St. Cyril on the Circumcision of Christ

Christ therefore ransomed from the curse of the law those who being subject to it, had been unable to keep its enactments. And in what way did He ransom them? By fulfilling it. And to put it in another way: in order that He might expiate the guilt of Adam's transgression, He showed Himself obedient and submissive in every respect to God the Father in our stead: for it is written, "That as through the disobedience of the One man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many shall be made just." He yielded therefore His neck to the law in company with us, because the plan of salvation so required: for it became Him to fulfil all righteousness. For having assumed the form of a slave, as being now enrolled by reason of His human nature among those subject to the yoke, He once even paid the half shekel to the collectors of the tribute, although by nature free, and as the Son not liable to pay the tax. When therefore them seest Him keeping the law, be not offended, nor place the free-born among the slaves, but reflect rather upon the profoundness of the plan of salvation.

On the eighth day, therefore, Christ is circumcised, and receives  His Name: for then, even then, were we saved by Him  and through Him, "in Whom, it saith, ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands in the putting off of the fleshly body, with Christ's circumcision, having been buried together with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him." His death, therefore, was for our sakes. as were also His resurrection and His circumcision. For He died, that we who have died together with Him in His dying unto sin, may no longer live unto sin: for which reason it is said, "If we have died together with Him, we shall also live together with Him." And He is said to have died unto sin, not because He had sinned, "for He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," but because of our sin. Like as therefore we died together with Him when He died, so shall we also rise together with Him. ...
But after His circumcision, the rite was done away by the introduction of that which had been signified by it, even baptism: for which reason we are no longer circumcised.

COMMENTARY OF ST. CYRIL, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA, UPON THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE.(1859) BOOK I, PAGE 19-20

Doxology of the Feast of The Circumcision

                        Our Lord Jesus Christ,
The True Son of God,
Who was incarnate of the Virgin—
She brought Him forth as a Good One—

On the eighth day
Of His glorious birth,
Received unto Him the circumcision,
According to the custom of the Law.

Rejoice with us today,
All ye Christian nations,
For Christ has received unto Him
The circumcision on our behalf,

That He may set us free
From the bonds of the Law,
And grant unto us
His perfect gifts.

The Proselyte

A conversation between a proselyte (A) and a man on the bench (B).

The proselyte, a rather recent convert to protestantism, spots a lonely figure sitting on a park bench. He figures this is a good person to speak with about Jesus Christ and salvation. He feels drawn to this seemingly lonely person in rather bland and unexciting clothing. He approaches, not with a "Hello how are you" but a question, "Are you washed in the blood of Jesus?" The man on the park bench, looks at the proseltye with a confused look and gaping mouth void of words, thus beings the conversation.




A: My dear friend, how is it that you do not believe in Jesus Christ?

B: I believe Jesus Christ existed.

A: Is there a particular reason for this? I mean, you say you believe that Jesus existed, what is stopping you from completely accepting Him and becoming a Christian?

B: Believing in the existence of Jesus is not necessarily recognizing his deity, it is recognizing the fact that He existed as a person in history. I believe there is sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus, and therefore I must accept that he indeed existed, however, it is a matter of faith to believe that Jesus is God.

A: How exactly is that faith? You know Jesus existed, it is more likely that He is who scripture says He is than Him just being a man. Besides what do you have to lose by being Christian?

B: It is faith because there is no evidence that proves Jesus is God. As a theological matter I understand it can be proven, but theology requires faith. Is it more likely that Jesus is God because facts exist to support this or simply because scripture says so. What do I have to lose? That is a loaded question, in my opinion. It is not about believing out of fear, which is what that question is hinting at, that by not believing I will lose, so I may as well believe. Let me ask you something, which is more pleasing to God, an honest unbeliever or a dishonest believer? Belief by forced submission is not acceptable, in fact, it is deplorable. The same goes for believing because you are hedging your bets or because you fear going to hell. According to scripture, God is a God of love, not a tyrant in the sky looking for terrified slaves.

A: Jesus says that He is the only way, so I guess it is better to believe no matter how you believe. I think that if one believes out of fear or forced conversion even, although I reject the latter, eventually they will come to fully understand Christianity and then be honest in their belief. If you don't mind me asking, have you ever been Christian, at any point in your life? And if so, why did you change?

B: I can understand your answer to my question, however I do not feel it is satisfying. Regardless we will move on to avoid any kind of heated argument. Yes, early in my life I went to protestant churches with my parents although I wouldn't say that I was a Christian, just a kid who did not understand what he was doing. What made me question Christianity as a whole was the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of denominations, many are vastly different from one another, others differ in a more subtle way. This I found to be in direct conflict with Christian principals. Why are there so many different beliefs and practices if we are all one?

A: Well, look, we are all one family we all just have different ways of doing things, but ultimately they all lead to the same place.

B: I disagree with that statement. How can something be one when there is no union of belief and practice? If there is no standard by which to measure what is Christian, than anyone who claims to be Christian is Christian. I can understand some minor cultural differences, but many of these differences are not minor. For instance, if you have a human body, you expect the human body to have certain parts, right?

A: Yes of course.

B: Exactly. And while there certainly are minor variations between humans, the human remains human. These differences in denominations often make each other unrecognizable as if a human had one body part that was not human, would it still be regarded as human simply for being attached to the body in some way?

A: Of course not, it would be an animal part grafted onto a human body, or an animal part that is attached in some way to a human.

B: Exactly. You cannot say that because this is the same part as the human, but animal in nature, that it is the same thing. Likewise you cannot say that because these denominations slightly resemble the early church in a few minor ways, but differ vastly in every other way, that they are Christian. Its absurd.

A: I understand what you mean, however, over time things do change and that is how we account for these variations.

B: Please explain.

A: Fair enough. At some point in history Rome had perverted the true faith, filling it with meaningless traditions of men, and restricting their people from reading scripture, and extorting them out of their money. So in the 16th century Luther came and freed the church from Roman tyranny. That's the short version.

B: So you mean to say that at some point in history the church Jesus had established was overcome?

A: Yes, I am not sure exactly when or the minute details, but that is the way of it.

B: How then do you explain Jesus saying himself, "Upon this rock I will found my Church, that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Mt. 16:18?

A: Rome says that Peter is the rock, we reject this interpretation. They say that this proves that they are the head of all Christianity.

B: I am not speaking on that, I am speaking on the part where Christ says plain as day that his church wont be overcome. Since you said that it was overcome, how do you explain Christ saying that it will not be?

A: Well by church Jesus is referring to His people, not some religion.

B: I am well aware of the Greek that is used, ekklesia, which has 3 definitions. Any other time this word is used in the New Testament each and every definition is utilized. The belief, the people, and the building in which they congregate.

A: I am not sure about that, however this is what we believe.

B: Fair enough. Let me ask you, what exactly is your denomination and why do you believe in that specific denomination?

A: I am non-denominational. I was saved a few years back and we are a bible based church that believes Jesus Christ came and died on the cross for the sins of the whole world, even for your sins. I believe we are exactly like the early church.

B: I can tell you with certainty that non-denominational is a recent phenomena born out of the 16th century protestant reformation. While scripture has always been viewed as authoritative by believers, it was never viewed as being the only authority, this is a 16th century invention and cannot even be found in scripture. Exactly like the early church?

