will know the difference between a nature, hypostasis etc…
 
MorEphrem said:
You realize you must abandon a miaphysite expression of Christology? Cyril didn’t mean to suggest it was correct even though he used the exact term mia physis - it is heretical and not in conformity to the expression of diaphysis.
Click to expand...
that is a load of garbage, and not in agreement with the Official Position of the catholic church. the Christology of the Oriental Churches is completely orthodox and acceptable in the Catholic Church.
 
Trebor135 said:
Ehelen, tsharrifnaa.* What led you to decide to become Catholic?

*Almost all the people that have given me Arabic instruction have been Lebanese, rather than Egyptian.
Click to expand...
I was seeking unity, and came to the realisation that unity can only reside with the bishop of Rome.
 
This confuses me. Different Catholic Rites can hold different Christological doctrines? Does that not violate our doctrinal Unity, which is one of our marks as the True Church? :confused:
 
JamesTheJust said:
This confuses me. Different Catholic Rites can hold different Christological doctrines? Does that not violate our doctrinal Unity, which is one of our marks as the True Church? :confused:
Click to expand...
Its only a problem when either side is teaching something in conflict which each other. The Catholic and Coptic Church came to an agreement back in the 1970s stating that the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church believe the Same about Christ, just express that universal truth differently.

HH Pope Shenouda and HH Paul VI Signed a common declaration of faith on the Nature of Christ. Below is linked their agreement, as well as agreements with the Syrians and Armenians:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19711025_syrian-church_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19961213_jp-ii-karekin-i_en.html

there are more, but these 3 seemed most important. The Dispute between the Copts and Catholics over the Nature of Christ has been settled since the 1970s.
 
All those sources show an attempt at reducing distance, but none say that miaphysis is a correct understanding of Christology.
 
Miaphysite as taught by st cyril is the same as diaphysite as taught at chalcedon.
 
Also miaphysitism exclusive is wrong. Those that reject diaphysitism is wrong. But miaphysitism and diaphysitism fundamentally teach the same thing, with different wording to explain the universal truth.
 
Hmmm… So the Cyrillian term “nature” is different in meaning from the Chalcedonian term “nature”?
 
JamesTheJust said:
Hmmm… So the Cyrillian term “nature” is different in meaning from the Chalcedonian term “nature”?
Click to expand...
Frankly, yes.

The Council of Chaldedon deliberated in Greek.

The Copts spoke Coptic, not Greek (they understood it, but they didn’t converse in Greek); and they expressed their theology in Coptic.

In going from the Greek to the Coptic, something quite literally gets lost in the translation.

When the Greek texts were translated into Coptic, it sounded to the Coptic ear to be Nestorianism (two hypostases).

The Greeks were saying “two natures” but the Copts heard that as “two hypostases” instead; and said “no, there is but one hypostasis in Christ.”

When it went back to the Greeks, the Copts were saying “one hypostasis” but the Greeks heard that as “one nature” and said “no, there are two natures in Christ”

It can be dizzying. It’s even worse because we are conversing here in English.

The point is that yes, indeed, Cyril and Chalcedon did have different definitions because they were speaking in different languages. Inadequate translation, more than any differences in Christology were at the heart of the controversy.
 
coptsoldier said:
Hey,

This is a shout out to all my miaphysite Brothers and sisters. I am a convert from the Coptic Orthodox Church. My Christology, in accordance with Christological Agreements between Rome and Alexandria, has remained the same. This is the beauty of the Catholic Church.

Anyone else out there feel free to say hi.
Click to expand...
👋

Our brother Zekariya has stated he also prefers the miaphysite expression of our common Faith with the Chalcedonians.🙂

