Coptic Church of Alexandria under the Byzantine Empire

And

The Post-Chalcedon Schism

 October 2015

OUTLINE

I.       INTRODUCTION

II.    HISTORICAL REVIEW OF PRE-CHALCEDON COUNCILS

A.    Council of Nicaea I (325 AD)

B.     Council of Constantinople I (381 AD)

C.     Council of Ephesus I (431)

III. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

A.    Christological Controversy

B.     Chalcedonian Definition

C.     Council Decisions

IV. COPTIC CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA AFTER THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

A.    Byzantine Centralism

1.      Imperial Hegemony

2.      Schism and Efforts to Unity

3.      Imperial Persecution

4.      Arab Invasion

B.     Egyptian Localism

1.      Chalcedonian Mandated- Patriarchate

V.    TENSION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

A.    Theological Christological

B.     Political Tension

C.     Recent Development:  Second Vatican

INTRODUCTION

The Coptic Church of Alexandria is a non-Chalcedonian Church that does not adopt the Christology of the Council of Chalcedon.  The Chalcedonian Churches are the Church in Rome and Constantinople, back then, which adopted the Chalcedonian Christology regarding Christ’s two natures and two persons.  The non-Chalcedonian Churches were the Coptic Orthodox Church (Church of Alexandria), the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Indian Orthodox Church that adopted the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria regarding the one-nature of Christ after union—hypostatic union.  He is God the Word incarnate and has one nature that comprises deity and humanity without confusion or mixture or change; Christ’s divinity is united to his humanity in essence and hypostasis.[1] 

This paper discusses the Christological controversy of the Council of Chalcedon that led to a permanent schism in the Great Church, but not in-depth.  It investigates the state of the Coptic Church under the Byzantine Empire pre-Chalcedon and its position after the schism initiated by the Christological controversy of Chalcedon, and whether the tension was theological or political-administrative, or both.  The Coptic Church, being advanced in the theological debates over the Trinity and Christology, came under pressure with the schism that divided the church into two camps—Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian—and which continued for a long time despite trials for unity.  This paper also brings to the fore the latest theological debates that lasted from 1964-1990 in an endeavor to regain the fellowship between the Catholics and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox.  All the references are rather old and some documentation is missing because during the time of severe persecution, there were no historiographers to record the chronology of events taking place.

It is my contention that the Christological controversy of the Chalcedonian Definition that split the Great Church resulted in imperial and ecclesiastical persecution that the Coptic Church of Egypt survived due to the perpetual support of the Copts to their Popes and Bishops.

The methodology consists of a historical review of the Council of Chalcedon with brief notes on the three previous councils and the major heresies anathematized, the Chalcedonian Definition, and the Christological Controversy that led to the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches; the Coptic Church of Alexandria under the Byzantine Empire with a focus on Byzantine centralism and Egyptian localism and the tension between the East and the West, highlighting the theological Christological tension and some political considerations. The conclusion summarizes the main points and presents a plea for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to reexamine their stances in view of a unity of faith to honor God in Christ Jesus, "that they may be one."

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF PRE-CHALCEDON COUNCILS

The Council of Chalcedon was preceded by three ecumenical councils that came out with important decisions that were affirmed in the Council of Chalcedon as authoritative.  The following part reviews the development of doctrine during the first three ecumenical councils and highlights the role of the Coptic Church of Alexandria and the Church of Antioch and the political-ecclesiastical tension that transpired from the council decisions.

Council of Nicaea I (325 AD)

Nicaea I was summoned by Emperor Constantine to settle the Arian controversy that denied Jesus’ divinity and held that “salvation is a process of being joined with God by grace and free will.”[2]   It was attended by 318 bishops.  Bishop Leo of Rome and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (assisted by Athanasius) were the two main figures representing the Great Church.  The Council formulated the Nicene Creed and ruled out Arianism by stating that the Lord Jesus Christ is “…true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance (homoousios-consubstantial) with the Father.”[3]  The Creed also affirmed God as Trinity; each of same substance (homoousios) yet distinct; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases (persons), not separate, and one homoousios.[4]   The Creed included four anathemas against the teachings of Arius. 