A: Yes, well there are some differences in how we practice, which is usually with more modern music, but for the most part yes, we have gone back the early church, to like, the book of Acts.

B: So can we focus on this for a bit?

A: Sure.

B: Ok, so according to Acts 11:26, it was in Antioch that they (the apostles) were first called Christian, right?

A: Yes.

B: Ok good, now, we know for a fact that Ignatius of Antioch was ordained as the first bishop of Antioch by the apostles, and most likely was taught by them. We have his letters which have survived and were written during the apostolic age, as far as we know. Now, if the definition of Christian is tied to Antioch, and the first bishop ordained by the apostles, would you agree that the writings of Ignatius would give us an idea of how the early church practiced and what they believed?

A: I guess so, but that is not as authoritative as scripture in my opinion.

B: I agree, however, the point is to shed light on the practices and beliefs of the early Christians, and since Ignatius was ordained by the apostles, that should give him credibility. In reality Ignatius had no reason to falsify anything in his letters.

A: Alright, Lets review his writing then.

B: I think one thing we can start with is church authority. Protestantism outright denies the priesthood, so let us see what Ignatius of Antioch has to say on that subject:
"I exhort you to be careful to do all things in the harmony of
God, the bishop having the primacy after the model of
God and the priests after the model of the council of
the apostles, and the deacons (who are so dear to me)
having entrusted to them the ministry of Jesus Christ,
who from eternity was with the father and at last
appeared to us." (Letter to the Magnesians, Ch.6)

A: That is interesting, I am not sure of the significance though.

B: Well, Ignatius shows us here, and several other places, that there is a heirarchal structure to the church, this of course is during the time of the apostles further proving its legitimacy.

A: Yes but scripture doesn't say anything about bishops and priests.

B: On the contrary, there are several places in which they are mentioned, namely in Paul's letters. 1 Tim. 5:17 refers to "elders" which in the Greek is "presbyter" and priest is derived from that very word. 1 Tim 3:1 Paul speaks to us that if a man desires the office of a bishop it is a "good work". In the following verse he lists the qualifications for becoming a bishop. So to assert that the priesthood is not in scripture is false. Here are more examples of Ignatius speaking on the priesthood:

"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2)

"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit." (Letter to the Magnesians, 13:1–2)

"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians, 2:1–3)

B: This last one clearly shows that Ignatius equated unity with the bishop as being Christian. Obedience to the ecclesiastical authorities was a Christian way of life, not only that, it seems to be essential to the Christian spiritual life to submit to the bishop. This idea is outright rejected by protestantism, opting for sola scriptura, which we see was not taught by Ignatius in the slightest.

A: So you are saying sola scriptura is incorrect?

B: Exactly, I am not only saying it is incorrect, I am saying it is not a Christian doctrine. We find no mention of this doctrine or even hint of the teaching until Martin Luther in the 16th century.

A: So Ignatius did not mention this at all?

B: Actually in a way he does mention the doctrine, not by name, but he states: "There are some whom I heard say, 'Unless I find it in the scriptures, I do not believe in what is preached.' When I said, 'It is the written word,' they replied, 'That is what is in question.' For me, Jesus Christ is the written word; His cross and death and resurrection and faith through Him make up untampered documents. Through these, with the help of your prayers, I desire to be justified." (Letter to the Philadelphians, Ch.8)

A: That is difficult to argue against, however, it does lend credibility to sola fide or faith alone.

B: That would be the common protestant miconception, the same thing often arises from their reading of selected passages of scripture. What protestants generally do is selectively embraces passages instead of reading scripture as a whole. Most pass over the epistle of James 2:24 which says: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." The epistle of James is somewhat of an overview of the new testament teaching as a whole, a summary if you will. Its like Peter's confession of faith in Mt. 16:18 that we discussed earlier, that is what the church was built on, not Peter himself, but the confession of faith which is where the salvation of the individual begins.

A: You seem to know an awful lot for being an atheist.

B: I am not an atheist, I am an Orthodox Christian.

A: What exactly is that?

B: Orthodox is a Greek word meaning "correct" or "right way". Orthodoxy has its roots in Christ through the apostles, in fact I can trace the lineage of our patriarch in Alexandria all the way back to Mark, who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Not only can I trace the ordination, I can also demonstrate the practice and beliefs have also successively been passed down from Mark, to now, unchanged.

A: So you could say that protestantism, which in your estimation is untrue, led you to truth? This means that protestantism must have some truth.

B: How can untruth lead to truth except through means of rejection of the untruth? I did not start as a protestant and slowly work towards Orthodoxy by means of growing through protestantism, rather, I saw the untruth in protestantism and rejected it. Therefore through my rejection of what is untrue I came to see what is true. The elements of protestantism which may be true are not inherently protestant but merely adopted by protestantism from the true source in the Orthodox Church.

A: So what you are saying is that protestants are going to hell and only Orthodox go to heaven?

B: Only God can make those types of decisions. In my estimation the Orthodox will be judged to a much harsher degree than others, but that is my personal opinion. I cannot speak on the individual as that is the place of God, not man. I can however say without a doubt that protestantISM is not Christian in any sense and is empty and void of salvation.

A: How can you say such a thing?

B: Because salvation lies with the church founded by Christ, not by man. The sacraments were given to us as a means to achieve salvation. The church tends to mans salvation much like a hospital tends to wounds. A hospital cannot care for individuals if it has no doctors and no medicine, would you still consider it a hospital if it had no means of curing the sick?

A: But that is different.

B: No it is not. You cannot just make a church based on what you think. Christ even addresses this in Mt. 7:22-23 "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" Christ clearly addresses those who believe themselves to be Christian but He accuses them of being "lawless." If there is lawlessness then there is law, and you cannot just create your own law apart from the law and then say it is part of the law. That is madness.

A: I see your point but I am not sure I agree.

B: That is because you cannot get past yourself. You see, you believe in what you want Christianity to be and not what it is. Christ tells us in Mt. 16:24 "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." You must deny yourself, your wants and your desires for that which is pleasing to the Lord. How can you please God if you cannot deny yourself?

A: Well that is a matter of interpretation.

B: Which interpretation would you estimate to be correct, the Orthodox interpretation which has been here since the beginning or that of protestantism which came from the 16th century?

The Relativity of Truth and the Sowing of Seeds

This is how truth dies, not with a bang, but with a whimper. A few scattered souls protesting, but the death goes largely unnoticed. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, that is to say, that truth has become relative to the individual. Liberalism has ushered in the destruction of truth by reducing absolute truth down to the individual. As Fr. Seraphim Rose states that liberalism is not "an overt Nihilism; it is rather a passive nihilism, or, better yet, a neutral breeding ground for the more advanced stages of nihilism." (Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 23)

There was a day in which denying absolute truths would have been considered ignorant, while today the opposite is true. Those who adhere to absolutes are now considered ignorant and backwards, and those who are more liberal are considered progressive and intelligent. Truth has been subverted to save our comfort in what we wish to be true and now truth seemingly has no place to call home.

How can we expect people to come to the truth if they have no knowledge of the truth? Like a seed cannot sprout without first having been planted, therefore, it is up to us to plant that seed of truth in the hearts and minds of everyone. If we do not plant that seed, it cannot be watered and it cannot grow, so, we must speak the truth in hopes that it eventually will take root in the hearts and minds of those without it. We must speak it in love as a gardner carefully sows his seed, we must take note that some soil requires a different seed. That is to say that some people need different methods, some require the utmost delicacy and patience, others require a stern directness, some require very little at all. So we must take note of the soil in which we plant our seed, and sow accordingly. Like a fisherman does not cast the same bait for different fish but rather each type of fish requires a different bait in order to catch them.

