[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110337#msg110337 date=1265816508] But it is very hard for you to actually learn very much.
You would not consider yourself knowledgeable in Accounting if you asked an Accountant 5 questions, however interesting they were.
There is a great blessing from studying theology and a double blessing from reading the actual words of our Fathers.
Father Peter
That's just it Fr. Peter. You said it!!
I'm not doing a degree in accounting. I'm not doing a degree in the Theology. I'm just a regular Coptic Christian.
Look, I'm not saying that reading these books is wrong.. not at all... but i'm not even reading the Bible as much as I should and then there's other stuff I have to read, and then... after ALL of this: IM NOT A MONK. I'm doing stuff in life that doesn't permit me to enjoy everything I'd like to do for my personal life.
As I said, the Church has been teaching us the SAME things in Sunday School, and they've missed a lot of this. Even the basic things like "WHy did Christ die" are disputable.
ANd then, im not a sunday school teacher even. I would recommend that anyone teaching sunday school MUST read these books and even be examined in them. But our priests let any wacko teach sunday school. And I choose my words wisely. Any crazy person that the priest likes, can have his own sunday school.
THANK GOD I DON@T teach. What the heck do i know?
But those that do teach : wow.. some of them really need assistance
I hope that you are all well as we have just begun a most holy time in our Church calendar and in our lives. I feel a need to interject here, but do so after asking for all of your forgiveness. I feel that it is important for us to be able to distinguish what it is that we as "regular Coptic Christians" are called to do in our lives. In one of the books that I read some years ago, the author made the point that, for some reason, we have put in our minds the idea that the practice and spirituality of Orthodoxy is separate from theology, and this is certainly not the case. It is the revelations that God has made that guides us in our practicing our faith; this applies both to the Bible and the teachings of the Church Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit. Bearing this in mind, we are all called to be able to expand our knowledge and practice of Orthodoxy to the best of our abilities, with the gifts that we have been endowed with.
I have read most of the posts that have come across this forum in the last week, as well as many of those which have been presented over the last couple of years. Each of the people here have a strong predilection and desire to seek out the Truth, doing so by asking questions that lead to another fundamental point of understanding of our faith. I have seen that we tend to spend a great deal of time on this site as a result, and this is fine, as we are all attempting to grow with one another in our faith through discussions, albeit the fact that many of these discussions seem to have become somewhat heated in recent weeks. But I personally think that the time that we spend here may also be spent reading the Fathers, searching for the answers ourselves rather than quickly relying on those around us. We indeed have excellent resources here, but I think that we can look for our answers among the writings of Fathers as well; this way, we not only begin to learn where things are and how we can access them, but we educate ourselves along the way in the different areas of Orthodoxy, if you will.
If I do not know who I am praying to and I have the capability of doing so, of seeking the truth, of having the resources and having the time, then how effective are my prayers? I can't tell you for certain the answer to this question, but my own thinking seems to tend on the side of suggesting that I will gain far more if I seek out God with all my heart, strength, mind, and desire.
Not everything is appropriate to teach at all levels in Sunday School. Many of the topics that are focused on in Sunday School for youth before entering college are geared towards more simple things, if we wish to characterize them as such. Indeed, those that you mentioned may need some "assistance" as you say, CertifiedOrthodox, but we all do, regardless of our position in the Church, whether we be laity or patriarch. If we are only self-reliant, we will find ourselves encountering problems quite often that we wouldn't know how to solve. We all need assistance, and that assistance is provided by God, seen in both the lives of those great theologians that live in our own time as well as the writings of those who have preceded them. Yes, we may not be monks, but we are Orthodox Christians, and this is indeed a tall order, perhaps taller than we seem to think.
I realize that I am not necessarily in a position to recommend this, but I do so after each of your permission: perhaps we can dedicate some of our time this fast towards reading the Fathers in addition to reading the Bible. If that means that we spend less time online, typing out long discussions, perhaps that is more beneficial for us. I am not criticizing anyone in particular, nor am I saying that typing here is not beneficial; I just think that we may gain more in our spirituality if we refocus our schedules. I know people who are incredibly well versed in patristics that are laity, who have families and very time consuming jobs. If we wish to learn and grow, we will make time.
Pray for me and my weaknesses at this time of self-reflection and growth, childoforthodoxy
Please do not be upset with me for saying ANY of this; but I'm going to be really bold here.
ChildofOrthodoxy and Fr. Peter are 1st and foremost correct. We should spend the time to read all this. I didnt need anyone to tell me that.
So what is the problem?
Even if I read; I'm REALLY sorry to inform you all, but I'm not sure if you are aware, but the Church is not yet settled in terms of what it agrees with respect to its own theology.
So, if I read St. Athanasious' book on the incarnation of the word, what good is it, if my interpretation is such that it differs from a bishops??
I know even that Fr. Peter's point of view differs from that of other priests in many subjects.
For example:
Here's a little test you can try at home:
Ask yourself "Why did Christ come and die?", and then ask a priest:
I BET you $1000 you will not get the same answer from 2 priests.
One priest will tell you: "Well, the punishment is proportional to the status of the offended party. God being eternal required an eternal sacrifice". Excellent.
Ask the same question to another priest, and he will not respond this way. He will say: "no no... look, it was because he wanted to give us life by becoming man and going through the incarnation and defeating death by dying FOR us")
I'm 110% sure some priest somewhere has his own contemplations.
This is all very confusing and I'd rather be taught by someone official, even if its wrong, than read for myself. Sorry. There's already too much contradictions going around to add more to it.
When I said that everyone serving should study theology who wishes to serve in Sunday School, i meant it: They should at least have the basic certification from a Coptic Theological College.
Even though A LOT of people I know who teach theology would ultimately disagree with 1/2 of the stuff that this course teaches, I don't care.
Let's talk about Theosis : are we eating the Divine Body, or just the body? One priest has told me we cannot separate the Divinity from the Humanity in Christ's body, another has said "Oh.. even in the Liturgy, it mentions we partake of the Divine body." .. In fact, he showed me his kholagy, and lo and behold, it clearly says we partake of the Divine Body?
So, rather than reading for ourselves, it is best to ask, otherwise we will end up with more theories.
Of course we can use the Pope's books as some kind of reference, and I'd personally prefer that. Having said that, we should close tasbeha.org discussion board as those contributing at times COULD BE in contradiction (and HAVE BEEN!!) with what the pope has said, yet they are learned theologians. (I'm not saying any names!).