Blessings
 
FrDavid96 said:
The Copts spoke Coptic, not Greek (they understood it, but they didn’t converse in Greek); and they expressed their theology in Coptic.
Click to expand...
In terms of the written record, this cannot be authoritatively proven until the time of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, who is remembered as the first Alexandrian theologian to deliberately write in Coptic (he, like St. Cyril, was given a classical Greek education and could converse and compose in Greek, but deliberately chose to write and preach in Coptic). St. Shenouda lived 347-465 or thereabouts, so his life overlaps considerably with St. Cyril (376-444), though he outlived St. Cyril by a bit, according to the tradition of the Church. There are other great saints of Alexandria who we know must’ve spoken Coptic by inference (e.g., St. Athanasius, who writes in his biography of St. Anthony the Father of the Monks that his teacher spoke no Greek, only Coptic, so St. Athanasius must’ve spoken it too), even though no contemporaneous written record exists of their preaching in the language.
In going from the Greek to the Coptic, something quite literally gets lost in the translation.
Click to expand...
Nope. The preexisting Alexandrian tradition was such that St. Cyril’s Greek formula (St. Cyril did not present his theology in Coptic) meant one thing, and the Alexandrians themselves by and large did not see that reflected in the Tome of Leo which was accepted at Chalcedon.
When the Greek texts were translated into Coptic, it sounded to the Coptic ear to be Nestorianism (two hypostases).
Click to expand...
Except that it wasn’t a problem of how it was “translated into Coptic” – St. Cyril’s formula is in Greek originally, and the understanding of the same is rooted in the Hellenized Alexandrian tradition as promoted prior to Chalcedon (remember, St. Cyril died before Chalcedon ever happened; that’s why both sides can claim that they’re upholding St. Cyril’s uncontroversially Orthodox Christology – because he wasn’t around by that time to tell them which one actually was). It is not a problem of translation. It is a problem of different philosophical traditions informing the understanding of the same words in the same language. (And even it were a problem of Coptic specifically, what then of the Armenians, Ethiopians, and Syrians, none of whom spoke Coptic? What of the large number of Hellenized Palestinians who likewise rejected Chalcedon for some time after the Council? And for that matter, what of the “non-Chalcedonian” people who accepted it?)
When it went back to the Greeks, the Copts were saying “one hypostasis” but the Greeks heard that as “one nature” and said “no, there are two natures in Christ”
Click to expand...
But we do believe that there is but one nature in Christ. After the incarnation, it is no longer appropriate to say He is in two natures. That’s the whole reason why the OO fathers accepted “from two natures”, but not “in two natures”.
 
dzheremi said:
In terms of the written record, this cannot be authoritatively proven until the time of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, who is remembered as the first Alexandrian theologian to deliberately write in Coptic (he, like St. Cyril, was given a classical Greek education and could converse and compose in Greek, but deliberately chose to write and preach in Coptic). St. Shenouda lived 347-465 or thereabouts, so his life overlaps considerably with St. Cyril (376-444), though he outlived St. Cyril by a bit, according to the tradition of the Church. There are other great saints of Alexandria who we know must’ve spoken Coptic by inference (e.g., St. Athanasius, who writes in his biography of St. Anthony the Father of the Monks that his teacher spoke no Greek, only Coptic, so St. Athanasius must’ve spoken it too), even though no contemporaneous written record exists of their preaching in the language.

Nope. The preexisting Alexandrian tradition was such that St. Cyril’s Greek formula (St. Cyril did not present his theology in Coptic) meant one thing, and the Alexandrians themselves by and large did not see that reflected in the Tome of Leo which was accepted at Chalcedon.

Except that it wasn’t a problem of how it was “translated into Coptic” – St. Cyril’s formula is in Greek originally, and the understanding of the same is rooted in the Hellenized Alexandrian tradition as promoted prior to Chalcedon (remember, St. Cyril died before Chalcedon ever happened; that’s why both sides can claim that they’re upholding St. Cyril’s uncontroversially Orthodox Christology – because he wasn’t around by that time to tell them which one actually was). It is not a problem of translation. It is a problem of different philosophical traditions informing the understanding of the same words in the same language. (And even it were a problem of Coptic specifically, what then of the Armenians, Ethiopians, and Syrians, none of whom spoke Coptic? What of the large number of Hellenized Palestinians who likewise rejected Chalcedon for some time after the Council? And for that matter, what of the “non-Chalcedonian” people who accepted it?)

But we do believe that there is but one nature in Christ. After the incarnation, it is no longer appropriate to say He is in two natures. That’s the whole reason why the OO fathers accepted “from two natures”, but not “in two natures”.
Click to expand...
This is even more difficult in English.

The bottom line is that we are both saying the same thing, but we’re using the vocabulary in different ways. That’s the point.

I’m not going to debate it with you because that would only make it appear as if we (Coptic Orthodox and Catholics) do not agree.

When you write the end of your post, I agree with what you say. I would use different vocabulary, yet still agree with your point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top