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon - Fr. Matthais Wahba

The following is taken from a speech by Fr. Matthais Wahba given at the 12th International Conference of Patristic Studies Oxford, England on August 25, 1995.

Introduction

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in which I am a priest, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These churches are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, and the Malankara Indian Churches. The common element among them is their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon of AD 451(1). Accordingly they prefer to be called "Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches". The Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches are mainly the Greek and Russian sees.

The Council of Chalcedon caused a big schism within the church which has lasted until the present time. In addition, after the Arab invasion in the seventh century, the churches lost communication with each other. Through this long period, the non-Chalcedonians were accused of Eutychianism(2), and called "Monophysites"(3), meaning that they believe in one single nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. They never accepted this idea, considering it a heresy.(4) The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the issue.

Misunderstanding

Several publications reflect such an attitude. In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, for instance, Alexander Kazhdan shows monophysitism as a "religious movement that originated in the first half of the 5th century as a reaction against the emphasis of Nestorianism on the human nature of the incarnate Christ."(5) The Encyclopedia of the Early Church carries an entry on monophysitism where Manilo Simonettie writes, "The term monophysites indicates those who admittied a single nature in Christ, rather than two, human and divine, as the Council of Chalcedon (451) sanctioned." Then he gives examples of Apollinarius(6) and Eutyches, and goes on to mention St. Cyril the Great(7) as having a "Monophysite Christology."(8) Furthermore, in The Coptic Encyclopedia, W.H.C. Frend defines monophysitism as a doctrine opposed to the orthodox doctrine that He (Christ) is one person and has two natures. The monophysites hold that the two natures of Christ were united at the Incarnation in such a way that the one Christ was essentially divine, although He assumed from the Virgin Theotokos the flesh and attributes of man.(9)

Now, what is the actual belief of the Church of Alexandria and the other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches on the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Common Declaration
In may 1973, H.H. Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria visited Pope John Paul VI of Rome.(10) Their common declaration says:

"We confess that our Lord God and Savior and King of us all, Jesus Christ, Is perfect God with respect to His divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation."(11)

After fifteen centuries, the two prelates declare a common faith in the nature of Christ, the issue which caused the schism of the church in the Council of Chalcedon. This will lead us to shed some light on that council.

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon

1- According to some scholars, there was no need for the Council of Chalcedon, but politics played a big role. "It was only under constant pressure from the Emperor Marcian(12) that the Fathers of Chalcedon agreed to draw a new formula of belief.(13)

2- The different expressions of the on faith are due in large part to non-theological issues, such as "unfortunate circumstances, cultural differences, and the difficulty in translating terms."(14) It is debated whether the opposition to Chalcedon was out of a Christological issue or an attempt to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against Byzantine.(15)

3- Ecclesiastical politics had been very confused ever since the legislation, in the Council of 381,(16) of a primacy of honor for Constantinople, the "new Rome," second only to that of the old Rome. It seems that both Rome and the emperors used the Council of Chalcedon to carry out their respective plans: Rome for asserting its claim for primacy over the Church and the emperors for trying to bring the entire church in the east under the jurisdiction of the see of constantinople.(17)

4- No one can deny the disadvantages of the imperial interventions in the dispute. Most probably, Chalcedon's decisions and terms would have been different if the emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria had not intervened. Since 450, they were gathering signatures for the Tome of Leo,(18) the bishop of Rome. Many bishops of Chalcedon approved it only as a concession to the bishop whom the imperial authority supported.(19)

5- The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that Nestorious, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo,(20) while the Alexandrines rejected it.

6- The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches, did not deal with him but with St. Dioscorous, Patriarch of Alexandria.(21) Eutyches himself was not present at the council. Scholars states that St. Dioscorous was deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous belief.(22) At Chalcedon St. Dioscorous strongly declared, "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 (universal) and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever."(23) The evidence is sufficient for us to look for other reasons for his condemnation. Rome was annoyed by the extraordinary vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch.(24)

7- As soon as the members of the council had assembled, the legates of Rome demanded that St. Dioscorous be banished on account of the order of the bishop of Rome, whom they called, "the head of all churches."(25) When the imperial authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said that he "dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and ought not to happen."(26) As a matter of fact, the Ecumenical Council of 381 had been held without the participation, not to say authorization, of the bishop of Rome, and the council of 553(27) against his wishes. It is evident that the delegates intended by the words, "the head of all churches," to assert the claim of Rome of having ecumenical supremacy over the church.(28)

8- Chalcedon rejected the Council of 449,(29) and Leo of Rome considered it latrocinium, a council of robbers, a title which "has stuck for all time."(30) This may uncover the intention behind such an attitude. A council which ignored Rome's authority, robbing its claim of supremacy, was not for Leo a church council but a meeting of robbers! The Council of Chalcedon, without even examining the issue, denounced the Council of 449, putting the entire responsibility for its decrees exclusively on St. Dioscorous. Only one hundred and four years later, the decision, not of Chalcedon, but of the so called latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathemized Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, as condemned their three chapters.(31) It is remarkable that the desire of the Emperor Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree.(32)

Two Different Traditions

St. Dioscorous, then, was not a heretic. The majority of the bishops who attended the Council of Chalcedon, as scholars indicate, believed that the traditional formula of faith received from St. Athanasius(33) was the "one nature of the Word of God."(34) This belief is totally different from the Eutychian concept of the single nature (i.e. Monophysite). The Alexandrian theology, as scholars confirm, was by no means docetic,(35) neither Apollinarian, as stated clearly.(36) It seems that the main problem of the Christological formula was the divergent interpretation of the issue between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. While Antioch formulated its Christology against Apollinarius and Eutyches, Alexandria did so against Arius and Nestorius. At Chalcedon, St. Dioscorous refused to affirm the "in two natures"(37) and insisted on the "from two natures." Evidently the two conflicting traditions had not discovered an agreed theological standpoint between them.(38)

Mia Physis

The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis formula of St. Cyril: "one nature of God the Word the Incarnate."(39) The Cyrillian formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431.(40) It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433,(41) nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an Orthodox formula.(42) Now, what do the non-Chalcedonians mean by mia physis, the "one incarnate nature?" They mean by mia, one, but not "single one" or "simple numerical one," as some scholars believe.(43) There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula.(44) St. Cyril maintained that the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ, as Meyendorff puts it, "does not consist of a simple cooperation, or even interpenetration, but of a union; the incarnate Word is one, and there could be no duplication of the personality of the one redeemer God and man.(45)

Mia Physis and Soteriology

"The Alexandrian Christology," writes Frances Young, "is a remarkably clear and consistent construction, especially when viewed within its soteriological context."(46) Mia physis, for the Alexandrians, is essential for salvation. The Lord is crucified, even though His divinity did not suffer but His humanity did. The sacrifice of the cross is attributed to the Incarnate Son of God, and thus has the power of salvation.(47)

Common Faith

It is evident that both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians agree on the following points:

1. They all condemn and anathemize Nestorius, Apollinarius and Eutyches.

2. The unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ was realized from the moment of His conception, without separation or division and also without confusion or change.