I'm not saying that this goes for the Coptic Church, but we Greeks point out that no man, save Christ and those guided by the Spirit in the writing of the Scriptures, no man has ever been infallible. That taken, we believe in what is most consistent with the Scriptures. If someone develops an idea that contradicts what we hold to be true and threatens the Church, we must have it exposed and weighed by an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, if it has not been determined by a unanimous vote in such a Council, it is open to a slight degree of interpretation. Minor councils may attempt to overturn heresies, but they hold no such weight as an Ecumenical Council. If one holds a heretical belief, it is easily reconcilable. In the Byzantine Empire, we never practiced what has been in the West, namely the burning of heretics. We took mercy on them and banished them to maintain the stability of the Empire. Nothing spites a man more than just punishment, but nothing spites the devil more than unjustified mercy.
Certified Orthodox, If you ask a priest and get a different answer from that of another does that make them or the church wrong? No, because both answers are right. If you think Christ came for one reason only then your mistaken. One was to establish the church, but it was not the only reason He came. This doesnt make the church flawed its just a problem of interpretation on your part, which is understandable.
A great many of our Fathers were put to death by the Byzantine Empire, and when they were torn away from their flocks they were sent to the worst places imaginable. St Dioscorus died in the salt mines. St Philoxenus was suffocated to death. Thousands of monks were driven out of their monasteries in the mid-Winter and many died in the wilderness. When any villagers tried to help them the whole village was burnt down. Our Synaxarium and our Chronicles have many such accounts.
The Byzantine Empire was very cruel indeed at times, and this was one of the reasons why our Orthodox Church was unable to continue for ever in seeking their reconciliation. Bishops had the hair of their beards pulled out, or even had the Holy Mysteries forced into their mouth so it could be said that they had joined the Byzantine Church.
Things were so bad that even the invasion of the Persians was welcomed as a respite from persecution.
Here is an account from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which I have chosen because it is not friendly to our Orthodox Church.
Born at Tahal, in the Persian province of Beth-Garmai in the second quarter of the fifth century; died at Gangra, in Paphlagonia, 523. He studied at Edessa when Ibas was bishop of that city (435-57). Shortly after he joined the ranks of the Monophysites and became their most learned and courageous champion. In 485 he was appointed Bishop of Hierapolis, or Mabbogh (Manbidj) by Peter the Fuller. He continued to attack the Decrees of Chalcedon and to defend the "Henoticon" of Zeno. He twice visited Constantinople in the interests of his party, and in 512 he persuaded the Emperor Anastasius to depose Flavian of Antioch and to appoint Severus in his stead. His triumph, however, was short-lived. Anastasius died in 518 and was succeeded by the orthodox Justin I. By a decree of the new ruler the bishops who had been deposed under Zeno and Anastasius were restored to their sees, and Philoxenus, with fifty-three other Monophysites, was banished. He went to Philippopolis, in Thrace, and afterwards to Gangra where he was murdered.
Are you saying that our Fathers were justly punished for their Orthodox Faith?
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8778.msg110402#msg110402 date=1265864575] Certified Orthodox, If you ask a priest and get a different answer from that of another does that make them or the church wrong? No, because both answers are right. If you think Christ came for one reason only then your mistaken. One was to establish the church, but it was not the only reason He came. This doesnt make the church flawed its just a problem of interpretation on your part, which is understandable.
Well, John, im sure the truth is somewhere there..
But let's try this small little test:
Fr. Peter or Fr. Kyrilos:
The Punishment is Proportional to the Status of the Offended Party. God the Father is Eternal, and therefore requires an Eternal Sacrifice for the atonement of sins.
Fr Peter, aside from how off-topic your last post was, I refuse to discuss such a sensitive issue on a Coptic Orthodox forum.
Returning to the topic at hand, it was ordained by the Father that Christ should die for mankind, yet Christ did die through his suffering. One does not negate the other; if God has so chosen that a house will exist, someone builds it. Since God ordained it, does that mean that the man didn't build it? Or since the man built it, does that mean that God didn't ordain it? The natural order of the cosmos is in perfect harmony with the Will of God.
And as for man's state of immortality or attested lack thereof, did the Almighty not create the cosmos perfect? [quote author= Genesis 1:25]And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind, and God saw that they were good. [quote author= Genesis 1:31]And God saw all the things that he had made, and, behold, they were very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The Scriptures attest that all things were created very good (καλὰ λίαν), and all the beasts of the earth were given the instruction to increase and multiply, for how can death be good? Mortality is so unnatural a state that God found it necessary to send His Word incarnate in the flesh to destroy death, yet man is naturally mortal? Shall you twist the words of the Saints to try to convince your brethren that God created death, and it was good?
It would be wise not to discuss that topic here. But you raised it by saying that those who were exiled by the Byzantines received a just punishment.
Please do not confuse people here by presenting a view that is not that of our Orthodox Church.
St Athanasius says .... man is naturally mortal.
St Cyril agrees with him.
St Severus agrees with him.
And Father Kyrillos agrees with my understanding of these Fathers.
This is our Orthodox Faith. Please do not suggest that I am twisting the words of the Fathers. This is a Coptic Orthodox Forum and it must be the case that our Orthodox Faith is not subject to criticism in this way. There are many more open forums where such arguments take place such as OCnet, but this is essentially a forum for discussing our Orthodox Faith and not for presenting arguments against it. You are more than welcome to contribute as a valued member but please do not create confusion by suggesting the understanding of our Faith is defective.
If you read the Fathers such as St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus, as you are able to, then you will know that God created man mortal but did not cause his death, rather he gave him all that was needed for eternal life. Man is the cause of his own death.
I am presently at this very moment listening to Dr Hany Mina Mikhail, who says the same things, and also understands our Orthodox Fathers in the same way. I have checked some of Father Athanasius Iskander's writings and they also say the same thing.
It's not helpful to ask such questions. Theology should not be reduced to soundbites.
I know you don't mean to be unhelpful. I would suggest you listen to the series of lectures by Dr Hany Mina Mikhail on Youtube, they are very accessible, but also a substantial introduction to the subject. They are only 10 minutes long and there are about 12 of them.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110423#msg110423 date=1265904789] Hi
It's not helpful to ask such questions. Theology should not be reduced to soundbites.
I know you don't mean to be unhelpful. I would suggest you listen to the series of lectures by Dr Hany Mina Mikhail on Youtube, they are very accessible, but also a substantial introduction to the subject. They are only 10 minutes long and there are about 12 of them.
Dr. Hany's perspective is the exact opposite of what is written on page 131. His interpretation, and yours also, does not use Anselm to define why Christ came to die for us.
But - as you can see, the Coptic Orthodox Church (through her bishops) have clearly gone "Catholic" on us.
I am not sure that there is such a great difference. It would be necessary to consider the whole argument presented in this paper, and compare it with the whole argument used by other Fathers such as St Athanasius. I am not at liberty to do that immediately as I am in the middle of several time consuming activities, but I will do so at some point.
What we must avoid doing is creating a false dichotomy based on a simplistic reading of such materials. It requires much more than a simple yes/no response.
