Hello src readers,  Again the misconception that Copts among other Oriental Orthodox Churches believe in Monophysitism pops up again. We had a discussion about it a while ago.   In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes: > >The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a >heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It >grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus >are two different people who happened to be united in the same body >temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia >and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox.   Then OFM comments :  > > >[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different >things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously >different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I >don't think there's any question that there is a problem with >Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form >without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be >a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions >suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from >orthodoxy as many had thought.   With my appreciation to the moderator, I believe that further elaboration is needed. This is an excerpt from an article featured in the first issue of the Copt-Net Newsletter :  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 A.D. It was said that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend  all their time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics started to intermingle with  Church affairs.  It all started when the Emperor Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of St. Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later  exiled, to this interference was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church."  These political motives became even more  apparent in Chalcedon  in 451, when the Coptic  Church  was unfairly  accused of following  the  teachings of  Eutyches, who believed  in monophysitism. This  doctrine maintains that the  Lord Jesus Christ  has only one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.  The Coptic  Church   has never  believed  in  monophysitism  the way   it was portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon!  In  that Council, monophysitism meant believing in one  nature.  Copts   believe that the Lord   is perfect in  His divinity,  and He   is perfect in  His humanity,  but  His  divinity  and His humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word", which was reiterated by St. Cyril of Alexandria.  Copts, thus, 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  natures "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from  the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).  The  Coptic Church was  misunderstood in the 5th century  at the  Council  of Chalcedon.  Perhaps the Council  understood   the Church correctly, but  they wanted to exile the  Church,   to  isolate it  and to  abolish the  Egyptian, independent Pope. Despite  all of this,  the Coptic Church  has remained very strict  and steadfast in its faith.   Whether it was   a  conspiracy from the Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church  as a  punishment for its refusal to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus  didn't  quite go the extra  mile to  make the  point that  Copts  are not  monophysite, the Coptic Church has always felt a mandate  to reconcile "semantic" differences between all  Christian  Churches.   This is   aptly  expressed by the  current  117th successor  of  St. Mark, Pope Shenouda III:  "To the  Coptic Church, faith is more  important  than  anything, and   others  must know that  semantics  and terminology are of  little importance to us."  Throughout this  century,  the Coptic Church has played  an important role  in the ecumenical  movement. The Coptic Church is one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. It has remained a member of that  council  since 1948 A.D.   The Coptic Church is  a member  of the all  African Council of Churches  (AACC)  and the  Middle East Council of  Churches (MECC).  The Church    plays an  important role   in the Christian   movement   by   conducting dialogues   aiming  at  resolving  the theological differences with the  Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, and Evangelical Churches.  [...]  As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in Monophysitism.  Peace,  Nabil            .-------------------------------------------------------------.          /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /         /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /        /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /       /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /      /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /     '-------------------------------------------------------------'  [As I mentioned in a brief apology, the comment quoted above from me is confused.  I appear to say that Nestorius was monophysite.  As Andrew Byler correctly stated it, the Nestorians and monophysites were actually opposite parties.  The point I was making, which Nabil explains in some detail, is that some groups that have been considered heretical probably aren't.  Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of the Antiochene tradition.