3. The manhood of Christ was real, perfect and had a dynamic presence.

4. Jesus Christ is one Prosopon and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not mere conjunction of natures, He is the Incarnate Logos of God.

5. They all accept the communicatio idiomantum (the communication of idioms), attributing all the deeds and words of Christ to the one hypostasis, the Incarnate Son of God.

Recent Efforts for Unity(48)

In recent times, members of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches have met together, coming to a clear understanding that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith.

In 1964 a fresh dialogue began at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. This was followed by meetings at Bristol in 1967, Geneva in 1970 and Addis Ababa in 1971. These were a series of non-official consultations which served as steps towards mutual understanding.

The official consultations in which concrete steps were taken began in 1985 at Chembesy in Geneva. The second official consultation was held at the monastery of St Bishoy in Wadi-El Natroun, in Egypt in June 1989. The outcome of this latter meeting was of historical dimensions, since in this meeting the two families of Orthodoxy were able to agree on a Christological formula, thus ending the controversy regarding Christology which has lasted for more than fifteen centuries.

In September 1990, the two families of Orthodoxy signed an agreement on Christology, and recommendations were presented to the different Orthodox Churches, to lift the anathemas and enmity of the past, after revising the results of the dialogues. If both agreements are accepted by the various Orthodox Churches, the restoration of communion will be very easy at all levels, even as far as sharing one table in the Eucharist.

As for its part, the Coptic Orthodox Church Synod, presided by H.H. Pope Shenouda III who contributed enormously to the push for unity, has agreed to lift the anathemas, but this will not take place unless this is performed bilaterally, possibly by holding a joint ceremony.(49)

Conclusion

I conclude that the term "monophysitism" does not reflect the real belief of the non-Chalcedonians. They prefer not to be called "monophysites," because the term may be misunderstood. They believe in "one nature out of two," "one united nature," "one composite nature,"or "one incarnate nature," and not a "single nature."There is no evidence that the term was used during the fifth century. Most likely it was introduced later in a polemic way on behalf of the Chalcedonian Churches.

However, considering the past, the non- Chalcedonians are better to be called "miaphysites" than "monphysites." Recently, in so far as they are coming to be understood correctly, they are to be called simply orthodox, sharing the same belief with their brothers of the Chalcedonian orthodox churches. This could be an imminent fruit of the unity of all orthodox churches.

Heg. Fr. Matthais Wahba

Fr. Matthias was born on May 15, 1939 in Qalandool, in the province of Minia. In 1958, he earned a B.A. in Theological Studies from the Coptic Seminary in Cairo. After serving as a youth leader and teacher, the congregation of Saint Mary Coptic Orthodox Church in Fagala, Cairo selected him as their new priest and pastor. He was ordained on December 14, 1962 by the late Bishop Isaac.

Father Matthias earned his MA in Theological Studies from the University of Ottawa, Canada in 1985 and published his thesis on the Doctrine of Sanctification according to Saint Athanasius. He earned his Ph.D. from the same university in 1993 with his dissertation on Honorable Marriage according to Saint Athanasius. Fr. Matthias has been serving at Saint Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church since September 1989.






Sources

1- The Council was held in the city of Chalcedon in Asia Minor. It was summoned by the Emperor Marcian to deal with the heresy of Eutyches; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1984, p. 262.
2- Eutychianism is the heresy of Eutyches (c. 378-454) who was archimandrite of a large monastery at Constantinople. His keen opposition to Nestorianism led him to the heresy of confounding the two natures in Christ. Eutyches denied that the humanity of Christ was like ours, claiming that it melted in His divinity; a view which renders our redemption in Him impossible.The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1984, p. 484.
3- Greek: monos=only one; physis=nature
4- The formal denial or doubt of any defined doctrine of the orthodox faith.
5- The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991 vol.2, p. 1398.
6- Apollinarius (310-c. 390) a vigorous advocate of Orthodoxy against the arians. He became bishop of Laodicia c. 360. He denied the human spirit of Christ, as replaced by Divine Logis.
7- St Cyril the Great, called: The Pillar of Faith (d.444) is the 24th Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria. He chaired the third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.
8- Encyclopedia of the Early Church, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992, vol. 2 p. 569
9- The Coptic Encyclopedia, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991, vol.5, p. 1669
10- Commemorating 16 century of the departure of St. Athanasius the Apostolic. In this occasion, Pope Paul VI gave Pope Shenouda III the relics of St. Athanasius.
11- Acta Apostolicae Sedis 65 (1973) p. 300. Cf. also Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, Cairo, 1985.
12- Marcian (396-457) is the soldier who, by his marriage with Pulcharia, the sister of the Emperor Theodosius II, became the Eastern Emperor in 450.
13- A.A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition; Volume One: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, second, revised edition, London & Oxford, Mowbrays, 1975, first published in 1965, p. 543.
14- Pope Paul VI in his speech to the Armenian Catholicos Vasken I, in Information Service 11 (1970/III), pp. 5-6.
15- Cf., W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972; A.H.M. Jones "Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?" in Journal of Theological Studies, new series 10 (1959), pp. 280-298.
16- It was summoned in Constantinople by the Emperor Theodosius I. 150 Orthodox bishops took part and accepted the full divinity of the Holy Spirit against Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council united the Church at the end of the lengthy Arian controversy on the basis of the faith of the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Niceno-Constantinoplitan Creed, used now in all churches, is traditionally ascribed to it. Although Western bishops were not present, it is regarded as the Second Ecumenical Council.
17- V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, The Diocesan Press, Madras, India, 1977, p. 87.
18- Leo I (d. 461) was the Pope of Rome from 440. His Tome, a letter send to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople in 449, was given formal authority by the Council of Chalcedon. It was rejected by Alexandria and Antioch as semi Nestorian. The Tome caused the maryrdom of thousands of martyrs, especially in Egypt, when Marcian resorted to arms to enforce it.
19- Fr. T.Y. Malaty, Christology according to the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, St. George Coptic Church, Sporting, Alexandria, Egypt, 1986, p. 3; Samuel, ibid., p.71.
20- J. Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, Corpus Books, Washington & Cleveland, 1969, p.20. In the Bazaar of Heraclides, Nestorious expressed his accpetance of what was defined in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon about the union of the two natures of Christ;cf., Livre d'Heraclide de Damas, edited by F. Nau, Paris, 1910, p.327.
21- St. Dioscorous (died 454) was the 25th Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria. During the patriarchate of St. Cyril he became archdeacon of Alexandria, and on his death in 444 he succeeded to the see. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 he was unjustly deposed, and banished by the civil authorities to Gangra in Paphlagonia where he died.
22- R.V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey, S.P.C.K., London, 1953, p.30.
23- Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (A.C.O.), edited by E. Schwartz, Strassburg, Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1933, Tom. II, vol. I, p.62.
24- Metropolitan Methodios of Aksum, "Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission for the Dialogue with the Non-Chalcedonian Churches" in Theological and Historical Studies: A Collection of Minor Works, edited by Methodius Fouyas, Athens, 1985, p.15; Fr. T.Y. Malaty, Christology, p.10.
25- A.C.O., op. cit., p. 95
26- ibid.
27- It was summoned by the emperor Justinian, and considered only by the Chalcedonians as the 5th ecumenical council. The Three Chapters and their authors, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa were condemned as tainted by Nestorianism.
28- Samuel, op. cit., p. 45
29- The Second Council of Ephesus was summoned by Theodosius II, to deal with Eutyches after he was condemned by Flavian of Constantinople in 448. The Council was presided by St. Dioscorous, Patriarch of Alexandria and Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem. Eutyches who wrote down and signed an Orthodox faith was acquitted of heresy, while Flavian, Theodoret, and Ibas were condemned.
30- The name was derived from Leo's epistle (95) to the Empress Pulcheria; cf. A.C.O., op. cit., pp. 68-101; Frend, op cit., p. 44.
31- See note no. 27
32- Samuel, op cit., p. xx, 38.
33- Named "the apostolic", the 20th Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria from 328-373. Though he was but a deacon, he was the hero of the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325. He struggled all his life defending the orthodox faith against Arius, the Alexandrian priest who claimed that the Son is not of one essence with the Father.
34- Sellers, op. cit., p. 213; Frances M. Young, "A Reconsideration of Alexandrian Christology," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 22:2 (April 1971), p. 103. Cf. Also J. Liebaert, La Doctrine Christologique de S. Cyrille d'Alexandrie avant la querelle Nestorienne, Lille, 1951.
35- Greek dokeo = I seem; a tendency which considered the humanity and sufferings of Christ as apparent, rather than real.
36- Young "A Reconsideration", p. 106, 114; "Christological Ideas in the Greek Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews," Journal of Theological Studies, new series 20 (1969), p. 153.
37- It may be understood as two separate natures after the incarnation.
38- Samuel, op. cit., pp.55,79. Cf. also Young, "Christological Ideas", pp. 150-163.
39- For the dependence of the non-Chalcedonians on St. Cyril, see J. Lebon, La Monophysisme Severien, Louvain, 1909.
40- It is the third Ecumenical Council, summoned by Theodosius II. St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria presided over the Council and Nestorious was condemned. In the Council, St. Cyril stressed the unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ without mingling or change. He also stressed the title "Theotokos," i.e. the Mother of God, for St. Mary, in order to clarify that Christ, Who was born from her, is truly God the Incarnate Word.
41- In 431 John, bishop of Antioch, failed to arrive at the Council of Ephesus in time. Reaching Ephesus a few days later, he held a counter- council which condemned St. Cyril and vindicated Nestorious. In 433 he became reconciled with St. Cyril with the basis of a common theological formula.
42- Samuel, op. cit., p. 10
43- Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, p.17
44- Malaty, Christology, p.6
45-Ibid. p.7
46- Young, "A Reconsideration", p.103
47- Fr. T.Y. Malaty, The Terms Physis & Hypostasis in the Early Church, St. George Coptic Church, Sporting, Alexandria, Egypt, 1987, pp.24-25
48- From the archives of the Coptic Network
49- H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, Metropolitan of Damiette and Secretary of the Holy Synod, Coptic Orthodox Church, and Co-Chairman of the Joint Commission of the Official Dialogue, El-Kerasa English Magazine, May 1992, vol. 1, no. 1, p.8.