Dr Mina's video mentions that the reason why Christ came to die is in order to pay back the divine Justice. He then explains that this is "MEDIEVAL" thought that came into the Church during the missionary period of the RC in Egypt.
He says: "it is like comparing a 20 Watt light Bulb with 100 watt light bulb"
That's from his video.
So, my point is this. You are in agreement with Dr. Mina, and yet there appears to be some confusion over the reason why Christ died in our Church.
Im not raising this as a new subject, I'm using this to explain my point: Even within the CoC there appears to be unsettlement in terms of what is Orthodox and what is not.
Anselm, as far as I can see is not Orthodox.
In fact, to be honest with you, I sort of agree with page 131 and I agree with Dr. Mina. I think the truth is somewhere in between.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8778.msg110402#msg110402 date=1265864575] Certified Orthodox, If you ask a priest and get a different answer from that of another does that make them or the church wrong? No, because both answers are right. If you think Christ came for one reason only then your mistaken. One was to establish the church, but it was not the only reason He came. This doesnt make the church flawed its just a problem of interpretation on your part, which is understandable.
No, what I mean to say is, they disagree on the reason why Christ came.
Some say He came to die to repay the Divine Justice. Others say He came to give us a "life transplant" - to be the champion of humans. Both are drastically different.
On the one hand, you have Christ as the poor victim who has to be crucified to appease the Father's need to have His pound of flesh for the sins of man; on the hand, you have another school of thought that suggests the incarnation was about giving us a life transplant and HAD NOTHING to do with repaying the Father for the sins of the world.
I think we all know what you mean, but it is not appropriate to categorise two views so simply and then oppose them. I am reading On The Incarnation again and cannot stress enough how beautiful it is and how important that we all read it.
But it is bed time here in the UK, I might add something tomorrow, God willing.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110442#msg110442 date=1265928101] I think we all know what you mean, but it is not appropriate to categorise two views so simply and then oppose them. I am reading On The Incarnation again and cannot stress enough how beautiful it is and how important that we all read it.
But it is bed time here in the UK, I might add something tomorrow, God willing.
[quote author=CertifiedOrthodox link=topic=8778.msg110438#msg110438 date=1265924859] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8778.msg110402#msg110402 date=1265864575] Certified Orthodox, If you ask a priest and get a different answer from that of another does that make them or the church wrong? No, because both answers are right. If you think Christ came for one reason only then your mistaken. One was to establish the church, but it was not the only reason He came. This doesnt make the church flawed its just a problem of interpretation on your part, which is understandable.
No, what I mean to say is, they disagree on the reason why Christ came.
Some say He came to die to repay the Divine Justice. Others say He came to give us a "life transplant" - to be the champion of humans. Both are drastically different.
On the one hand, you have Christ as the poor victim who has to be crucified to appease the Father's need to have His pound of flesh for the sins of man; on the hand, you have another school of thought that suggests the incarnation was about giving us a life transplant and HAD NOTHING to do with repaying the Father for the sins of the world.
Do you see what I mean?
Thanks
Both of these are true. By paying the penalty of the world's sins on our behalf, He has provided the "life transplant." Father Peter and I should at least agree that it is because of sin that we die; so Christ became the perpetual sin offering so that we may have eternal life. The "life transplant" scenario is dependent upon the punishment for sin being lifted from our shoulders.
Thank you for your warm welcome...I sorry to be so late in acknowledging your kindness. I have always considered myself a student of yours and I very grateful that our church has won such a witness to our faith in you.
Mixalhs asked about evil and death. As there is no such thing as darkness but rather the absence of light, likewise there is no creation of evil, only the turning away from the Good. St. Gregory of Nyssa explains:
“This rejection of the Good, once accomplished, had as a consequence the appearance of all forms of evil: the fact that man turned away from life led to death; by depriving himself of the light, he fell into darkness; lacking virtue, evil appeared in his life, and thus it is that all forms of good were one by one replaced by a series of opposite evils.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa)
The EO father, Maximos the Confessor, agrees:
“Receiving by the grace of God his Creator the vocation to serve as master of the whole world, man misused this vocation by turning his activity against nature; thereby he introduced into nature – and into the cosmos as a whole – the change of the worse that characterizes its present state.” (Maximos the Confessor)
Regarding the issue of being created mortal or immortal, I think the essential point the Fathers want to make is that anything and everything that is "created," BY DEFINITION, is not eternal as is God, and therefore is mortal. Ontologically, man is a creature and therefore by definition is not immortal, though he made immortal by the Will of God through the gift of incorruption. We can certainly say that God intended to create man for incorruption and but by definition of man being a creature, this incorruption is not his by nature but by grace.
CertifiedOrthodox,
There are many models of atonement and words such as ransom, exchange, price, penalty, et. al., all have a place in our soteriology. It is rather an "emphasis" that distinguishes the West from the East, not so much a black and white legalistic definition. So, it is possible to say that at one point our church (like many other orthodox and byzantine churches) were influenced to some extent by Western theology. This is not to say the church fell into heresy, but rather that she may have borrowed language from western theology that may not best reflect our patristic heritage in the East. Even, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a highly respected EO theologian and bishop, has spoken and written about the different atonement models and says that most of them are correct in some respect but that it again a matter of emphasis between the East and the West.
Forgive me, but I sense a certain degree of criticism in your tone towards the church which may not be helpful in trying to appreciate the church's long struggle to maintain her Orthodoxy throughout all the periods of her life, with all of its ups and downs...her bright days and, yes, some of her dark days. No church is exempt from that. But the promise of our Lord remains that the gates of hades shall not prevail.
Most esteemed Father Kyrillos, there is a stark difference between immortality and eternalness; such being that the eternal Being has no beginning or end, being existent through eternity, id est, through infinity; whereas immortality signifies the lack of an impending death, suggesting no such thing as lacking a beginning. Our souls are immortal, however they are created and therefore have a beginning. The Father is eternal, just as the Word and the Spirit are eternal; but man is meant to be immortal, and we now strive for immortality through Theosis, the deification of the soul, putting sin to death. Immortality and eternalness are two nonequivalent words.
[quote author=Mixalhs link=topic=8778.msg110530#msg110530 date=1266021968] Most esteemed Father Kyrillos, there is a stark difference between immortality and eternalness; such being that the eternal Being has no beginning or end, being existent through eternity, id est, through infinity; whereas immortality signifies the lack of an impending death, suggesting no such thing as lacking a beginning. Our souls are immortal, however they are created and therefore have a beginning. The Father is eternal, just as the Word and the Spirit are eternal; but man is meant to be immortal, and we now strive for immortality through Theosis, the deification of the soul, putting sin to death. Immortality and eternalness are two nonequivalent words.