The Council was the first ecumenical council to settle a dogmatic controversy and became a precedent as a way to solve theological doctrinal issues and controversies and matters of church government.[5]  It was convened and chaired by Emperor Constantine, a precedent of imperial involvement in church affairs; also the “aura of authority” came from those who “bore the marks of persecution” and who were now winning the Emperor’s favor.[6]  It marked the marriage between state and church that had negative repercussions on Christianity and church government.[7]  Nicaea also marked the use of “non-biblical terms in a creed enforced by anathemas,” such as homoousios that was of Greek philosophy and the use of a “language of exclusion” enforced by state intervention.[8]  Such imperial developments and intervention in church affairs set the stage for persecutory effects on the Coptic Church of Alexandria after the schism.

Council of Constantinople I (381 AD)

Constantinople I is contra Apollinarianism that denied Christ’s humanity, the “God in a Bod” Christology, an opposite stance to Arianism.[9]  It was convened by Emperor Theodosius I and the main figures were Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian Fathers.  It affirmed the Nicene Christology of “God alone can save,” articulating a soteriological axiom “what is not assumed is not healed,” meaning that for humanity to be saved, Jesus Christ had to be a full human person, and not only a full God.[10]  Nicaea I and Constantinople I established Christ’s full divinity and full deity by using new terms and new lines of arguments.[11]  The Council rewrote the Nicene Creed, known as “Niceno-Constantinopolitan” Creed, omitting the four anathemas of the Nicene Creed, adding a third article on the Holy Spirit and the Church, and condemning subordinationism and Sabellianism.[12]  It anathematized many heresies: Eunomians, Pneumatochians, followers of Marcellus and Photinus, and the Appollinarians.[13]  Emperor Theodosius made this Creed the official religion of the empire.[14] 

Council of Ephesus (431 AD)

Ephesus is contra Nestorianism affirming “God alone can save us” through the incarnation of the Son who is homoousios with the Father and homoousios with Mary theotokos (God-bearer), as advanced by Cyril of Alexandria, the key theologian in the Council.[15]  The dogmatic formula stated, “One and the same is the eternal Son of the Father and the Son of the Virgin Mary, born in time after the flesh; therefore she may rightly be called Mother of God.”[16] The issue was not the “Mother of God” but the full humanity and full divinity of Christ Jesus. The council dispossessed Nestorius, as Patriarch of Constantinople.[17]  A conflict arose between John Bishop of Antioch and Cyril Bishop of Alexandria over Christ’s “two-nature” formula for Orthodox Christology.[18]  Cyril reluctantly agreed to the two-nature formula but made clear that “a distinction of two natures is necessary, a division is reprehensible;” however, he clearly preferred “one nature after the union” formula.[19]  This created discontent among Cyril’s Alexandrian colleagues because two natures meant two persons; so Cyril defended his compromise with Antioch by issuing the “Formula of Reunion of 433” where he insisted that two natures are “only distinct in thought and not in reality” and thus avoided a schism between Antioch and Alexandria.[20]   Alexandria kept affirming the “incarnation as a union of two natures,” that is to say the “one-nature” formula.  To put it simply, for a person to be a catholic orthodox Christian, he/she had to believe that “the Savior had a human mind and a divine mind but was not two persons.”[21]

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

The Council of Chalcedon, in Bithynia Asia Minor, is the fourth ecumenical council convened in 451 AD by Emperor Marcian and attended by 500 bishops among them Bishop Leo of Rome and Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria.  They decided on four aspects: incarnational theology, conciliar, monastic, and constitutional.[22] 

Christological Controversy

Antioch and Alexandria disagreed on the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ, which underlined different views of salvation.[23]  Soteriology was at the heart of the Christological controversy that proceeded from two different interpretations:  the literal-historical-exegetical School of Antioch that emphasized Christ’s humanity and the allegorical-exegetical School of Alexandria that emphasized Christ’s divinity.[24]  Though Fairbairn argues that the Chalcedonian definition was not “a compromise document mediating between the two schools (Antioch and Alexandria) [but] part of a consistent line of doctrinal development that began with Nestorius’ condemnation at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and continued after Chalcedon with the formulations of Constantinople II in 553 and Constantinople III in 680-81,” [25] but different views of salvation will certainly lead to conflict.