An example of Christian love

For the book, click Here

Distrust the System

There is a good reason I distrust america's medical establishment and I think there are good reasons for everyone to question it. Remember, the medical establishment is a business, in most instances these companies are large corporations including but not limited to hospitals, pharmacy companies, medical supply companies, cancer research, AIDS research, etc. Business is about making money and finding the best way to maximize profit for shareholders, its not about what is morally right as a corporation does not think, especially one full of amoral misers.

Psychiatry:
The laughing stock of the medical world, even many doctors think psychiatry is a joke. In my experience there is no doctor trying to find the root cause of mental illness, rather, they load the patient up with mind numbing medications that seem to be never ending. You take one pill for this, and it causes an unwanted side effect, so you take another for that side effect, and so on. There are few mainstream psychiatrists that don't rely on medication. What baffles me is that this is not exactly rocket science, they just make it out to be. Americans have one of the worst diets, we are overfed and undernourished. Our food has a high amount of calories yet very little nutrition, so, our body is not satisfied and keeps feeling the need to eat. Vitamin deficiencies can cause a wide assortment of illnesses, including mental illness. See below for the article on MSG, which is in nearly every food we eat.


Cancer:
One thing that absolutely disgusts me about our capitalist system is corporations and how they capitalize on tragedy. Granted, it works well because people are so emotionally involved that they tend not to think rationally. Let me appeal to your sense of logic for a moment, in breast cancer alone there has been decades of research and billions of dollars raised, yet there have been a whopping zero advancements. We still use the same outdated treatments that seem to do more damage than the cancer. Doctors who do honest research seem to be attacked by the system and discredited by the media, who seem to be an extension of our fascist government and corporations.
 (see http://www.burzynskimovie.com/ for more details)

AIDS:
This seems to be another capitalist ploy to make money by keeping people sick with a mysterious disease with mysterious origins. Of course any serious inquiries that challenge the status quo are discredited and the inquirers labeled "kooks". AIDS is a big money maker and nobody can deny that. The now trillions of dollars given for research, the trillions made by pharmaceutical companies developing drugs to treat this disease.

The moment that the medical industry can make more money off of people being cured is the moment that we will have cures. You cannot tell me that the medical industry is the only industry in which corporations act morally and responsibly and are not worried about profit, that defies capitalist logic.
Click HERE to read more about the long history of the medical industry and their abuses.

Vaccines:
This has been a highly charged debate as of late, are vaccines good or bad, do they cause autism, etc. The fact is that most people have little to no idea what is actually in vaccines and even less know why they even contain some of these ingredients. Again, the vaccine industry is a trillion dollar a year industry, I think it is safe to say that any study done on vaccines has the potential to be tainted. Nobody can blame a corporation for trying to protect its income. What I will do is list the ingredients of vaccines, and even supply the phone number to the manufacturer of each vaccine, then I will discuss some of the ingredients and their possible side effects and the known effects of them. The following comes from a book "Vaccine Ingredients by Austin James".

Acel-Immune DTaP - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Wyeth-

Ayerst 800.934.5556

- diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis

adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum

phosphate, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin

Act HIB

Haemophilus - Influenza B Connaught Laboratories

800.822.2463

- Haemophilus influenza Type B, polyribosylribitol phosphate

ammonium sulfate, formalin, and sucrose

Attenuvax - Measles Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372

- measles live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin,

chick embryo

Biavax - Rubella Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372

- rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin,

human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

BioThrax - Anthrax Adsorbed BioPort Corporation

517.327.1500

- nonencapsulated strain of Bacillus anthracis aluminum

hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, and formaldehyde

DPT - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis GlaxoSmithKline

800.366.8900 x5231

- diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis

adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium

sulfate, and thimerosal, washed sheep RBCs

Dryvax - Smallpox (not licensed d/t expiration) Wyeth-

Ayerst 800.934.5556

- live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants,"

according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense

polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline

hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate glycerin, and phenol -a

compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle fluid from

calf skins Engerix-B

Recombinant Hepatitis B GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900

x5231

- genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the

surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast, aluminum

hydroxide, and thimerosal

Fluvirin Medeva Pharmaceuticals 888.MEDEVA

716.274.5300

- influenza virus, neomycin, polymyxin, beta-propiolactone,

chick embryonic fluid

FluShield Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556

- trivalent influenza virus, types A&B gentamicin sulphate

formadehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)

chick embryonic fluid

Havrix - Hepatitis A GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900 x5231

