Phanar Ecumenist Kallistos Ware to Speak at Monophysite-Coptic Feminist Conference

August 04, 2015

Well-known heretical Phanar Ecumenist, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a proponent of “women’s ordination”, plans to speak at a conference run by heretical Coptic Monophysite “Orthodox Women’s Ministry” conference. The event will take place in Heythrop College, University of London, in the United Kingdom from Friday, September 11, 2015, to Sunday, September 13, 2015.

The Conference website states that two prominent ecumenist Phanar notables will speak, which includes Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diocletia, and the well-known feminist ecumenist ‘theologian’ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s,
Dr. Kyriaki Fitzgerald (Clinical Psychologist and activer member of the WCC). Dr. Fitgerald is well-known in the “women’s ordination” movement in the World “Orthodox” groups.

The tilt by the Phanar and the organization’s acolytes towards feminism and “women’s ordination” has been pronounced; not all of this should be surprising, as the Phanar has been known for its position on abortion and population control.

“Women’s ordination” has found increasing acceptance among “World Orthodox”, especially in ecumenist-modernist jurisdictions in the United State, such as the OCA, Antiochian Archdiocese, and Greek Archdiocese.

Such a ‘conference’, is, like the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other heretical organizations, an abomination in the sight of God, as is the demonic concept of “women’s ordination”.

12 thoughts on “Phanar Ecumenist Kallistos Ware to Speak at Monophysite-Coptic Feminist Conference

  • August 5, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    Please stop referring to copts as monophysites. It is incorrect and offensive.

    • August 6, 2015 at 7:21 am

      You ask: Please, do not call Copts “monophysites.” You say you find it offensive. Orthodox Christians do understand that Copts prefer “miaphysite,” because your bishops believe in one, composite (divine-human) nature in Christ. Orthodox Christians, in contrast, believe in two unconfused natures in the one Person of Christ. Whether we term your refusal to confess two natures after Christ’s Incarnation as “miaphysitism” (one-nature-ism) or “monophysitism” (only-one-nature-ism), the fact remains that your bishops still do not confess clearly the two unconfused natures of Christ.

      So I ask: Please confess the Orthodox Christian faith that there are two perfect natures, natural wills, and natural activities (energies) that are united without confusion and without separation in the one Person of Christ. If you confess the two natures without confusion — as Saint Cyril did in his official Creed of Union with Archbishop John of Antioch and in numerous other texts — then there might be some basis not to call your view monophysite.

      If you truly want to reject monophysitism, then you could: accept all (not just some) of what Saint Cyril wrote about the two natures of Christ; reject Dioscorus for “exonerating” the monophysite Eutyches, for excommunicating Pope Leo the Great, and for contributing to the murder of Saint Flavian; accept the Tome of Saint Leo to Saint Flavian; reject Timothy Aelurus and Severus of Antioch for rejecting Saint Cyril’s confession of faith; accept the dogmatic definitions of the Fourth, Fifth, Six, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils; accept the Christological teachings of Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint John of Damascus; accept the Synodicon of Orthodoxy. If you did these things, no one would call you a monophysite or miaphysite.

      Also, I ask: Please accept the Apostle Peter’s and Saint Athanasius the Great’s teaching on deification and reject Pope Senouda III’s attacks on the doctrine of deification. Please reject Pope Shenouda’s false teaching that the Divine Eucharist is not a partaking of divinity. Please accept the teaching of the saints on the essence and activity (energy) of God — which Saint Cyril also teaches — and reject Pope Shenouda’s slander that this teaching is “shirk,” which is an Islamic slander that Christians “associate” something with God that is not God Himself. Please reject Pope Shenouda’s slander that Orthodox Christians “corrupt” the Holy Scriptures, which is another Islamic slander that he has adopted and that he hurls at Orthodox Christians. Lastly, please reject the ecclesiological, doctrinal, and moral relativism of the ecumenical movement. If you accepted the Orthodox faith in its entirety, you could rightly call yourself an Orthodox Christian. I pray that it may be so.

