Taken from http://www.homb.org/frameset-postings.htm
Monophysites? Miaphysites? Monothelites?
Some years ago, an editor of a new calendar periodical wrote to His
Eminence, Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston, asking him what he thought about
the "Agreement" between the Orthodox Churches and the "non-Chalcedonians"
[those who do not accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council] . Metropolitan Ephraim
responded with the letter published below. We believe His Eminence’s letter
addresses as well the issues raised in a fairly recent announcement of the Greek
Patriarchate of Alexandria [see below] .
It would appear that the ecumenically-minded representatives of "World
Orthodoxy" are, as usual, skirting many issues and betraying the Orthodox Faith.
A LETTER TO MICHAEL CHRISTOPULOS
A MEMBER OF THE NEW CALENDAR GREEK ARCHDIOCESE
AND EDITOR OF THE PERIODICAL
THE SWORD
Holy Prophets Moses and Aaron
September 4/17, 2002
Dear Michael,
I pray that this letter finds you well and with the peace of our Saviour. Amen.
In response to your request, I feel obliged to raise the following questions about the
"Agreement" between the non-Chalcedoneans and the Orthodox, concerning which you wrote in
the last issue of The Sword:
1) If it is only a matter of semantics and a misunderstanding between the two parties, as
some maintain, then, I assume, there is no problem for the non-Chalcedoneans to accept
the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils. Am I correct? Have they done this? I
saw no mention of this in your report.
2) Likewise, if it is only a matter of semantics, have the non-Chalcedoneans accepted
all the Orthodox Saints that have been glorified in the Church subsequent to the
division that occurred between the two parties? Again, your report makes no mention of
this.
3) If the non-Chalcedoneans finally acknowledge that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
had two natures—the divine and human—that is wonderful. However, Pope Shenouda, whom
you quote extensively, insists with great emphasis that Christ has but one will. This is the heresy
of Monothelitism, which was condemned at the 6th Ecumenical Council. St Maximus the
Confessor had his hand cut off, his tongue ripped out by the Byzantine emperor, and he died in
exile in Georgia because he would not agree to this heresy. Does the Agreement which you
reported have anything to say about this issue?
4) If, as reported, both parties condemn Eutyches as a heretic, then there is another
problem that has to be addressed. At a Council which took place in Ephesus in August
of 449 (this is known as the "Robber Council of Ephesus" among the Orthodox
Christians) Dioscorus—who is considered a saint by the non-Chalcedoneans—presided.
This false Council affirmed the Orthodoxy and sanctity of Eutyches! It also deposed
and excommunicated Theodoret, St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope St.
Leo of Rome. In addition, the above-mentioned St. Flavian was murdered at that
Council. The 4th Ecumenical Council which gathered in Chalcedon in 451, on the other
hand, deposed Dioscorus because he would not denounce the doctrine or the person of
Eutyches. In a document to the Emperors Valentinian III and Marcian, the Fathers of
the 4th Ecumenical Council sent a copy of the minutes of the 3rd session (Oct. 13, 451)
with a letter, in which the reasons for the deposition of Dioscuros were briefly given:
that he had suppressed the letter of St. Leo, the Pope of Rome; that he had received
Eutyches into communion; that he had ill-treated Eusebius of Dorylaeum; that he had
excommunicated Pope St. Leo; and that he had not obeyed the Council (See History of
the Councils of the Church, Vol. 3, by Charles Joseph Hefele, Edinburgh, 1883, p. 329).
Again, what does the Agreement have to say about this? Is all this, too, simply a matter
of semantics?
If the "Agreement" does not deal with all these issues, then it appears to me, Michael, that,
sad to say, your bishops have betrayed you once again. As the ecumenistic bishops have
demonstrated time and again in their official declarations, they simply are not Orthodox any
longer.
I think it is important to point out that many Coptic and Ethiopian bishops, clergy and
people have visited our monastery over the years, and they have been warmly welcomed. I must
say, in many ways, they have a piety and simplicity and reverence that, I fear, is missing in many
visitors who belong to the various SCOBA jurisdictions. In addition, we are on extremely good
terms and have a very warm friendship with the local Coptic priest, Father Musa and his
presbytera. They are wonderful and warm people, and I certainly wish that we were in
communion with them, because we see so much in them that is good. But, alas, because of the
points I raised above, there can be no joint prayers or intercommunion with them until the
doctrinal matters are resolved.
I hope this has explained our concerns.
In Christ,
- Ephraim, Metropolitan