- hepatitis A virus, formalin, aluminum hydroxide, 2-

phenoxyethanol, and polysorbate 20 residual MRC5 proteins -

human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

HiB Titer - Haemophilus Influenza B Wyeth-Ayerst

800.934.5556

- haemophilus influenza B, polyribosylribitol phosphate, yeast,

ammonium sulfate, thimerosal, and chemically defined yeastbased

medium

Imovax Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463

- rabies virus adsorbed, neomycin sulfate, phenol, red indicator

human albumin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

IPOL Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463

- 3 types of polio viruses neomycin, streptomycin, and

polymyxin B formaldehyde, and 2-phenoxyethenol continuous

line of monkey kidney cells

JE-VAX - Japanese Ancephalitis Aventis Pasteur USA

800.VACCINE

- Nakayama-NIH strain of Japanese encephalitis virus,

inactivated formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (Tween-80), and

thimerosal mouse serum proteins, and gelatin

LYMErix - Lyme GlaxoSmithKline 888-825-5249

- recombinant protein (OspA) from the outer surface of the

spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi kanamycin aluminum

hydroxide, 2-phenoxyethenol, phosphate buffered saline

MMR - Measles-Mumps-Rubella Merck & Co., Inc.

800.672.6372

- measles, mumps, rubella live virus, neomycin sorbitol,

hydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid

cells from aborted fetal tissue

M-R-Vax - Measles-Rubella Merck & Co., Inc.

800.672.6372

- measles, rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized

gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from

aborted fetal tissue

Menomune - Meningococcal Connaught Laboratories

800.822.2463

- freeze-dried polysaccharide antigens from Neisseria

meningitidis bacteria, thimerosal, and lactose

Meruvax I - Mumps Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372

- mumps live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin

Orimune - Oral Polio Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556

- 3 types of polio viruses, attenuated neomycin, streptomycin

sorbitol monkey kidney cells and calf serum

Pneumovax - Streptococcus Pneumoniae Merck & Co.,

Inc. 800.672.6372

- capsular polysaccharides from polyvalent (23 types),

pneumococcal bacteria, phenol

Prevnar Pneumococcal - 7-Valent Conjugate Vaccine

Wyeth Lederle 800.934.5556

- saccharides from capsular Streptococcus pneumoniae

antigens (7 serotypes) individually conjugated to diphtheria

CRM 197 protein aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate,

soy protein, yeast

RabAvert - Rabies Chiron Behring GmbH & Company

510.655.8729

- fixed-virus strain, Flury LEP neomycin, chlortetracycline,

and amphotericin B, potassium glutamate, and sucrose human

albumin, bovine gelatin and serum "from source countries

known to be free of bovine spongioform encephalopathy," and

chicken protein

Rabies Vaccine Adsorbed GlaxoSmithKline

800.366.8900 x5231

-rabies virus adsorbed, beta-propiolactone, aluminum

phosphate, thimerosal, and phenol, red rhesus monkey fetal

lung cells

Recombivax - Recombinant Hepatitis B Merck & Co., Inc.

800.672.6372

- genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the

surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast, aluminum

hydroxide, and thimerosal

RotaShield - Oral Tetravalent Rotavirus (recalled) Wyeth-

Ayerst 800.934.5556

- 1 rhesus monkey rotavirus, 3 rhesus-human reassortant live

viruses neomycin sulfate, amphotericin B potassium

monophosphate, potassium diphosphate, sucrose, and

monosodium glutamate (MSG) rhesus monkey fetal diploid

cells, and bovine fetal serum smallpox (not licensed due to

expiration)

NYVAC (new smallpox batch, not licensed)

Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE

- live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants,"

according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense

polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline

hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate glycerin, and phenol -a

compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle fluid from

calf skins

Smallpox (new, not licensed) Acambis, Inc. 617.494.1339

(in partnership with Baxter BioScience)

- highly-attenuated vaccinia virus, polymyxcin B sulfate,

streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and

neomycin sulfate glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained

by distillation of coal tar vesicle fluid from calf skins

TheraCys BCG (intravesicle -not licensed in US for

tuberculosis) Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE

- live attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis monosodium

glutamate (MSG), and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)

Tripedia - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Aventis Pasteur

USA 800.VACCINE

- Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Clostridium tetani toxoids

and acellular Bordetella pertussis adsorbed aluminum

potassium sulfate, formaldehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate

80 (Tween-80) gelatin, bovine extract

US-sourced Typhim Vi - 16Aventis Pasteur USA SA

800.VACCINE

- cell surface Vi polysaccharide from Salmonella typhi Ty2

strain, aspartame, phenol, and polydimethylsiloxane (silicone)

Varivax - Chickenpox Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372

- varicella live virus neomycin phosphate, sucrose, and

monosodium glutamate (MSG) processed gelatin, fetal bovine

serum, guinea pig embryo cells, albumin from human blood,

and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

YF-VAX - Yellow Fever Aventis Pasteur USA

800.VACCINE

- 17D strain of yellow fever virus sorbitol chick embryo, and

gelatin

Formaldehyde

Many of these vaccines contain formaldehyde.

According to cancer.gov formaldehyde is: “a colorless,

flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is used in building

materials and to produce many household products. It is used

in pressed-wood products, such as particleboard, plywood, and

fiberboard; glues and adhesives; permanent-press fabrics;

paper product coatings; and certain insulation materials. In

addition, formaldehyde is commonly used as an industrial

fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant, and as a preservative in

mortuaries and medical laboratories. Formaldehyde also

occurs naturally in the environment. It is produced in small

amounts by most living organisms as part of normal metabolic

processes.”

The short-term risks from coming into contact with

formaldehyde, according to cancer.gov are: “When

formaldehyde is present in the air at levels exceeding 0.1 ppm,

some individuals may experience adverse effects such as

watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat;

coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation. Some people

are very sensitive to formaldehyde, whereas others have no

reaction to the same level of exposure.” And from the same

website: “Although the short-term health effects of

formaldehyde exposure are well known, less is known about its

potential long-term health effects. In 1980, laboratory studies

showed that exposure to formaldehyde could cause nasal

cancer in rats. This finding raised the question of whether

formaldehyde exposure could also cause cancer in humans.In

1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen

under conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure.

Since that time, some studies of humans have suggested that

formaldehyde exposure is associated with certain types of

cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer

(IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen. In

2011, the National Toxicology Program, an interagency

program of the Department of Health and Human Services,

named formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen in its 12th

Report on Carcinogens.”

According to Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology

and Physiology, “1. Formaldehyde (FA) has been found to

cause toxicity to neurons. However, its neurotoxic mechanisms

have not yet been clarified. Increasing evidence has shown that

oxidative damage is one of the most critical effects of

formaldehyde exposure. Paraoxonase-1 (PON-1) is a pivotal

endogenous anti-oxidant. Thus, we hypothesized that FAmediated

downregulation of PON1 is associated with its

neurotoxicity. 2. In the present work, we used PC12 cells to

study the neurotoxicity of FA and explore whether PON-1 is

implicated in FA-induced neurotoxicity. 3. We found that FA

has potent cytotoxic and apoptotic effects on PC12 cells. FA

induces an accumulation of intracellular reactive oxygen

species along with downregulation of Bcl-2 expression, as well

as increased cytochrome c release. FA significantly suppressed

the expression and activity of PON-1 in PC12 cells.