The Trisagion:
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
Dear Mixalhs...yes, I realize that there is a difference between immortality and eternity, but both are attributes of God. Man by definition is a creature and therefore, as with all creatures, is not immutable.
In any case, I think we all agree that God's will in creating man was for man to be immortal and incorrupt. The ancient fathers explain this by saying that this is due to a gift from God, the gift of immortality. This truth seems obvious to me because we know that in man the possibility to (re)turn to corruption and mortality is there from the beginning and actually happened! Is there something we still disagree on?
I will be leaving for a 3 day retreat with my church tomorrow so may not be online for a few days.
There are many models of atonement and words such as ransom, exchange, price, penalty, et. al., all have a place in our soteriology. It is rather an "emphasis" that distinguishes the West from the East, not so much a black and white legalistic definition.
I like the way you phrased that. It has become an emphasis. This was my feelings also. I just felt the Roman Catholics emphasized the aspects of Justice, whilst many Orthodox writers seemed to emphasize love.
You seem like someone really "open minded". I like that. However, I'm not sure if you realise, but those of one Church seem to express their faith as "its either our way, or the highway", so it is a tad bit unfair to accuse me of looking at this in a legalistic context when any comment or remark on atonement that does not fit the atonement model of the Orthodox Church, not only seems to qualify you as a heretic, but it is literally a point where a bishop would only be more than happy to excommunicate you for such views.
Do you realise that there are many theologians in our Church that have been excommunicated over their view of atonement? Because they do not subscribe AT ALL to Anselm, they have been prevented from having the Holy Communion.
And this is a major point: They do not at all subscribe to anything to do with Anselm. So, you cannot really say that there are many models of atonement, and its not a "black and white" issue.
I can say that. Sure, I can say that myself as layman; and I think that also. But it is naive to think that a view, other than that given by the CoC will be supported in the CoC.
Please do not get me wrong. I loved your response, as it is something that I share. I'm glad there's someone on this forum with some common sense as yourself!!!!
Fr. Kyrillos, because I think this way, I believe in the Roman Catholic Church. I do not prevent myself from attending their masses, nor prayer meetings. If I had this "legalistic" approach, I would not have felt it right to attend any Catholic form of worship at all.
So, it is possible to say that at one point our church (like many other orthodox and byzantine churches) were influenced to some extent by Western theology. This is not to say the church fell into heresy, but rather that she may have borrowed language from western theology that may not best reflect our patristic heritage in the East.
Again, i love your wording. The way you view all these problems is frankly the same way as me. YOU ARE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR!!!!!
But, I stress again Fr., if you think that we've borrowed "language" from the catholics, that's good, but many Orthodox Christians do not feel that: I know many that have been asked to leave the Church for not "borrowing" the same language the CoC has used in expressing her views on atonement.
Even, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a highly respected EO theologian and bishop, has spoken and written about the different atonement models and says that most of them are correct in some respect but that it again a matter of emphasis between the East and the West.
Yes, the remarkable Kallistos Ware ... Great to see he is making statements that build unity than cause division.
I think this attitude of just saying all models of atonement are correct is indeed the biggest step in bridging the gap between our churches.
Forgive me, but I sense a certain degree of criticism in your tone towards the church which may not be helpful in trying to appreciate the church's long struggle to maintain her Orthodoxy throughout all the periods of her life, with all of its ups and downs...her bright days and, yes, some of her dark days. No church is exempt from that. But the promise of our Lord remains that the gates of hades shall not prevail.
What criticism was that? Please let me know. I know that my last post was one of frustration where I exposed a few problems.
So as to not expose any more , I'll PM yourself and Fr Farrington some "information" that I'm sure you'd both find very interesting and that will highlight my point EXACTLY.
[quote author=Fr. Kyrillos link=topic=8778.msg110532#msg110532 date=1266023957] [quote author=Mixalhs link=topic=8778.msg110530#msg110530 date=1266021968] Most esteemed Father Kyrillos, there is a stark difference between immortality and eternalness; such being that the eternal Being has no beginning or end, being existent through eternity, id est, through infinity; whereas immortality signifies the lack of an impending death, suggesting no such thing as lacking a beginning. Our souls are immortal, however they are created and therefore have a beginning. The Father is eternal, just as the Word and the Spirit are eternal; but man is meant to be immortal, and we now strive for immortality through Theosis, the deification of the soul, putting sin to death. Immortality and eternalness are two nonequivalent words.
The Trisagion:
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
Dear Mixalhs...yes, I realize that there is a difference between immortality and eternity, but both are attributes of God. Man by definition is a creature and therefore, as with all creatures, is not immutable.
In any case, I think we all agree that God's will in creating man was for man to be immortal and incorrupt. The ancient fathers explain this by saying that this is due to a gift from God, the gift of immortality. This truth seems obvious to me because we know that in man the possibility to (re)turn to corruption and mortality is there from the beginning and actually happened! Is there something we still disagree on?
I will be leaving for a 3 day retreat with my church tomorrow so may not be online for a few days.
God bless you.
Fr. Kyrillos
I apologize if you feel like I am consuming more of your time than necessary, but I will also ask if man can truly be considered mortal even after the fall. Both our spirits and our souls are immortal, and after our bodies are resurrected they also shall be immortal. How can we say that simply because God is immortal, man is not. The Trisagion also attributes might to God; are we to say that no man is mighty? Sacred Scripture labels many men as mighty, and Saint Paul even tells us that when we put sin to death, we shall love forever, id est, immortality.
I have quoted Saint Symeon the New Theologian who not only attested that man was created immortal and incorruptible, but also the entirety of the cosmos. Grace is necessary for man to be immortal, but this same Grace is necessary to sustain all things. For "a bird shall not fall to the ground except by the Will of the Father," so shall no thing exist unless He so Wills it to exist. It is by Grace that I live to communicate with you, let alone find immortality.
Simeon the New Theologian is not a father of our Orthodox Church - though that does not mean he is in error, but on this occasion he is clearly teaching something other than our own Orthodox fathers, if he teaches as you have described. I am not entirely sure - from the excerpt you posted - that he does teach differently. He seems to me rather to describe a universe created with a gift of God, rather than the universe as considered in its own nature and apart from the gidt of God.
St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus are the key Fathers of the Church and they all teach explicitly that man is mortal, and that man was created mortal but with the grace of immortality which he lost. If Simeon the New Theologian teaches differently then I feel most comfortable sticking with the view of these three Fathers.
They are also clear that the key difference is not that man is mortal and God immortal but that God alone is immortal and incorruptible by nature, while man is only ever immortal and incorruptible by the grace of God.
This still does not address the inherent immortality of the human soul and spirit, regardless of how corruptible they may be.
