From: best@bucs2cs.bu.edu (Azer Bestavros)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Coptic Church and Monophysitism
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:23:39 GMT

Few days ago, an article that linked the Coptic Orthodox Church to
Monophysitism was posted. I am a Coptic Christian and I would like to
share with you the following message, which I sent to few friends of
mine when this issue came up in a discussion.

--Azer
 
In an article entitled "Glories of the Coptic Church", Pope Shenouda (the 
current Pope of Alexandria) says:

"Under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as
 opposed to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of
 Alexandria played leading roles in Christian theology. They were
 invited everywhere to speak about the Christian faith. St. Cyril, Pope
 of Alexandria, was the head of the Ecumenical Council which was held
 in Ephesus in the year 430. However, we began to run into trouble. It
 was said that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but
 spend all their time in meetings.

 St. Dioscorus of Alexandria was sent into exile, and the political
 motives of the council of Chalcedon became apparent when the Emperor
 Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. St.
 Dioscorus told the Emperor, "You have nothing to do with the Church,"
 and in the year 451, the Coptic Church established its independence,
 but has remained very strict and steadfast in its faith. 

 The Coptic Church was misunderstood in the 5th century at the Council
 of Calcedon. Perhaps the Council understood the Church correctly, but
 they wanted to exile the Church, to isolate it and to abolish the
 Egyptian (independent) Patriarchate. The Coptic Church was accused of
 following the teachings of Eutyches, who believed in monophysitism.
 This doctrine maintains that the Lord has only one nature, the divine,
 not two natures, the human as well as the divine. How do the Copts
 explain the two natures of our Lord? We believe that He is perfect in
 His divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and
 His humanity were united in one nature, which we call "the nature of
 the incarnate word." This was reiterated by St. Cyril of Alexandria.
 To the Coptic Church, faith is more important than anything, and
 others must know that semantics and terminology are of little
 importance to us."

Several things to notice from the above quote:

  o The Coptic Orthodox Church started in 451 after Pope Dioscurus
    declared "independence" from the Roman state. The Coptic church prouds 
    itself that it has never been controlled or allowed itself to control
    the State. 

  o Our Church was "misunderstood" in the Council of Chalcedon.
    Till this day, the Coptic Church is believed by the west to be 
    "monophysite". We --at least now and according to Pope Shenouda--  
    do *not* believe in monophysitism the way it was portrayed in the
    Council of Chalcedon. In that Council, monophysitism meant
    believing in *one* nature. We believe in two natures "human" and
    "divine" that are united in one "without mingling, without
    confusion, and without alteration" (from the declaration of faith
    at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). These two united natures 
    "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye". (also from 
    the declaration of faith). 

  o Whether it was a conspiracy from the Western Churches
    to exile the Coptic Church as a punishment for declaring its
    independence, or whether Pope Dioscurus didn't quite go the extra
    mile to make the point that we are not monophysite, I believe that
    the Coptic Church shares a responsibility to reconcile the "semantic"
    differences between our Church and the Catholic Church -- at least
    on this issue.

[From this posting it's hard to tell whether there's a substantive
difference from the orthodox definition or not.  Certainly much of the
language being used is identical to Chalcedon, and so looks orthodox.
The only concern would be what is meant by saying that his divinity
and his humanity were united into one nature.  If "nature" is being
used in the technical sense, then this is saying that Jesus is neither
really human nor really God, but a third thing.  I.e. we're talking
about a sort of Arianism.  But from your language about the natures
not being mingled or confused, I get the impression that you don't
really mean to say that.  --clh]