Furthermore, H(2)S, an endogenous anti-oxidant gas,

antagonizes FA-induced cytotoxicity as well as 2-

hydroxyquinoline, a specific inhibitor of PON-1, which also

induces cytotoxicity to PC12 cells. 4. The results of the present

study provide, for the first time, evidence that the inhibitory

effect on PON-1 expression and activity is involved in the

neurotoxicity of FA, and suggest a promising role of PON-1 as

a novel therapeutic strategy for FA-mediated

toxicity.” (Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and

Physiology, Vol. 38, Issue 4, March 2011)

While the mechanisms have not been clarified, it is clear that

formaldehyde is neurotoxic. If formaldehyde is neurotoxic in

adult humans, what of developing brains? If a neurotoxic

substance is injected into a developing child, is this not

potentially dangerous? My guess would be yes, but I am not

aware of any actual studies that would suggest formaldehyde is

safe or unsafe for infants and children.

Human diploid cells

Are these human diploid cells actually from aborted fetal

tissue? According to Merk’s own description of the Varivax,

the varicella virus vaccine, “VARIVAX [Varicella Virus Vaccine

Live (Oka/Merck)] is a preparation of the Oka/Merck strain of

live, attenuated varicella virus. The virus was initially

obtained from a child with natural varicella, then introduced

into human embryonic lung cell cultures, adapted to and

propagated in embryonic guinea pig cell cultures and finally

propagated in human diploid cell cultures (WI-38). Further

passage of the virus for varicella vaccine was performed at

Merck Research Laboratories (MRL) in human diploid cell

cultures (MRC-5) that were free of adventitious agents. This

live, attenuated varicella vaccine is a lyophilized preparation

containing sucrose, phosphate, glutamate, and processed

gelatin as stabilizers.” (http://www.whale.to/a/pdf/

varivax_pi.pdf) While Merck does not specify where these

embryonic cells are from, the National Network for

Immunization Information states that: “Human diploid cells

are batches of human cells that are grown in a laboratory.

Unlike cancer cells, they have the same number of

chromosomes as normal human cells.

Certain diploid cell strains are valuable in vaccine

manufacture because these cells can be used for a very long

period of time in the laboratory and are a reliable means by

which many viruses that infect humans can be successfully and

easily grown. Vaccines prepared in human diploid cells have

proven to be very safe over the past several decades.

Two different strains of human diploid cell cultures made from

fetuses have been used extensively for vaccine production for

decades. One was developed in the United States in 1961

(called WI-38) and the other in the United Kingdom in 1966

(called MRC-5).

WI-38 came from lung cells from a female fetus of 3-months

gestation and MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a

14-week-old male fetus. Both fetuses were intentionally

aborted, but neither was aborted for the purpose of obtaining

diploid cells.123. The fetal tissues that eventually became

WI-38 and the MRC-5 cell cultures were removed from fetuses

that were dead. The cellular biologists who made the cell

cultures did not induce the abortions.

These two cell strains have been growing under laboratory

conditions for more than 35 years. The cells are merely the

biological system in which the viruses are grown. These cell

strains do not and cannot form a complete organism and do

not constitute a potential human being. The cells reproduce

themselves, so there is no need to abort additional fetuses to

sustain the culture supply. Viruses are collected from the

diploid cell cultures and then processed further to produce the

vaccine itself.

The WI-38 and MRC-5 cell cultures have been used to prepare

hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines, preventing millions

of cases of rubella, hepatitis A, varicella and rabies. In the

United States, only one of these diseases can be prevented with

an FDA-licensed vaccine not grown in human diploid cells.

This is the RabAvert brand of rabies vaccine manufactured by

Chiron Corporation.

Some of the vaccines that are produced in human diploid cells

might now be able to be prepared in alternative types of cell

cultures. Some of these cell cultures were not available or were

not considered suitable for use in vaccines when the original

vaccines were developed. However, there is no guarantee that

vaccines grown in these alternative cell lines would be as safe

and effective as currently licensed vaccines and development is

likely to be extremely costly. Thus, there is little incentive for

vaccine manufacturers to develop and test new vaccines when

an existing licensed vaccine is known to be both safe

and effective.” (http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/

vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines)

Thimerosal

Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have

been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning

by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some

fatalities. (Clarkson TW (2002). "The three modern faces of

mercury". Environ Health Perspect 110 (S1): 11–23.)

MSG (Monosodium Glutamate)

Another ingredient found in many vaccinations, and

most of our foods, is MSG. To explain MSG and its effects, we

will refer to Dr. Russell Blaylock’s book, Excitotoxins: The

Taste That Kills. Dr. Blaylock is a neurologist with many years

experience on diet and its effects on the human body, namely

the brain. Dr. Blaylock writes: “

MSG (monosodium glutamate) is a taste enhancing and

hydrolyzed vegetable protein. At the time of discovery, MSG

was thought to be safe since it was a natural substance (an

amino acid). The amount of MSG alone added to foods has

doubled in every decade since the 1940's and by 1972 262,000

metric tons of MSG were produced.

In 1957 two ophthalmologists, Lucas and Newhouse decided

to test MSG on infant mice in an effort to study an eye disease

known as hereditary retinal dystrophy. When they examined

the eye tissue of the sacrificed animals they made a startling

discovery. MSG had destroyed all the nerve cells in the inner

layers of the animals retina which are the visual receptor cells

of the eye.

Ten years later John W. Olney, MD a neuroscientist working

for the Department of Psychiatry at Washington University in

St. Louis repeated Lucus and Newhouse's experiment in infant

mice. He found that MSG was not only toxic to the retina, but

also to the brain. When he examined the animals brains, he

discovered that specialized cells in a critical area of the

animals brain, the hypothalamus, were destroyed after a single

dose of MSG.

At this time the concentrations of MSG found in baby foods

was equal to that used to create brain lesions in experimental

animals and in all these experiments, immature animals were

found to be much more vulnerable to the toxic effects of MSG

than older animals (this was true for all animal species tested).

The FDA refused to take action after Dr. Olney informed the

FDA and it was only after his testimony before a

Congressional committee that the food manufactures agreed to

remove MSG from baby foods.

But instead of adding MSG, added hydrolyzed vegetable

protein, instead. Today EXCITOTOXINS are still added to our

food, usually in the form of caseinate, beef or chicken broth, or

flavoring.

In experimental animals "MSG babies" are found to be short in

stature, obese and have difficulty reproducing. This effect only

becomes evident long after the initial use of MSG exposure.

More detailed studies have found that "MSG babies" have

severe disorders involving several hormones normally

produced by the hypothalamus.

MSG is not the only taste "enhancing" food additive known to

cause damage to the nervous system. They all share one

important property.

When neurons are exposed to these substances, they become

very excited and fire their impulses very rapidly until they

reach a state of "extreme exhaustion". Several hours later these

neurons suddenly die as if the cells were excited to death.

As a result, neuroscientists have dubbed these class of

chemicals "EXCITOTOXINS."

Several EXCITOTOXINS are man made,-- others are found in

nature-- such as glutamate, aspartate and cysteine - all which

are amino acids.