Saint Symeon is the third most highly esteemed Theologian in the Eastern Orthodox Church; Saints can always be referred to when discussing Theology, but most Saints had weak points in their Theology, and the three Theologians are considered to have the strongest Theology in the Church. I was sure that the ONLY difference between the Greeks and Copts was a discrepancy on the Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon, and even at that, just the wording was held suspect. I had assumed that, save that detail, our Theology was identical.
But the immortality of the soul is NOT inherent according to St Cyril and St Severus. Rather it remains a gift of God. Only God is inherently immortal and incorruptible.
If the theology of Simeon the New Theologian is as you say then it contradicts St Cyril, who I understood to be one of the major theologians of the EO, even despite Chalcedon. For our Orthodox Church there are no higher patristic authorities than St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus. It would appear that what you have described must have developed later in the EO, and after their separation from our Orthodox Church because it is very clearly not what St Cyril taught in the 5th century.
I should also say that the reason that the Fathers do not consider the human nature to have been created immortal and incorruptible is because this would make God the creator and cause of death.
If immortality were inherent to Adam's humanity then his sin would have required that his nature be changed in some fundamental manner. This is not possible for any man to perform. I may make a noise like a cow but I can never change my human nature into that of a cow. Indeed I can change no aspect of my human nature at all.
Therefore, if Adam lost some inherent aspect of his nature, such that his nature was fundamentally changed and caused to die, then only God could achieve this. Therefore God must be considered to have directly and immediately caused Adam to die and be the cause of his death. But the Fathers teach us that while Adam was created mortal nevertheless he was created with the grace of immortality which was not inherent to his human nature. Thus when he sinned he lost the gift and grace but his nature was not changed by God so that he experienced death as a result of God's actions. Rather he himself exposed himself to the mortality that was always inherent in his nature but from which he had been preserved while he remained obedient and faithful.
The withdrawal of grace is not the same as changing the nature. The one makes Adam the cause of his own death, the other makes God the cause.
Comments
But it is very hard for you to actually learn very much.
You would not consider yourself knowledgeable in Accounting if you asked an Accountant 5 questions, however interesting they were.
There is a great blessing from studying theology and a double blessing from reading the actual words of our Fathers.
Father Peter
That's just it Fr. Peter. You said it!!
I'm not doing a degree in accounting. I'm not doing a degree in the Theology. I'm just a regular Coptic Christian.
Look, I'm not saying that reading these books is wrong.. not at all... but i'm not even reading the Bible as much as I should and then there's other stuff I have to read, and then... after ALL of this: IM NOT A MONK. I'm doing stuff in life that doesn't permit me to enjoy everything I'd like to do for my personal life.
As I said, the Church has been teaching us the SAME things in Sunday School, and they've missed a lot of this. Even the basic things like "WHy did Christ die" are disputable.
ANd then, im not a sunday school teacher even. I would recommend that anyone teaching sunday school MUST read these books and even be examined in them. But our priests let any wacko teach sunday school. And I choose my words wisely. Any crazy person that the priest likes, can have his own sunday school.
THANK GOD I DON@T teach. What the heck do i know?
But those that do teach : wow.. some of them really need assistance
I hope that you are all well as we have just begun a most holy time in our Church calendar and in our lives. I feel a need to interject here, but do so after asking for all of your forgiveness. I feel that it is important for us to be able to distinguish what it is that we as "regular Coptic Christians" are called to do in our lives. In one of the books that I read some years ago, the author made the point that, for some reason, we have put in our minds the idea that the practice and spirituality of Orthodoxy is separate from theology, and this is certainly not the case. It is the revelations that God has made that guides us in our practicing our faith; this applies both to the Bible and the teachings of the Church Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit. Bearing this in mind, we are all called to be able to expand our knowledge and practice of Orthodoxy to the best of our abilities, with the gifts that we have been endowed with.
I have read most of the posts that have come across this forum in the last week, as well as many of those which have been presented over the last couple of years. Each of the people here have a strong predilection and desire to seek out the Truth, doing so by asking questions that lead to another fundamental point of understanding of our faith. I have seen that we tend to spend a great deal of time on this site as a result, and this is fine, as we are all attempting to grow with one another in our faith through discussions, albeit the fact that many of these discussions seem to have become somewhat heated in recent weeks. But I personally think that the time that we spend here may also be spent reading the Fathers, searching for the answers ourselves rather than quickly relying on those around us. We indeed have excellent resources here, but I think that we can look for our answers among the writings of Fathers as well; this way, we not only begin to learn where things are and how we can access them, but we educate ourselves along the way in the different areas of Orthodoxy, if you will.
If I do not know who I am praying to and I have the capability of doing so, of seeking the truth, of having the resources and having the time, then how effective are my prayers? I can't tell you for certain the answer to this question, but my own thinking seems to tend on the side of suggesting that I will gain far more if I seek out God with all my heart, strength, mind, and desire.
Not everything is appropriate to teach at all levels in Sunday School. Many of the topics that are focused on in Sunday School for youth before entering college are geared towards more simple things, if we wish to characterize them as such. Indeed, those that you mentioned may need some "assistance" as you say, CertifiedOrthodox, but we all do, regardless of our position in the Church, whether we be laity or patriarch. If we are only self-reliant, we will find ourselves encountering problems quite often that we wouldn't know how to solve. We all need assistance, and that assistance is provided by God, seen in both the lives of those great theologians that live in our own time as well as the writings of those who have preceded them. Yes, we may not be monks, but we are Orthodox Christians, and this is indeed a tall order, perhaps taller than we seem to think.
I realize that I am not necessarily in a position to recommend this, but I do so after each of your permission: perhaps we can dedicate some of our time this fast towards reading the Fathers in addition to reading the Bible. If that means that we spend less time online, typing out long discussions, perhaps that is more beneficial for us. I am not criticizing anyone in particular, nor am I saying that typing here is not beneficial; I just think that we may gain more in our spirituality if we refocus our schedules. I know people who are incredibly well versed in patristics that are laity, who have families and very time consuming jobs. If we wish to learn and grow, we will make time.
Pray for me and my weaknesses at this time of self-reflection and growth,
childoforthodoxy
Please do not be upset with me for saying ANY of this; but I'm going to be really bold here.
ChildofOrthodoxy and Fr. Peter are 1st and foremost correct. We should spend the time to read all this. I didnt need anyone to tell me that.
So what is the problem?
Even if I read; I'm REALLY sorry to inform you all, but I'm not sure if you are aware, but the Church is not yet settled in terms of what it agrees with respect to its own theology.
So, if I read St. Athanasious' book on the incarnation of the word, what good is it, if my interpretation is such that it differs from a bishops??
I know even that Fr. Peter's point of view differs from that of other priests in many subjects.
For example:
Here's a little test you can try at home:
Ask yourself "Why did Christ come and die?", and then ask a priest:
I BET you $1000 you will not get the same answer from 2 priests.