The Antiochenes emphasized “two-nature after union” formula of Christ, implying two persons, which tended to separate his humanity from divinity and to attribute salvation to Christ’s godliness and perfect cooperation with “the divine logos who assumed him;” in other words, it is a work righteousness like Nestorianism and Pelagianism.[26]  Alexandrian Christology, on the other hand, emphasized Christ as the “divine Savior, the Logos of God, not as a human person,” the “one-nature after union” formula that tilted towards “divine” more than human and the soteriological focus was on grace not human achievement.[27]  Cyril of Alexandria kept the peace with Antioch by just agreeing on the “two-nature” formula but clearly highlighted the two-natures of Christ in terms of distinction but not divisibility.  He kept affirming the hypostatic union, that is the “one-nature after union” or the “one incarnate nature of the Word” but failed to explain how could Christ be both, “truly human and truly divine, and yet one nature.”[28] 

Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria was Cyril’s successor and kindled the Christological controversy of Chalcedon over the “one-nature after union” formula Cyril had held on to.[29]  So the Christological war was waged between Antioch and Alexandria over two-natures and one-nature formulas, respectively.  Theodoret of Cyrus was Dioscorus' counterpart theologian at the Council, Antioch’s favorite and candidate to become the Patriarch of Constantinople; he considered “the two-nature formula as Orthodox to the exclusion of all other.”[30]  Political maneuvers and fights between the two camps caused the council to be cancelled and became known as the “Robber Synod,” which condemned the Antiochene Christology.[31] Emperor Theodosius II “switched alliance from Antioch to Alexandria” and approved Dioscorus one-nature formula of the God-man.[32]  Pope Leo of Rome reversed the Robber Synod by condemning Eutyches’ denial of Christ consubstantiality with us humans and reinstated Theodoret of Cyrus.[33]

Chalcedonian Definition

The Chalcedonian Definition repeats the phrases “the same one” and “one and the same,” around eight times, asserting that Christ is one and the same, who is “consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us,” the Logos, the only-begotten.[34]  The Definition states:

 Therefore, following the holy fathers we all unite in teaching that we should confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This same one is perfect in deity, and the same one is perfect in humanity; the same one is true God and true man, comprising a rational soul and a body.  He is of the same substance as the Father according to his deity, and the same one is of the same substance with us according to his humanity, like us in all things except sin.  He was begotten before the ages from the Father according to his deity but in the last days for us and our salvation, the same one was born of the Virgin Mary, the bearer of God (theotokos), according to his humanity. He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, and only-begotten, who is made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.  The distinction between the natures is not at all destroyed because of the union, but rather the property of each nature is preserved and concurs together in one prosopon and hypostasis. He is not separated or divided into two prosopa, but is one and the same Son, the only begotten, God the Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ.  This is the way the prophets spoke of him from the beginning, and Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and the council of the fathers has handed [the faith] down to us.[35] 

The Definition keeps affirming Christ’s full divinity and full humanity by various expressions like only-begotten, begotten before the ages, perfect in deity, perfect in humanity, same substance (con-substantiality) with the Father and same substance with us.  It affirms the hypostatic union but with distinction between the two natures; Christ is one, not two. The Definition, in essence, was a victory to the Alexandrian Christology of Cyril’s “hypostatic union” or “one nature after union” or “one prosopon and one hypostasis;” yet it also included the Antiochene Christology of two natures, ruling out two persons.  Alexandria was discontent with the mention of “two natures;” and a permanent schism ensued with the Eastern Orthodox Churches which split from the Great Church. [36]  Church of Syria and East of Syria (Persia and Arabia) formed their own Nestorian Churches;[37] and the Coptic Church of Egypt refused the “two-nature” of the Definition and held on to Cyril’s Christology of “one incarnate nature of God the Logos.”  The Definition was an altered version of Cyril’s Christology and the Church of Alexandria could not accept this alteration and refused to even “pay lip service to the Chalcedonian Definition” and were called “radical monophysites.”[38]  Some Antiochenes split from the Great Church because the Definition emphasized Christ’s one person and hypostasis—monophysitism.[39] 