      Many of us have great admiration for the Coptic people, their dedication, and their willingness to suffer for the name of Christ. At the same time, true Orthodox Christians will never compromise the Orthodox Christian teaching on the two natures of Christ, the essence and energies of God, and the deification of the saints. The Gospel teaches us that God the Word took upon Himself human nature, without any confusion of or division between the two natures. In turn, Christians are called upon to become communicants of and participants in the divine nature — or, to use later terminology, the natural energies of God. Some of us will never renounce these divinely-revealed truths of the Christian faith. Maintaining these truths is also the best way we can express our love for our Coptic (and Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Armenian, and Malankara) friends. Orthodox Christians do not want to be offensive. Rather, we want to proclaim our faith (and our hope) as it has been given to us by the Universal Teachers of the ancient Church. These Holy Fathers, as well as the universal tradition of the Church, rejected the one-sided distortions and attacks of Dioscorus and of the miaphysite (anti-Chalcedonian) movement. These attacks on the Christian faith should never be accepted as valid. Genuine Orthodox Christians will never call these attacks “Orthodox.” So, despite the offensive that it may cause, it is still necessary to refer to the “monophysite” or “miaphysite” distortion of Christian tradition. If we would all sincerely accept all seven of the Ecumenical Councils, we could find agreement in the universal Orthodox Christian faith. If we accepted the divinely-guided councils, we would be in agreement and unity.

      • August 7, 2015 at 9:49 am

        I am not an expert on the monophysite/diaphysite controversy. We believe in both a divine nature and a human nature that made a perfect union without mingling. That being said, I believe that both now and in 451, both sides seem to be saying the same thing, but we focus on the union of the two natures, whereas you focus on their individuality. We follow St.Cyril’s teaching, not to talk about the two natures after their unity. However, I believe that God is infinite, whereas our human language is not. There are not enough nuances in our languages to describe our God. I hope that one day, Christians will unite and fight the common enemy who always seeks to divide us. Let us put this 1500 year old conflict to rest and move forward.

        • August 8, 2015 at 12:48 am

          It’s impossible, Mary. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, as well as the other Ecumenical Councils, are absolutely binding on Orthodox. The Coptic Patriarchate must accept the Canons and Decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, as well as all the Dogmatic Teachings of the Orthodox Church as taught by all our Saints. Coptic Christians are nice people, and we can sympathize with their sad plight, but, they are not part of the Church.

          • August 8, 2015 at 7:11 am

            It is sad that the politics and the power struggles of the early church continue today. Peace to you my friend.

          • August 8, 2015 at 3:39 pm

            Mary-Ann, again, I think you are just reading too much of the ‘theology is politics’ school of thought of moderns into the past history. I don’t think you would reject the Council of Ephesus because ‘Nestorius wasn’t treated right’ would you?

          • August 9, 2015 at 8:59 am

            That is a good point. The difference is that Arius and Nestorius were individuals who were excommunicated by the councils. On the other hand, this was a schism between equal churches. Let’s not forget that St.Athanasius, father of the creed was from the church of Alexandria. As was Anthony the great, father of monastacism. Calling Copts heretical is the equivalent of the Romans calling Greeks heretical. I appreciate that you are an idealist and would like to believe that politics did not come into play with the early church, as that is how it should have been. Unfortunately, that just is not the case. We are humans. We should take lessons from Pope Francis who is admitting to the evil that penetrated the Catholic church, and start to repair the damages. A united church would stand much stronger.

          • August 9, 2015 at 2:46 pm

            No, again, you are misunderstanding. The Council of Chalcedon condemned Dioscorus. Calling the schismatic-heretical Coptic Church heretical is just a fact; it doesn’t mean they were separated from the Church before they rejected Chalcedon, but, after, they were separated. We had great saints in the West, such St. Gregory Dialogist, the Orthodox Pope of Rome, however, we would not say Italians were Orthodox after their schism from the Church. The same with the Copts, those who rejected Chalcedon, the 5th Council, and the Sixth Council (I assume they accept in principle the veneration of Icons in the Seventh), as well as the Anathemas in the Synodicon, are, therefore, subject to anathema and separated from Orthodoxy.

