The Coptic Church:

Orthodox or Monophysite?

Nicholas C. Siniari

Introduction

To the average Orthodox Christian of the Balkans, the Coptic Church and
her sister churches the Ethiopian, Eritrean, Armenian, Syriac, and MalankaraSyriac Churches are merely names in a book. What is more, they are names
identified with a diabolical heresy: Monophysitism ().
Monophysitism contends that after the Incarnation Our Lord, God, and
Savior Jesus Christ has only one simple nature that is either entirely
Divine or a synthesis of Divine and human. Western historians and
even the writings of imminent Eastern Orthodox theologians often
ascribe this teaching to the Coptic Church and her sister churches,
branding them with the Monophysite label. But is this label accurate?
Did the Coptic Church or any of her sisters known collectively as the
Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian Churches ever subscribe
to this teaching? Did they ever deny either the full humanity or the full
Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Or advance the idea that the
Incarnation resulted in the creation of a new and synthesized third
nature? Were any of their patriarchs or leaders ever condemned by
any of the Ecumenical Councils for the heresy of Monophysitism? Did
they ever teach this heresy at any time? Do any of their theologians
promote it today? If not, how did this label come to be applied to them
and how should they be regarded by the Eastern Orthodox faithful?

Monophysitism: A Background in Brief

Monophysitism arose in the wake of the great Christological
controversies of the fifth century as a reaction to the heresy of
Nestorianism. Its author was an archimandrite named Eutyches, the
abbot of a prominent and influential monastery in Constantinople.
Eutyches was a simple man, renowned throughout the city for his piety
and good works, but he was no theologian. In his zeal to defend his
flock against Nestorianism which held that Christ had two distinct and
separate natures: human and Divine Eutyches asserted that Christs

humanity, being finite, was swallowed by His infinite Divinity like a

drop of blood in the ocean. Thus, he reasoned, Christ had only one
nature (mono physis) the Divine. This teaching was condemned
by the Church at large, and Eutyches was summoned to defend himself before
an assembled council.
This council, convened in the Constantinopolitan suburb of Ephesus in
449 by Emperor Theodosius II (the same ruler who convened the Third
Ecumenical Council at the same city in 431), was chaired by His Holiness St.
Dioscoros I, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark. At this
council, Eutyches repented of his heresy and declared his belief in the Orthodox
Faith as proclaimed by St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Fathers of Nicaea (325),
Constantinople (381), and Ephesus (431). It was only under these
circumstances that he was rehabilitated and accepted back into the communion
of the Holy Orthodox Church. Later, he would unfortunately return to his false
teaching and die in exile and heresy. For his part, St. Dioscoros adhered strictly
to the Christological formula of his uncle and predecessor on the Throne of
Alexandria, His Holiness Pope St. Cyril I:

(ma phsis to theo lgou sesarkmn), One (composite)

nature of God the Word Incarnate.
Unfortunately, upon the death of Emperor Theodosius in the year 450, his
sister Pulcheria a sworn virgin ascended to the throne renouncing her
monastic vows and taking the barbarian general Marcian as her consort. She
was criticized for this decision by St. Dioscoros, who declared that in doing so the
Empress had abandoned the heavenly crown of monasticism in order to obtain
the earthly crown of the Empire. In doing so, St. Dioscoros established himself
as the target of Pulcherias wrath and ensured his ultimate condemnation at the
Council of Chalcedon (451). It is worth noting that:
The Council of Chalcedon did not deal with Eutyches who had already
been exiled to Syria by the time of its convention but rather with St.
Dioscoros.

 St. Dioscoros was deposed at Chalcedon not for Monophysitism (a charge

of which he was never accused), but rather for failing to answer three
summons to appear at the councils later sessions and defend himself
after being struck by an enraged Pulcheria and placed under house arrest.
St. Dioscoros both condemned the teachings of Eutyches and made an
Orthodox statement of faith in the early sessions of Chalcedon, declaring
that when using the phrase mia physis, We do not speak of confusion,
neither of division, nor of change and further, If Eutyches holds notions
disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only
punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the Catholic and
Apostolic Faith, not for any man whomsoever.
Unfortunately, after the time of the Council of Chalcedon, the churches which
accepted its findings (those which became the Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox Churches) and those which rejected them (the Oriental Orthodox or
Non-Chalcedonian Churches) gradually became estranged from one another and
fell out of communion. This was not an instantaneous process, but something
which took place slowly over hundreds of years and was abetted by the conquest
of the formerly Christian lands of Egypt, Syria, Nubia, and Iraq by the Islamic
Caliphates. Several attempts to reestablish communion were made throughout
Late Antiquity and even into the Medieval Era, but sadly, none of them bore any
lasting fruit. It is important to note that neither the Coptic Church nor any of her
sister churches have ever accepted the teaching of Eutyches, which they have
anathematize and have always regarded as heretical.