Council Decisions

The Council formulated the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith regarding Christ’s two natures and defined the authority of the three previous councils and codified a common canon law for the Church.[40]  It elevated the Bishop of Constantinople (East) to equality with the Bishop of Rome (Leo) who was “first among equals” and deposed the Bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus.[41]  The Bishop of Rome rejected the Emperor’s declaration and claimed Roman preeminence over all Christian bishops.[42]  The Council decisions demarcated the place of monks in the church, subjecting them to the bishop and banning setting up new monasteries without the bishop’s permission.[43]  The Council placed the Church of Constantinople next to Rome and grounded the “authority of the Roman bishop in his place of residence, and not on his connection to the apostles,” which led to a dispute between Rome and the East.[44]  The Bishop of Rome was accorded preeminence of honor based on the Eastern “principle of accommodation” for ranking churches in relation to political realities and historical associations (Rome as the old capital of the Empire); while the Bishop of Rome insisted on the “principle of apostolicity” in terms of connection to Peter and Paul. [45]  The schism was not only Christological but also jurisdictional related to church government and inter-church relations (as discussed below). 

COPTIC CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA AFTER THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

The Great Church suffered major defections in the fourth and fifth centuries.[46]  After the Council of Chalcedon, the Great Church was identified with the fellowship of the Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople (East) and the Patriarch of Rome (West).[47]  These three entities maintained communion with each other.  

Byzantine Centralism

The Church of Alexandria represented by Bishop Dioscorus and thirteen other bishops who accompanied him did not sign the Definition or Tomes Leo;[48] and the Emperor deposed and exiled Dioscorus in Gangra and enforced the Definition by penalizing objectors and dissenters.[49]  The Emperor used coercion and violence to suppress the objectors to the two-natures of the Chalcedon Definition.[50]  Egypt and many churches in the East consolidated their stance against the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, despite the Emperor’s harsh penalties against dissenters.[51]   The mounting opposition of the Coptic Church of Egypt and its non-Chalcedonian allies led the Emperor to consolidate Rome’s and Constantinople’s stances against the Egyptian threat.[52]

Imperial Hegemony

The opposition movement led by non-Chalcedonians against the Council decisions developed gradually as the imperial hegemony mounted its persecution to the non-Chalcedonian churches.[53]  In Alexandria, four bishops out of the thirteen that attended the Council of Chalcedon gave in to the Council decisions and returned to Egypt with an imperial edict to the Governor of Alexandria ordering the appointment of a successor to Dioscorus.[54]   The four bishops ordained Proterius as Patriarch of the See of Alexandria against the will of the people; the monks and the people did not approve Proterius as Patriarch and considered Dioscorus as their pope until his death.[55]  When Emperor Marcian died (457 AD), the Coptic people seized the opportunity of the presence of the Roman General Dionysius in Upper Egypt and chose Pope Timothy (Aelurus) as successor to Dioscorus.[56]  Proterius sent letters to anathemize Pope Timothy and all those who have fellowship with him; but those letters were of no value or effect to the Coptic people.  When General Dionysius heard, he apprehended Pope Timothy among riots and killings; many died and the Coptic people were angry which forced the General to release Pope Timothy.[57]  The General gave the Church to Proterius through the authorities by force but the Coptic people ignored Proterius, whose bloody violence towards his opposition led his guards to kill him and burn his body.[58]  Pope Timothy became very popular through his ministry to the poor and was beloved, to the point that the Chalcedonians in Egypt appealed to him to unite the church.[59] 

Emperor Leo took over the throne during the Papacy of Leo of Rome.  Pope Timothy of Alexandria had sent to request the Emperor to convene a council; many letters from opponents and proponents to Pope Timothy were sent to the Emperor who decided to convene a council in response to Timothy's request.[60]  Pope Leo sent a letter to the Emperor accusing Pope Timothy of being "the Antichrist" and condemning him for not approving the Council of Chalcedon.[61]  The opinion of the Egyptian Bishops dealt a blow to Pope Timothy for they all agreed on the Council of Chalcedon, except one bishop Amphilocius of Side; and the council was never convened.[62] Pope Timothy got apprehended to be sent in exile; riots and extreme chaos ensued for the Coptic people wanted to save their pope.  More than ten thousand people were killed on that day.[63]