One priest will tell you: "Well, the punishment is proportional to the status of the offended party. God being eternal required an eternal sacrifice".
Excellent.
Ask the same question to another priest, and he will not respond this way. He will say: "no no... look, it was because he wanted to give us life by becoming man and going through the incarnation and defeating death by dying FOR us")
I'm 110% sure some priest somewhere has his own contemplations.
This is all very confusing and I'd rather be taught by someone official, even if its wrong, than read for myself. Sorry. There's already too much contradictions going around to add more to it.
When I said that everyone serving should study theology who wishes to serve in Sunday School, i meant it: They should at least have the basic certification from a Coptic Theological College.
Even though A LOT of people I know who teach theology would ultimately disagree with 1/2 of the stuff that this course teaches, I don't care.
Let's talk about Theosis : are we eating the Divine Body, or just the body? One priest has told me we cannot separate the Divinity from the Humanity in Christ's body, another has said "Oh.. even in the Liturgy, it mentions we partake of the Divine body." .. In fact, he showed me his kholagy, and lo and behold, it clearly says we partake of the Divine Body?
So, rather than reading for ourselves, it is best to ask, otherwise we will end up with more theories.
Of course we can use the Pope's books as some kind of reference, and I'd personally prefer that. Having said that, we should close tasbeha.org discussion board as those contributing at times COULD BE in contradiction (and HAVE BEEN!!) with what the pope has said, yet they are learned theologians. (I'm not saying any names!).
A great many of our Fathers were put to death by the Byzantine Empire, and when they were torn away from their flocks they were sent to the worst places imaginable. St Dioscorus died in the salt mines. St Philoxenus was suffocated to death. Thousands of monks were driven out of their monasteries in the mid-Winter and many died in the wilderness. When any villagers tried to help them the whole village was burnt down. Our Synaxarium and our Chronicles have many such accounts.
The Byzantine Empire was very cruel indeed at times, and this was one of the reasons why our Orthodox Church was unable to continue for ever in seeking their reconciliation. Bishops had the hair of their beards pulled out, or even had the Holy Mysteries forced into their mouth so it could be said that they had joined the Byzantine Church.
Things were so bad that even the invasion of the Persians was welcomed as a respite from persecution.
Here is an account from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which I have chosen because it is not friendly to our Orthodox Church. Are you saying that our Fathers were justly punished for their Orthodox Faith?
Father Peter
Certified Orthodox, If you ask a priest and get a different answer from that of another does that make them or the church wrong? No, because both answers are right. If you think Christ came for one reason only then your mistaken. One was to establish the church, but it was not the only reason He came. This doesnt make the church flawed its just a problem of interpretation on your part, which is understandable.
Well, John, im sure the truth is somewhere there..
But let's try this small little test:
Fr. Peter or Fr. Kyrilos:
The Punishment is Proportional to the Status of the Offended Party. God the Father is Eternal, and therefore requires an Eternal Sacrifice for the atonement of sins.
Would you agree or disagree with this statement?
Thanks
Returning to the topic at hand, it was ordained by the Father that Christ should die for mankind, yet Christ did die through his suffering. One does not negate the other; if God has so chosen that a house will exist, someone builds it. Since God ordained it, does that mean that the man didn't build it? Or since the man built it, does that mean that God didn't ordain it? The natural order of the cosmos is in perfect harmony with the Will of God.
And as for man's state of immortality or attested lack thereof, did the Almighty not create the cosmos perfect?
[quote author= Genesis 1:25]And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind, and God saw that they were good.
[quote author= Genesis 1:31]And God saw all the things that he had made, and, behold, they were very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The Scriptures attest that all things were created very good (καλὰ λίαν), and all the beasts of the earth were given the instruction to increase and multiply, for how can death be good? Mortality is so unnatural a state that God found it necessary to send His Word incarnate in the flesh to destroy death, yet man is naturally mortal? Shall you twist the words of the Saints to try to convince your brethren that God created death, and it was good?
It would be wise not to discuss that topic here. But you raised it by saying that those who were exiled by the Byzantines received a just punishment.
Please do not confuse people here by presenting a view that is not that of our Orthodox Church.
St Athanasius says .... man is naturally mortal.
St Cyril agrees with him.
St Severus agrees with him.
And Father Kyrillos agrees with my understanding of these Fathers.
This is our Orthodox Faith. Please do not suggest that I am twisting the words of the Fathers. This is a Coptic Orthodox Forum and it must be the case that our Orthodox Faith is not subject to criticism in this way. There are many more open forums where such arguments take place such as OCnet, but this is essentially a forum for discussing our Orthodox Faith and not for presenting arguments against it. You are more than welcome to contribute as a valued member but please do not create confusion by suggesting the understanding of our Faith is defective.
Father Peter
I am presently at this very moment listening to Dr Hany Mina Mikhail, who says the same things, and also understands our Orthodox Fathers in the same way. I have checked some of Father Athanasius Iskander's writings and they also say the same thing.
Father Peter
Do you agree with Anselm who explained the reason for Christ's death?
Thanks,
It's not helpful to ask such questions. Theology should not be reduced to soundbites.
I know you don't mean to be unhelpful. I would suggest you listen to the series of lectures by Dr Hany Mina Mikhail on Youtube, they are very accessible, but also a substantial introduction to the subject. They are only 10 minutes long and there are about 12 of them.
Father Peter
Hi
It's not helpful to ask such questions. Theology should not be reduced to soundbites.
I know you don't mean to be unhelpful. I would suggest you listen to the series of lectures by Dr Hany Mina Mikhail on Youtube, they are very accessible, but also a substantial introduction to the subject. They are only 10 minutes long and there are about 12 of them.
Father Peter
Yes, I have heard them.
And that is exactly what Im talking about.
If you go here: http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/soterlecture1.pdf on page 131, you will see the Coptic Orthodox Church also has talked of this issue.
Dr. Hany's perspective is the exact opposite of what is written on page 131. His interpretation, and yours also, does not use Anselm to define why Christ came to die for us.
But - as you can see, the Coptic Orthodox Church (through her bishops) have clearly gone "Catholic" on us.
Please take a look:
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/soterlecture1.pdf
I am not sure that there is such a great difference. It would be necessary to consider the whole argument presented in this paper, and compare it with the whole argument used by other Fathers such as St Athanasius. I am not at liberty to do that immediately as I am in the middle of several time consuming activities, but I will do so at some point.
What we must avoid doing is creating a false dichotomy based on a simplistic reading of such materials. It requires much more than a simple yes/no response.
Father Peter
Let me simplify this:
Dr Mina's video mentions that the reason why Christ came to die is in order to pay back the divine Justice. He then explains that this is "MEDIEVAL" thought that came into the Church during the missionary period of the RC in Egypt.