Mono Physis vs. Mia Physis

The distinction between the Greek terms and may
at first seem subtle, but it is indeed significant and crucial for gaining an accurate
understanding of the Christology held to by the Coptic Church and her sister
churches. Both terms can be translated into English as one, but the term mono
denotes a singular one while the term mia denotes a composite one. Thus, a
Monophysite is one who believes that Christ has a simple, singular nature that is
4

fully Divine while a Miaphysite is one who believes as St. Cyril says in one
nature of God the Incarnate Word that is both fully human and fully Divine,
without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, and
without alteration. The Coptic Church and her sister churches are definitely
Miaphysite, having at no time in their history subscribed to the heresy of
Monophysitism in any way, shape, or form. Thus, they have always articulated
an Orthodox expression of Christological faith, albeit in different language from
that employed by the Chalcedonian Churches (of Rome and Constantinople).

Dialogue and Rapprochement

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches were not entirely at odds
with one another until the modern era as some erroneously believe. Throughout
the centuries, there have been numerous positive interactions and attempts at
engagement between the two families. The Tsars of Russia, for example,
recognized by the Sultans as the Official Protectors of the Orthodox Christians in
the Ottoman Empire, offered to extend that protection to the Copts of Egypt
during the papacy of H.H. Peter VII (1809-1852). Tsar Alexander III also
famously sent modern arms and military advisers to Ethiopia throughout the late
19th century so as not to see what he regarded as an Orthodox nation conquered
and colonized by either Roman Catholic Italy or Protestant Great Britain.
Ethiopia, for her part, sent a delegation of clergy and nobility to Jerusalem in
1888 to celebrate with the Russians the 900 th anniversary of St. Vladimirs
acceptance of the Orthodox Faith. In places like Egypt and Syria, where Islamic
oppression was often severe, the two church families, while not officially in full
communion, made allowances through economia for members of the two families
to intermarry, commune in one anothers churches, and stand as godparents for
one another.
Technological advances facilitated communication on a broader scale in
the modern era and in 1964 a series of unofficial dialogues between the Eastern
Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches began at the University of
Aarhus in Denmark, followed by meetings in Bristol in 1967, Geneva in 1970, and

Addis Ababa in 1971. Official consultations were then convened in Chambesy,

Geneva in 1985 and at the Monastery of St. Bishoy in Wadi El Natroun, Egypt in
1989. As a result of these meetings, the leading theologians of the two families
of churches were able to agree on a common Christological formula, and
determined that both sides held to the same faith expressed in different
terminologies. In 1990, representatives the two families of churches signed an
agreement which declared that:
In light of our agreed statement on Christologywe have now clearly
understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same Orthodox
Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the Apostolic tradition, though
they may have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common
faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis of
our unity and communion.

Conclusion
It is clear that the Coptic Orthodox Church and her sister churches are
fully Orthodox. They have never, at any time in their history, embraced the
heresy of Monophysitism, and this being the case, the application of the term
Monophysite to these churches would be a mistake. In fact, the Eastern and
Oriental Orthodox Churches hold the following elements of faith in common:
Both families condemn and anathematize both Eutyches and
Nestorius and all their teachings.
Both families confirm the full humanity and the full Divinity of Our
Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.
Both families confirm that the unity of the Divinity and humanity of
Christ was realized from the moment of His conception, without
separation, division, confusion or alteration.
Both families acknowledge that the humanity of Christ was real,
perfect and had a dynamic presence.

 Both families confirm that Our Lord Jesus Christ is one Prosopon
and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not mere conjunction of
natures; He is the Incarnate Logos of God.
Both families accept the communicatio idiomatum (the
communication of idioms), attributing all the deeds and words of
Christ to the one hypostasis, the Incarnate Son of God
Beyond these Christological matters, the two families of Orthodox
Churches recognize in one another a common faith and Holy Tradition in terms of
their understanding of the Holy Mysteries, the process of salvation, the theology
and veneration of icons, and other points of commonality too numerous to
catalog in this brief pamphlet. Suffice it to say that each family has persevered
as faithful custodians of the substance of Holy Orthodoxy despite centuries of
mutual estrangement. This in and of itself is a miracle which gives us hope that
one day, through Gods grace, full communion will be restored between our
churches.
For Further Reading
Wahba, Fr. Matthias F., Monophysitism Reconsidered (Los Angeles: St. Mary
Coptic Orthodox Church, 1995)
Samuel, Fr. V.C., The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined (Kent, England:
Oriental Orthodox Library, 2005)
Sarkissian, Catholicos Karekin, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian
Church (New York: Armenian Prelacy, 1965)
Ishak, Fr. Shenouda M., Christology and the Council of Chalcedon (Denver, CO:
Outskirts Press, 2013)