The Chalcedonians with the state assistance appointed a successor to Pope Proterius called Pope Timothy the Salophaciolus—a Chalcedonian, who tried earnestly to unite the Church of Alexandria, the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, but to a no avail.[64]  Emperor Basilicus, successor to Emperor Leo, brought back Pope Timothy from his exile in 475 AD.[65]   Emperor Zino took over and reversed all Basilicus' executive orders and decisions and exiled all the non-Chalcedonian bishops.  Zino could not touch Pope Timothy Aelurus because he was old and Zino feared exiling the Pope would cause thousands to be killed. Pope Timothy was succeeded by Peter Mongus.[66] The Chalcedonian Pope Timothy was still in his position until 482 AD; during his tenure, Egypt witnessed massacres and unrest.[67]

A temporary unity took place between the four Patriarchates—Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, to the exclusion of Rome.[68]  Pope Peter Mongus was appointed and signed the Henotikon, an agreement issued by Emperor Zino in 482 to unite the Church of Alexandria to the Church of Constantinople and to approve the Chalcedonian Definition—a matter that the opponents of Pope Peter considered as betrayal.[69]  Pope Peter reversed his agreement but discontent had already been initiated in Alexandria; the opponents of the Pope, called Acephalists (without head), remained out of church until the Pope's death.[70]  The Henotikon failed to realize unity because the non-Chalcedonians insisted that the Chalcedonians should condemn the Chalcedonian two-nature formula.[71] The Church of Rome insisted that the Council of Chalcedon is a "fait accompli" and rejected the opposition.[72]  

Schism and Efforts to Unity

The Christian world got split into two strong living entities; every party considered the other as a heretic.  The non-Chalcedonian party suffered from severe hindrances at a time where the approved church government structure, as decided in the Council of Chalcedon, was the state-church that Egypt lacked.[73]  The non-Chalcedonian churches lived as banned religious institution, equally to the pre-Constantine era where the Church was persecuted.  Often the Coptic Bishops and people would appoint a patriarch to the See of Alexandria that the Emperor would depose.[74]  The Henotikon did not provide any legal rights to the persecuted non-Chalcedonian entity; however, it availed to these churches to operate within the imperial structure without approving the Council of Chalcedon.[75]  Thus the Henotikon gave the non-Chalcedonian party a leeway to breathe away from the Byzantine centralism, favoritism, and struggles over principle of accommodation and of apostolicity.

Imperial Persecution

The efforts to unite the Great church lasted till 571 AD but the failure to realize the unity led the Emperor to wage persecution over the non-Chalcedonian party through the Pope of Constantinople and the other Chalcedonians.[76]  The Emperor in 571 AD issued an edict to strip off the non-Chalcedonian party of its rights, closed their worship places, apprehended and imprisoned their bishops and priests, and dispersed their assemblies.[77] Chalcedonian bishops and priests were sent to perform the liturgies and church services, but the non-Chalcedonian congregations refused them and did not partake in the Eucharistic liturgy the Chalcedonian priests performed.[78] So the non-Chalcedonian congregations were imprisoned, dispossessed of their properties, and many were exiled.[79] Under severe imperial persecution and coercion, many accepted the Chalcedonian Definition; but the persecution did not last long because the Emperor Justinian was replaced by Emperor Tiberius Caesar in 574 AD, who refused to persecute the non-Chalcedonian Christians.

Arab Invasion

Emperor Heraclius lost the war (611-617) with the Persians; Egypt, Syria, and Palestine came under the Persian dominance.[80] Heraclius recuperated Egypt and Syria in 628 AD and rebuilt the Byzantine Empire that was basically Chalcedonian and Greek-speaking.[81] In 641 AD, he lost Egypt and Syria to the Arabs; the non-Chalcedonian Egyptians got rid once and for all from the Chalcedonian persecution but faced an even greater danger—the Arab invasion.  The Arabs proposed three alternative on Egyptians: either convert to Islam, or pay taxes (jiziyya), or get killed.  Many Christians converted to Islam and others refused to convert to Islam and got killed.

