Who is the legitimate patriarchif Alexandria?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wandile

Guest
Is it the Coptic Orthodox patriarch or the Coptic Catholic patriarch ?
 
Wandile said:
Is it the Coptic Orthodox patriarch or the Coptic Catholic patriarch ?
Click to expand...
Or, the Alexandrian Greek Orthodox patriarch. 😉

A little while after the Council of Chalcedon AD 451, there were two patriarchs. One accepted Chalcedon (Alexandrian Greek Patriarch) and the other rejected Chalcedon (Coptic Orthodox Patriarch). In AD 1054, the great schism happened and the Alexandrian Greek Patriarch stayed with the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Coptic Catholic Patriarchate was established in 1824 by Pope Leo XII.

The Coptic Patriarch remained faithful to St Cyril of Alexandria’s orthodox teaching of one [united] nature of God the Word (Alexandrian School of Theology) that was accepted at the Council of Florence.

The Alexandrian Greek Patriarch accepted the Council of Chalcedon’s orthodox teaching of of two natures of Christ (Antiochian School of Theology).

There was no Alexandrian patriarch in Communion with Rome in 1824, therefore, the Pope established the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate.

PS I, myself, am partial to St Cyril’s teaching on the Nature of Christ. 😃
 
4givemeasinner said:
Care to explain a but more fully? I’m interested to hear what it is; never heard of this before.
Click to expand...
"Accordingly when we assert the union of the Word of God the Father to his holy body which has a rational soul, a union which is ineffable and beyond thought and which took place without blending, without change, without alteration, we confess one Christ, Son and Lord, the Word of God the Father, the same God and man, not one and another, but one and the same, being, and known to be, God and man. Therefore sometimes he speaks as man according to the dispensation and according to his humanity, and sometimes as God he makes statements by the authority of his divinity.

"And we make the following assertions also. While skillfully examining the manner of his dispensation with the flesh and finely probing the mystery, we see that the Word of God the Father was made man and was made flesh and that he has not fashioned that holy body from his divine nature but rather took it from the Virgin Mary. Since how did he become man, if he has not possessed a body like ours? Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of his Incarnation we see that his two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for his flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though he made the flesh his own according to the dispensation.

“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)
Emphasis mine.
 
Miaphysitism: Christ in one united nature (of two natures) in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. (orthodox)

Eutychianism: Christ has one Nature of God and Man that is mixed and confused. (heresy)

Dyophysitism: Christ in two natures united in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. (orthodox)

Nestorianism: Christ has two separate Natures of God and Man that are one in dignity. (heresy)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top