MSG is a modified from of 'glutamic acid' in which sodium is

added to the molecule. But the toxic portion is the *glutamic*

acid, not the sodium.

Often manufactures will mix MSG with other substances to

"disguise" it.

Hydrolyzed vegetable protein also referred to as vegetable

protein, or plant protein is a mixture made from "junk"

vegetables,-- unfit for sale, especially selected so as to have

naturally high contents of "glutamate".

The extraction process of "hydrolysis" involves boiling these

vegetables in a vat of acid, followed by the process of

neutralization with caustic soda. The resulting product is a

brown sludge that collects on top. This is scraped off and

allowed to dry and the end product is a brown powder that is

high in 3 known EXCITOTOXINS -- glutamate, aspartate and

cystoic acid (which converts in the body to cysteine).

It's then added to the food manufacture.

All these chemicals stimulate the taste cells in the tongue,

thereby enhancing the taste of food. Another excitotoxin

additive is the artificial sweetener Nutra-sweet, 40% of the

compound is composed of the excitotoxin "aspartate". Like

glutamate, aspartate is a powerful brain toxin, which can

produce similar neuron damage.

It is well recognized that 'liquid' forms of excitotoxins are

much more toxic to the brain than dry forms, as they absorb

faster and produce higher blood levels than when mixed with

solid foods.

But the negative effects of excitotoxins are not limited to small

children. There is growing evidence that excitotoxins play a

major role in a whole group of degenerative brain diseases in

adults - especially the elderly.

These diseases include Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease,

Huntington disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and

more disorders of the nervous system.

What all these disease have in common is a slow destruction of

brain cells that are specifically sensitive to excitotoxin damage.

More and more diseases of the nervous system are being

linked to excitotoxin buildup in the brain.

For example, disorders such as strokes, hypoxic brain injury,

hypoglycemic brain damage, seizures, migraine headaches,

hypoxic brain damage, ADD, ADHD, and even AIDS dementia

have been linked to excitotoxins 'damage'.

There is evidence that some individuals born with "metabolic"

defects in certain brain cells may be particularly susceptible to

excitotoxin damage.

The food industry and representatives of the glutamate

manufactures have joined together to fight anyone who would

dare criticize the use of flavor enhances, in fact they have

formed a special lobby group to counter any negatives about

their product.

This group is called the Glutamate Association and is made up

of representatives of major US food manufacturers and the

Ajinomoto G. based in Japan, the chief manufacturer of MSG

and hydrolyzed protein.

The 'neuron system' within the hypothalamus appears to use

glutamate as a neurotransmitter. The pituitary gland "Master

Gland" controls the other endocrine glands, such as the

adrenals, the thyroid and reproductive organs by releasing

small amounts of it's controlling hormones into the blood.

What controls the pituitary gland, the hypothalamus - it

controls hormone releasing factors that stimulate the pituitary

to release hormones. By the feed back control, the

hypothalamus "regulates" the hormone balance in the body.

Sort of a hormone thermostat.

The discovery by Dr. Olney was particularly important,

because the hypothalamus plays an important role in

"controlling" so many areas of the body.

The hypothalamus regulates growth, the onset of puberty, most

of the endocrine glands, appetite, sleep cycles and waking

patterns, the biological clock and even "consciousness" itself.

When MSG feed in doses similar to those found in human

diets, destroys hypothalamic neurons. Later experiments

demonstrated that MSG could cause the hypothalamus to

secrete excessive amounts of a reproductive hormone

(luteinizing hormone) which is associated with an early onset

of puberty. Many of these endocrine effects appeared at an

older age.

The primary purpose of us eating is to support the chemical

reactions of the body. Many of the substances absorbed from

our food plays a vital role in the overall metabolic process of

life. When adult humans are fed 100-150 milligrams per

kilogram of body weight of MSG, their blood levels rise 20

times higher than normal as compared to a four fold rise seen

in experimental mice fed a comparable dose. A child's brain is

four times more 'sensitive' than an adult brain to these toxins.

Glutamate and aspartate are "s" neurotransmitters (the keys)

found normally in the brain and spinal cord and even though

they are two of the most common transmitter chemicals in the

brain and spinal core, when their concentrations rise above a

critical level they become deadly "toxins" to the neurons

containing "glutamate receptors" (the locks).

What this means is that excessive glutamate will not only kill

the 'neurons' with the receptors for glutamate, but it will also

kill any neuron that happens to be connected to it, even if that

neuron uses another type of transmitter. Both glutamate and

aspartate can cause neurons to become extremely 'excited' and

if given in large enough doses, they can cause the cells to

degenerate and die. It is for this reason that the nervous system

carefully controls the concentration of these two amino acids

in the fluid surrounding the neurons (called the extracellular

space). Even small doses can damage these neurons without

actually killing them. Within 15-30 minutes after being

exposed to high doses of MSG, neurons suspended in tissue

culture are seen to 'swell' like balloons. Within 3 hrs. those

neurons are not only dead, but the bodies defense mechanism

begins to haul away the "debris".

Be aware, the FDA does not regulate the amount of

carcinogens allowed in "hydrolyzed vegetable protein" or the

amount of hydrolyzed vegetable protein allowed to be added to

food products.

Manufacturers disguise MSG, in foods it is disguised as

hydrolyzed vegetable protein, natural flavorings and spices,

each of those may contain 12%-40% MSG.”

Dr. Blaylock states that MSG is often disguised on our

food labels, here is a list demonstrating this very fact.

Additives that always contain MSG:

Monosodium Glutamate

Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein

Hydrolyzed Protein

Hydrolyzed Plant Protein

Plant Protein Extract

Sodium Caseinate

Calcium Caseinate

Yeast Extract

Textured Protein

Autolyzed Yeast

Hydrolyzed Oat Flour

Additives that frequently contain MSG:

Malt extract

Malt Flavoring

Bouillon

Broth

Stock

Flavoring

Natural Flavoring

Natural Beef or Chicken Flavoring

Seasoning

Additives that may contain MSG or excitotoxins:

Carrageenan

Enzymes

Soy Protein Concentrate

Soy Protein Isolate

Whey Protein Concentrate

What is MSG toxicity syndrome?

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) toxicity syndrome occurs in

response to free-glutamic acid, which is a breakdown product

of protein after it has been processed by a food manufacturer.

While all protein has glutamic acid bound in it, it is only the

glutamic acid that has been freed from the protein before it is

consumed that causes the reactions.

Growing numbers of patients and physicians and some

scientists are convinced that the ingestion of this processed

free-glutamic acid can cause adverse reactions in one or more

organs of the body. In 1969, H. H. Schaumburg, an MSG

researcher who helped educate the public and the medical

industry about the dangers of MSG, concluded that up to 30

percent of the population had sensitivity reactions from the

MSG in an ordinary diet.

What does all this potentially mean?

According to Prof. Boyd Haley, “A single vaccine given

to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180-

pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Include in this

the toxic effects of high levels of aluminum and formaldehyde

contained in some vaccines, and the synergist toxicity could be

increased to unknown levels. Further, it is very well known

that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have

adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary

transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is

removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well.

They also do not possess the renal (kidney) capacity to remove

aluminum. Additionally, mercury is a well-known inhibitor of

kidney function.” (http://www.whale.to/m/haley.html)