Egyptian Localism

Chalcedonian Mandated- Patriarchate

The imperial hegemony resulted in stripping Alexandria from its internal church government independence.  Popes were appointed against the will of the people who opposed the imperial appointments and held on to their popes.  The ecclesiastical mandated-appointments created riots and chaos; the Coptic people revolted against the Christian Emperor who interfered in the church government.  Caesaropapism or Constantianism, "Caesar is Pope," dominated the Eastern Churches from Constantine onwards, where the Emperor was both head of state and head of church.[82]  Even with the presence of the Patriarch of Rome, the Emperor nullified his presence and powers in most times. This exercise was pronounced on the Eastern Churches, especially the non-Chalcedonian churches, where the Emperor meddled in church government; neither Coptic bishops, nor Coptic people kept quiet. There were always an imperially-appointed Chalcedonian Pope and a people-appointed non-Chalcedonian Pope over the Church of Alexandria. The Church of Alexandria lived as a banned religious institution fighting for its internal integrity and independence but the imperial governors and edicts always threatened the peace and often led to persecution and martyrdom.

TENSION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

The first schism came after the Council of Chalcedon in the Great Church between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians.  Then in the eleventh century, the Church of Constantinople, Greece, and Russia split from the Western Church on the basis of repudiation of the teaching of Rome while accepting the Chalcedonian Definition.[83]  So the Orthodox Church became two camps—Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians; while the Latin Church in the West became the Catholic Church. 

Theological Christological Tension

The tension in the Great Church during the first three ecumenical councils was basically theological; however, the councils settled the dogmatic controversies by adopting a common formula; there were other administrative decisions. The Council of Nicaea I (325 AD) is contra Arianism affirming “God alone can save” and affirmed God as Trinity and three distinct hypostases and one substance (homoousios).[84]  It was the first precedent of Christian ecumenical councils presided by the Emperor to settle dogmatic controversies and the wedding of church and state.  The Council of  Constantinople I (381 AD) is contra Apollinarianism affirming “what is not assumed is not healed,” rewrote the Nicene Creed, and anathematized many heresies.[85]  The Council of Ephesus (431) is contra Nestorianism affirming “God alone can save us” through the incarnation of the Son who is homoousios with the Father and homoousios with Mary theotokos (God-bearer).[86]  It marks the first discontent between the Church of Alexandria and of Antioch over the two-nature formula but Alexandria gave in to keep the unity and peace.  The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) is contra Eutychianism affirming two natures of Christ in hypostatic union without confusion, or change, or separation, or division and took conciliar, monastic, and constitutional decisions. The Christological controversy was never resolved and a permanent schism ensued, splitting the Great Church into Eastern Orthodox Churches and West Church.  Later the Orthodox Churches were two camps—Chalcedonians (Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Greece) and non-Chalcedonians monophysites (Alexandria, Syria, Jerusalem).

Political Tension

The Council of Chalcedon took on a political swerve by elevating the Bishop of Constantinople to equality with the Bishop of Rome and by deposing the Bishop of Alexandria.[87] After the split, the Byzantine Emperor, a Chalcedonian, persecuted the non-Chalcedonian churches and meddled in church government by removing popes and superimposing others.  The Copts did not approve such parallel appointment to their own Patriarch, whom the Coptic bishops and people had nominated and insisted upon.  To curb the Copts' dissension and opposition, the Emperor used force and violence; many Copts were killed.

In brief, ever since the Council of Chalcedon and until now, the Coptic Church of Alexandria has been subjected to some form or another of persecution, one way or another depending on the times, the rulers, and the regimes. The history of the Coptic Church differs from the Western Church who continued as a state church for a long time and drowned in the Dark Ages of complacency and affluence.  Meanwhile, the Coptic Church was always under severe persecution that kept its faith vibrant and firm and gathered the Copts around a common cause and around their Popes and Bishops.