            Pope Francis is a demonic heretic, perhaps the most heretical Pope so far in history (it’s generally how they have gotten since the Schism of the West from the Church; each successive pope has just gotten worse and worse, in general).

            Mary, you, on the other hand, are being an idealist in presenting a view of history that is totally contrary to Orthodox Christianity. If the Copts do not renounce Dioscorus, Severus, and accept all the Ecumenical Councils and unite with the True Orthodox Church, they will not be able to find salvation. It doesn’t matter how many ‘martyrs’ they say they have; after all, all kinds of people have died for all kinds of things. Salvation is only found in the One True Church, and the Coptic people, in general, have been separated from the Church for about 1500 years, according to EVERY SAINT OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND EVERY COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH WHICH HAS DEALT WITH THEM. This is the same with the Roman Catholics since their Schism in the 11th century.

            But, again, the same arguments that would overturn one Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), are the same ones that would overturn them all!

        • August 10, 2015 at 8:39 am

          Mary-Ann, no one doubts your sincerity for a moment, but — factually — you are misrepresenting Saint Cyril of Alexandria. The saint *did* agree that it was proper to speak of two natures after the Incarnation. The Council of Chalcedon utilized this two-nature language of which Saint Cyril had already approved. It was Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and Severus who rejected Saint Cyril’s Confession of Faith and considered him a sell-out. These three bishops were not “strict Cyrillians.” They rejected his Confession of Faith and policy of church unity with those who used “Antiochian” language. This is the theological and political origins of the schism, and the miaphysites were responsible. These are historical facts that have been documented beyond reasonable doubt.

          Here is the exact language that Saint Cyril agreed to in the Symbol of Union with Archbishop John of Antioch in 433: “with regard to the evangelical and apostolic statements about the Lord, we recognize that theologians treat some in common because they relate to the unity of person [hos eph’ henos prosopou], and others they distinguish according to the two natures [hos epi dyo physeon], explaining acts befitting God in reference to the Godhood of Christ, and the humble ones in reference to His manhood.” There you have it: two natures, after the Incarnation. Saint Cyril was not a miaphysite. He did not believe in only one synthetic/composite nature, as Coptic theologians teach. He believed in two natures, as Orthodox Christians have always believed.

          Patriarch Dioscorus rejected what Saint Cyril had agreed to and considered it a sell-out to the Antiochians. On this, Saint Cyril was correct and Dioscorus was very wrong. Patriarch Dioscorus sided with the confused but extreme monophysitism of Archimandrite Eutyches, when Dioscorus declared Eutyches exonerated, and when he excommunicated Saint Leo and had Saint Flavian (essentially) murdered. Dioscorus repudiated Saint Cyril and caused the schism. It is good that, today, Coptic theologians repudiate Eutyches and claim to follow Saint Cyril. But to really be consistent with that, Coptic theologians and bishops would need to repudiate Dioscorus (who supported Eutyches) and accept the fullness of Saint Cyril’s teaching on two natures after the Incarnation.

  • August 10, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    Metropolitan Kallistos, for many Orthodox, even in Oxford, is seen as a “crypto-Anglican” and many of his theological statements have the same lack of precision as you find in that Church. He is much too close to the Anglicans, and this is spiritually dangerous; at least half the Bishops of the Church of England do not believe unequivocally in the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    • August 11, 2015 at 6:50 pm

      So, then, we are basically dealing with an High Church Byzantine Rite Continuing Anglican?

    • August 11, 2015 at 6:51 pm

      I never could see the whole point in the Established organization in England. You can believe whatever; even before all the liberalism got in there, you could believe in the Real Presence or not, and everyone was happy. Doctrinal relativism and compromise were only played out in modernism.

Comments are closed.