He says: "it is like comparing a 20 Watt light Bulb with 100 watt light bulb"
That's from his video.
So, my point is this. You are in agreement with Dr. Mina, and yet there appears to be some confusion over the reason why Christ died in our Church.
Im not raising this as a new subject, I'm using this to explain my point: Even within the CoC there appears to be unsettlement in terms of what is Orthodox and what is not.
Anselm, as far as I can see is not Orthodox.
In fact, to be honest with you, I sort of agree with page 131 and I agree with Dr. Mina. I think the truth is somewhere in between.
Certified Orthodox, If you ask a priest and get a different answer from that of another does that make them or the church wrong? No, because both answers are right. If you think Christ came for one reason only then your mistaken. One was to establish the church, but it was not the only reason He came. This doesnt make the church flawed its just a problem of interpretation on your part, which is understandable.
No, what I mean to say is, they disagree on the reason why Christ came.
Some say He came to die to repay the Divine Justice. Others say He came to give us a "life transplant" - to be the champion of humans. Both are drastically different.
On the one hand, you have Christ as the poor victim who has to be crucified to appease the Father's need to have His pound of flesh for the sins of man; on the hand, you have another school of thought that suggests the incarnation was about giving us a life transplant and HAD NOTHING to do with repaying the Father for the sins of the world.
Do you see what I mean?
Thanks
But it is bed time here in the UK, I might add something tomorrow, God willing.
Father Peter
I think we all know what you mean, but it is not appropriate to categorise two views so simply and then oppose them. I am reading On The Incarnation again and cannot stress enough how beautiful it is and how important that we all read it.
But it is bed time here in the UK, I might add something tomorrow, God willing.
Father Peter
Hi Fr. Peter, and Hello Mr. Hos Erof,
OK.. I'll wait tomorrow
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8778.msg110402#msg110402 date=1265864575]
Certified Orthodox, If you ask a priest and get a different answer from that of another does that make them or the church wrong? No, because both answers are right. If you think Christ came for one reason only then your mistaken. One was to establish the church, but it was not the only reason He came. This doesnt make the church flawed its just a problem of interpretation on your part, which is understandable.
No, what I mean to say is, they disagree on the reason why Christ came.
Some say He came to die to repay the Divine Justice. Others say He came to give us a "life transplant" - to be the champion of humans. Both are drastically different.
On the one hand, you have Christ as the poor victim who has to be crucified to appease the Father's need to have His pound of flesh for the sins of man; on the hand, you have another school of thought that suggests the incarnation was about giving us a life transplant and HAD NOTHING to do with repaying the Father for the sins of the world.
Do you see what I mean?
Thanks
Both of these are true. By paying the penalty of the world's sins on our behalf, He has provided the "life transplant." Father Peter and I should at least agree that it is because of sin that we die; so Christ became the perpetual sin offering so that we may have eternal life. The "life transplant" scenario is dependent upon the punishment for sin being lifted from our shoulders.
Thank you for your warm welcome...I sorry to be so late in acknowledging your kindness. I have always considered myself a student of yours and I very grateful that our church has won such a witness to our faith in you.
Mixalhs asked about evil and death. As there is no such thing as darkness but rather the absence of light, likewise there is no creation of evil, only the turning away from the Good. St. Gregory of Nyssa explains:
“This rejection of the Good, once accomplished, had as a consequence the appearance of all forms of evil: the fact that man turned away from life led to death; by depriving himself of the light, he fell into darkness; lacking virtue, evil appeared in his life, and thus it is that all forms of good were one by one replaced by a series of opposite evils.”
(St. Gregory of Nyssa)
The EO father, Maximos the Confessor, agrees:
“Receiving by the grace of God his Creator the vocation to serve as master of the whole world, man misused this vocation by turning his activity against nature; thereby he introduced into nature – and into the cosmos as a whole – the change of the worse that characterizes its present state.” (Maximos the Confessor)
Regarding the issue of being created mortal or immortal, I think the essential point the Fathers want to make is that anything and everything that is "created," BY DEFINITION, is not eternal as is God, and therefore is mortal. Ontologically, man is a creature and therefore by definition is not immortal, though he made immortal by the Will of God through the gift of incorruption. We can certainly say that God intended to create man for incorruption and but by definition of man being a creature, this incorruption is not his by nature but by grace.
CertifiedOrthodox,
There are many models of atonement and words such as ransom, exchange, price, penalty, et. al., all have a place in our soteriology. It is rather an "emphasis" that distinguishes the West from the East, not so much a black and white legalistic definition. So, it is possible to say that at one point our church (like many other orthodox and byzantine churches) were influenced to some extent by Western theology. This is not to say the church fell into heresy, but rather that she may have borrowed language from western theology that may not best reflect our patristic heritage in the East. Even, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a highly respected EO theologian and bishop, has spoken and written about the different atonement models and says that most of them are correct in some respect but that it again a matter of emphasis between the East and the West.
Forgive me, but I sense a certain degree of criticism in your tone towards the church which may not be helpful in trying to appreciate the church's long struggle to maintain her Orthodoxy throughout all the periods of her life, with all of its ups and downs...her bright days and, yes, some of her dark days. No church is exempt from that. But the promise of our Lord remains that the gates of hades shall not prevail.
In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos
Most esteemed Father Kyrillos, there is a stark difference between immortality and eternalness; such being that the eternal Being has no beginning or end, being existent through eternity, id est, through infinity; whereas immortality signifies the lack of an impending death, suggesting no such thing as lacking a beginning. Our souls are immortal, however they are created and therefore have a beginning. The Father is eternal, just as the Word and the Spirit are eternal; but man is meant to be immortal, and we now strive for immortality through Theosis, the deification of the soul, putting sin to death. Immortality and eternalness are two nonequivalent words.
The Trisagion:
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
Dear Mixalhs...yes, I realize that there is a difference between immortality and eternity, but both are attributes of God. Man by definition is a creature and therefore, as with all creatures, is not immutable.
In any case, I think we all agree that God's will in creating man was for man to be immortal and incorrupt. The ancient fathers explain this by saying that this is due to a gift from God, the gift of immortality. This truth seems obvious to me because we know that in man the possibility to (re)turn to corruption and mortality is there from the beginning and actually happened! Is there something we still disagree on?
I will be leaving for a 3 day retreat with my church tomorrow so may not be online for a few days.
God bless you.
Fr. Kyrillos
Nice to hear from you!
[quote author=Fr. Kyrillos link=topic=8778.msg110529#msg110529 date=1266019851]
CertifiedOrthodox,
There are many models of atonement and words such as ransom, exchange, price, penalty, et. al., all have a place in our soteriology. It is rather an "emphasis" that distinguishes the West from the East, not so much a black and white legalistic definition.