Recent Development

Second Vatican convened under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII on October 11^th 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965.  The Coptic Bishop Gregarious of Higher Theological Studies attended the Ecumenical Council and gave a lecture in the Catholic Ecclesiastical Institute on March 4^th 1964; it was published in the Catholic Reform Magazine in April 1964.  He briefed the main issues discussed in Vatican II and praised the heart and spirit of the council and endeavors towards unity.  The following are some excerpts from what Vatican II came out with:

We must admit that salvation is not only in the Catholic Church because there are other non-Catholic churches working in the field of salvation.  We cannot bind the work of God.  This is a matter that we have to acknowledge frankly, especially regarding the Western Orthodox Churches that agree with us on the sacrament of the Eucharist, on the apostolic succession, and on venerating the Virgin Mary.[88]

Bishop Gregarious commented that the spirit of rapprochement marked the council's statements.  It viewed the ordination of the bishop, as a successor to the Apostles and not a representative of the pope.  The bishop is rather a co-partner to the pope's responsibilities vis-à-vis the Church.  His authority emanates from the Holy Spirit and not granted to him by the pope.  Also the spirit of rapprochement was quite obvious in their expression of the supremacy of the Roman Papacy.  Vatican II expressed its view regarding Roman Papacy and Supremacy:

This matter (supremacy of Roman Papacy) was exaggerated and became a hindrance to unity with the Eastern Churches who do not accept the Roman Papacy or supremacy. I suggest that the Council should expressly acknowledge that the only true President over the Church is Jesus Christ alone; and that the Pope is a bishop among bishops even if he has the supremacy privilege; and that the authority of the Pope does not cancel the authority of the other bishops; and that the supremacy of the Roman Pope should not be regarded as personal greatness or control, but a means to service and counseling.[89]

Many other issues were discussed and agreed upon regarding the church sacraments which created a real rapprochement to pave the way to true unity.  Vatican II did not discuss theology or Christology but rather church government and made a positive move of rapprochement. This leads me to conclude that the Christological controversy over the Chalcedonian Definition that split the Great Church between Catholic Chalcedonian, Eastern Chalcedonian Churches, and Orthodox non-Chalcedonian Churches was no longer the issue but rather church government that developed throughout time and which increased the gap between the Churches. Vatican II was an earnest endeavor for rapprochement and hopefully further endeavors will be crowned with unity to honor God in Christ.

CONCLUSION

This paper reviewed the first three ecumenical councils with their theological decisions and discussed the Council of Chalcedon in terms of Christological controversy, Chalcedonian Definition, and council decisions that led to the schism, which was not only Christological but jurisdictional related to church government and inter-church relations grounded on the principles of accommodation and of apostolicity. The schism resulted in imperial hegemony over the non-Chalcedonian Coptic Church, along with the other non-Chalcedonian churches. The Coptic opposition movement mounted against the imperial heightened persecution, marked by appointing a Chalcedonian Patriarch parallel to the Coptic Chalcedonian Patriarch, or deposing and exiling the people-appointed Patriarch.  The Emperor often curbed dissension and riots by mass murders or severe persecution forcing people to give in.  The perpetual support of the Copts to their popes and bishops was the key for the Church of Alexandria to stand its theological fight against the imperial hegemony and to preserve its faith amidst persecution.  

The Christological controversy, as Cyril of Alexandria argued, is a philosophical issue in our minds, but Christ is One.  The signs of time tell us that the "Lord is near," ought not the Churches lift off the anathemas, partake in the Eucharistic fellowship, and unite once again?  Will the Churches respond to God's call for unity, "that they may be one," between the Catholic Church, Chalcedonian Orthodox Church, and non-Chalcedonian Church?  Then the next following move would be to seek unity between the Great Church and the Protestant Church, "that they may be one."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ferguson, Everett.  Church History:  From Christ to Pre-Reformation (Vol. 1).  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan, 2005.

Gregarious (Bishop).  “Articles and Topics in Ecumenical Councils and Church Laws,” in Bishop Gregarious Encyclopedia.  Cairo, Egypt: Bishop Gregarious Association, 2010.

­­­­­­­­­­_______________.   “Comparative Theology,” in Bishop Gregarious Encyclopedia.  Cairo, Egypt: Bishop Gregarious Association, 2003.

Olson, Roger E.  The Story of Christian Theology:  Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1999.

Sanders, Fred and Klaus Issler.  Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology. Nashville, Tennessee:  B&H Academic, 2007

Samuel, F. C. (Fr.). The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined.  Emad Maurice Iskandar (trans.) Cairo, Egypt:  Panarion Press, 2009.

---

[1] Gregarious (Bishop), “Response to an Article on Orthodoxy by Dr. Magdy Wahba,” Comparative theology, in Bishop Gregarious Encyclopedia, (Cairo, Egypt: Bishop Gregarious Association, 2003), 239.  Bishop Gregarious is a Coptic Orthodox Bishop responsible for Higher Theological Studies, Coptic Culture, and Scientific Research; he is an authoritative reference for all ecumenical councils and theological stances. The text is translated from Arabic to English by permission of the course instructor, Dr. John Landers.

[2] Olson, 147.  

[3] Ibid, 155.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ferguson, 196.

[6] Ibid., 197.

[7] It is just a note by the way but this issue is not the concern of this paper; it is mentioned because it will have negative repercussions on the Eastern Churches after the post-Chalcedon schism.

[8] Ferguson, 197.

[9] Sanders and Issler, 20.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Olson, 195.

[13] Ferguson, 209.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Sanders and Issler, 21;

[16] Olson, 220.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 221.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Olson, 221; Donald Fairbairn, "The One Person Who is Jesus Christ:  The Patristic Perspective," in Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2007), 98.

[21] Olson, 221.

[22] Ferguson, 264-267.

[23] Olson, 222.

[24] Fairbairn, 88.

[25] Ibid., 91-92.

[26] Olson, 223.

[27] Ibid., 224.

[28] Ibid., 225.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., 226.

[31] Ibid., 228.

[32] Ibid., 229.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Fairbairn, 105.

[35] Fairbairn, 104.  The text of the Chalcedonian Definition is as Fairbairn has translated it.

[36] Olson, 232.

[37] Ibid., 232.

[38] Ibid., 239.

[39] Ibid., 240. 

[40] Ferguson, 266. 

[41] Olson, 232.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] “Great Church” is the one catholic orthodox church before the post-Chalcedon schism.  Catholic means universal; orthodox means theological correctness.

[47] Olson, 251.

[48] Gregarious, Comparative Theology, 208.  Tomes Leo was an epistle written by Pope Leo I condemning Eutyches and charting an orthodox Christology of two natures for Christ after union. The text is translated by me from Arabic to English by permission of the course instructor, Dr. John Landers.

[49] F. C. Samuel (Fr.), The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, Emad Maurice Iskandar (trans.), (Cairo, Egypt:  Panarion Press, 2009), 179-180.  The text is translated by me from Arabic to English by permission of the course instructor, Dr. John Landers.

[50] Gregarious, Comparative Theology, 266; Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, 181-182.

[51] Samuel, 180.

[52] Ibid.

[53] The focus is on the Coptic Church of Alexandria as a non-Chalcedonian Church that split from the Great Church after the Council of Chalcedon.  Many theologians in the West accuse the Church of Alexandria of the heresy of monophysitism—the one-nature of Christ after union which is known as Cyril's hypostatic union.

[54] Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, 193.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Samuel, 195.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid, 196.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid, 198.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Ibid., 199.

[63] Ibid., 200.

[64] Ibid, 201.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid, 202, 210.

[67] Ibid, 211.

[68] Ibid., 218

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid., 222.

[71] Ibid., 224.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Ibid., 224.

[74] Ibid., 225.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Ibid., 285.

[77] Ibid., 286.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Ibid., 315.

[81] Ibid., 317.

[82] Olson, 238, 400.

[83] Gregarious, "Response to an Orthodox Article by Dr. Magdy Wahba," Comparative Theology, 237-239.  The text is translated by me from Arabic to English by permission of the course instructor, Dr. John Landers.

[84] Supra note, 4.

[85] Supra note, 11, 12.

[86] Supra note, 16.

[87] Supra note, 42.

[88] Gregarious, “Articles and Topics in Ecumenical Councils and Church Laws,” in Bishop Gregarious Encyclopedia, (Cairo, Egypt: Bishop Gregarious Association, 2010), 51.  The text is translated by me from Arabic to English by permission of the course instructor, Dr. John Landers.