I like the way you phrased that. It has become an emphasis. This was my feelings also. I just felt the Roman Catholics emphasized the aspects of Justice, whilst many Orthodox writers seemed to emphasize love.
You seem like someone really "open minded". I like that. However, I'm not sure if you realise, but those of one Church seem to express their faith as "its either our way, or the highway", so it is a tad bit unfair to accuse me of looking at this in a legalistic context when any comment or remark on atonement that does not fit the atonement model of the Orthodox Church, not only seems to qualify you as a heretic, but it is literally a point where a bishop would only be more than happy to excommunicate you for such views.
Do you realise that there are many theologians in our Church that have been excommunicated over their view of atonement? Because they do not subscribe AT ALL to Anselm, they have been prevented from having the Holy Communion.
And this is a major point: They do not at all subscribe to anything to do with Anselm. So, you cannot really say that there are many models of atonement, and its not a "black and white" issue.
I can say that. Sure, I can say that myself as layman; and I think that also. But it is naive to think that a view, other than that given by the CoC will be supported in the CoC.
Please do not get me wrong. I loved your response, as it is something that I share. I'm glad there's someone on this forum with some common sense as yourself!!!!
Fr. Kyrillos, because I think this way, I believe in the Roman Catholic Church. I do not prevent myself from attending their masses, nor prayer meetings. If I had this "legalistic" approach, I would not have felt it right to attend any Catholic form of worship at all.
Again, i love your wording. The way you view all these problems is frankly the same way as me. YOU ARE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR!!!!!
But, I stress again Fr., if you think that we've borrowed "language" from the catholics, that's good, but many Orthodox Christians do not feel that: I know many that have been asked to leave the Church for not "borrowing" the same language the CoC has used in expressing her views on atonement. Yes, the remarkable Kallistos Ware ... Great to see he is making statements that build unity than cause division.
I think this attitude of just saying all models of atonement are correct is indeed the biggest step in bridging the gap between our churches. What criticism was that? Please let me know. I know that my last post was one of frustration where I exposed a few problems.
So as to not expose any more , I'll PM yourself and Fr Farrington some "information" that I'm sure you'd both find very interesting and that will highlight my point EXACTLY.
[quote author=Mixalhs link=topic=8778.msg110530#msg110530 date=1266021968]
Most esteemed Father Kyrillos, there is a stark difference between immortality and eternalness; such being that the eternal Being has no beginning or end, being existent through eternity, id est, through infinity; whereas immortality signifies the lack of an impending death, suggesting no such thing as lacking a beginning. Our souls are immortal, however they are created and therefore have a beginning. The Father is eternal, just as the Word and the Spirit are eternal; but man is meant to be immortal, and we now strive for immortality through Theosis, the deification of the soul, putting sin to death. Immortality and eternalness are two nonequivalent words.
The Trisagion:
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
Dear Mixalhs...yes, I realize that there is a difference between immortality and eternity, but both are attributes of God. Man by definition is a creature and therefore, as with all creatures, is not immutable.
In any case, I think we all agree that God's will in creating man was for man to be immortal and incorrupt. The ancient fathers explain this by saying that this is due to a gift from God, the gift of immortality. This truth seems obvious to me because we know that in man the possibility to (re)turn to corruption and mortality is there from the beginning and actually happened! Is there something we still disagree on?
I will be leaving for a 3 day retreat with my church tomorrow so may not be online for a few days.
God bless you.
Fr. Kyrillos
I apologize if you feel like I am consuming more of your time than necessary, but I will also ask if man can truly be considered mortal even after the fall. Both our spirits and our souls are immortal, and after our bodies are resurrected they also shall be immortal. How can we say that simply because God is immortal, man is not. The Trisagion also attributes might to God; are we to say that no man is mighty? Sacred Scripture labels many men as mighty, and Saint Paul even tells us that when we put sin to death, we shall love forever, id est, immortality.
I have quoted Saint Symeon the New Theologian who not only attested that man was created immortal and incorruptible, but also the entirety of the cosmos. Grace is necessary for man to be immortal, but this same Grace is necessary to sustain all things. For "a bird shall not fall to the ground except by the Will of the Father," so shall no thing exist unless He so Wills it to exist. It is by Grace that I live to communicate with you, let alone find immortality.
Simeon the New Theologian is not a father of our Orthodox Church - though that does not mean he is in error, but on this occasion he is clearly teaching something other than our own Orthodox fathers, if he teaches as you have described. I am not entirely sure - from the excerpt you posted - that he does teach differently. He seems to me rather to describe a universe created with a gift of God, rather than the universe as considered in its own nature and apart from the gidt of God.
St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus are the key Fathers of the Church and they all teach explicitly that man is mortal, and that man was created mortal but with the grace of immortality which he lost. If Simeon the New Theologian teaches differently then I feel most comfortable sticking with the view of these three Fathers.
They are also clear that the key difference is not that man is mortal and God immortal but that God alone is immortal and incorruptible by nature, while man is only ever immortal and incorruptible by the grace of God.
Father Peter
Saint Symeon is the third most highly esteemed Theologian in the Eastern Orthodox Church; Saints can always be referred to when discussing Theology, but most Saints had weak points in their Theology, and the three Theologians are considered to have the strongest Theology in the Church. I was sure that the ONLY difference between the Greeks and Copts was a discrepancy on the Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon, and even at that, just the wording was held suspect. I had assumed that, save that detail, our Theology was identical.
If the theology of Simeon the New Theologian is as you say then it contradicts St Cyril, who I understood to be one of the major theologians of the EO, even despite Chalcedon. For our Orthodox Church there are no higher patristic authorities than St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus. It would appear that what you have described must have developed later in the EO, and after their separation from our Orthodox Church because it is very clearly not what St Cyril taught in the 5th century.
Father Peter
If immortality were inherent to Adam's humanity then his sin would have required that his nature be changed in some fundamental manner. This is not possible for any man to perform. I may make a noise like a cow but I can never change my human nature into that of a cow. Indeed I can change no aspect of my human nature at all.
Therefore, if Adam lost some inherent aspect of his nature, such that his nature was fundamentally changed and caused to die, then only God could achieve this. Therefore God must be considered to have directly and immediately caused Adam to die and be the cause of his death. But the Fathers teach us that while Adam was created mortal nevertheless he was created with the grace of immortality which was not inherent to his human nature. Thus when he sinned he lost the gift and grace but his nature was not changed by God so that he experienced death as a result of God's actions. Rather he himself exposed himself to the mortality that was always inherent in his nature but from which he had been preserved while he remained obedient and faithful.
The withdrawal of grace is not the same as changing the nature. The one makes Adam the cause of his own death, the other makes God the cause.
Father Peter