Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
His Divinity did NOT Depart His Humanity
Dear All,
I have a very serious question here.
Please be patient with me and just help me understand this.
The Coptic Orthodox Church, through statements issued by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, has stated that during the Holy Communion, we only eat the "LIFE GIVING" Holy Body of Christ. Not the "Divine Holy Body". He said, in a statement published in the ElKeraza, that we cannot eat Divinity.
Now - here's where my problem lies:
In the liturgy, at the end, here's what the priest prays:
a) That the Holy Body that Im about to partake of in the Holy Communion IS the real Body of Christ in all its form (in its very essence), i.e. the SAME Body that Christ had Himself (i.e. its very same nature) that He took from Saint Mary which He UNITED IT with His Divinity.
Therefore, Point 1: His Nature is ONE nature - A united nature: Of Man and God IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
Question: Why then do we only take the human nature and eat it? Why do we separate His Divine Nature from His Human nature according to what the Pope is claiming??
b) If the priest says that Christ's Divinity did NOT depart from His Humanity, "for a single instance NOR for a twinkle of an eye", WHY then do we separate it when we have the Holy Communion? If the priest says "THIS IS THAT BODY, THAT HE TOOK FROM OUR QUEEN, SAINT MARY" ... if that is HIS REAL Body and I'm partaking of it in every way, then again, the question remains as to why the Pope insists we are not eating the Divine Nature ???
We are not eating the Divine Nature, nor the Human Nature - we are eating the United Miaphystic nature of Christ. To separate them in the Holy Communion SURELY leads us again to a heresy??!!!!
i.e. we are claiming that we are receiving the complete nature of Christ in the Holy Communion, yet the Pope is somehow stressing that we are only receiving the Human Element of it - not the complete essence.
Please correct me if I'm wrong????
It goes against the Church fathers that said that we cannot speak of the 2 natures AFTER the incarnation, but we recognise ONLY THE ONE NATURE of Christ - the United nature of His Divinity and Humanity IN the person of Christ.
c) Second point is this:
The Pope's argument was that we cannot possibly eat Divinity.
Fine. But then the priest clearly said (And the BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS!) that Christ was born of the Saint Mary and of the Holy Spirit. i.e. that The PERSON Jesus Christ is COMPLETE MAN and COMPLETE GOD. So, how then can the Divine nature be united with the human nature? How can the 2 substances unite?? How can the 2 essences mix? If they united in the Person of Christ, why then cannot they unite in the Holy Body that we eat in the Communion/Eucharist??
The Pope's logic/argument was that the Divine Nature cannot be consumed (eaten) - but that leads to another very compelling question:
The Divine Nature cannot be eaten, so HOW ON EARTH can it unite to the Human nature??? Surely it was OUR human nature that this Divine nature was united to? If the divine nature was united to our human nature, it means that our nature was able to receive the divine nature without it being consumed by it.
Am I making sense here?? I think its quite obvious and no one is talking about this issue, nor asking questions about it.. and im sorry for trying to understand this, but I prefer to ask and be corrected than to just not ask anything.
I have a very serious question here.
Please be patient with me and just help me understand this.
The Coptic Orthodox Church, through statements issued by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, has stated that during the Holy Communion, we only eat the "LIFE GIVING" Holy Body of Christ. Not the "Divine Holy Body". He said, in a statement published in the ElKeraza, that we cannot eat Divinity.
Now - here's where my problem lies:
In the liturgy, at the end, here's what the priest prays:
OK.. Let's analyse this statement carefully that the priest says:
Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, Saint Mary.
His made it One with his Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration.
He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave It up for us upon the holy wood of the cross of His own will, for us all.
Truly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye; given for us for salvation and for the remission of sins ...
a) That the Holy Body that Im about to partake of in the Holy Communion IS the real Body of Christ in all its form (in its very essence), i.e. the SAME Body that Christ had Himself (i.e. its very same nature) that He took from Saint Mary which He UNITED IT with His Divinity.
Therefore, Point 1: His Nature is ONE nature - A united nature: Of Man and God IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
Question: Why then do we only take the human nature and eat it? Why do we separate His Divine Nature from His Human nature according to what the Pope is claiming??
b) If the priest says that Christ's Divinity did NOT depart from His Humanity, "for a single instance NOR for a twinkle of an eye", WHY then do we separate it when we have the Holy Communion? If the priest says "THIS IS THAT BODY, THAT HE TOOK FROM OUR QUEEN, SAINT MARY" ... if that is HIS REAL Body and I'm partaking of it in every way, then again, the question remains as to why the Pope insists we are not eating the Divine Nature ???
We are not eating the Divine Nature, nor the Human Nature - we are eating the United Miaphystic nature of Christ. To separate them in the Holy Communion SURELY leads us again to a heresy??!!!!
i.e. we are claiming that we are receiving the complete nature of Christ in the Holy Communion, yet the Pope is somehow stressing that we are only receiving the Human Element of it - not the complete essence.
Please correct me if I'm wrong????
It goes against the Church fathers that said that we cannot speak of the 2 natures AFTER the incarnation, but we recognise ONLY THE ONE NATURE of Christ - the United nature of His Divinity and Humanity IN the person of Christ.
c) Second point is this:
The Pope's argument was that we cannot possibly eat Divinity.
Fine. But then the priest clearly said (And the BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS!) that Christ was born of the Saint Mary and of the Holy Spirit. i.e. that The PERSON Jesus Christ is COMPLETE MAN and COMPLETE GOD. So, how then can the Divine nature be united with the human nature? How can the 2 substances unite?? How can the 2 essences mix? If they united in the Person of Christ, why then cannot they unite in the Holy Body that we eat in the Communion/Eucharist??
The Pope's logic/argument was that the Divine Nature cannot be consumed (eaten) - but that leads to another very compelling question:
The Divine Nature cannot be eaten, so HOW ON EARTH can it unite to the Human nature??? Surely it was OUR human nature that this Divine nature was united to? If the divine nature was united to our human nature, it means that our nature was able to receive the divine nature without it being consumed by it.
Am I making sense here?? I think its quite obvious and no one is talking about this issue, nor asking questions about it.. and im sorry for trying to understand this, but I prefer to ask and be corrected than to just not ask anything.
Comments
I do not whether you know the story behind His Holiness' comments.
There are certain people, I am not going to go into details, who claim that because we take the divine nature inside us we are united with the divine nature just like the unity between humanity and divinity of our Lord. To stress their claim, they said that we eat and drink the divinity
So Pope Shenouda's response means that we cannot eat the divinity or drink it because the divinity has no bounds and is has no physical nature. What we eat is the body and the blood of our Lord that He has slain of his own will on the cross.
Your understanding is correct that we communicate of the one nature of Christ .
zoksasi,
I do not whether you know the story behind His Holiness' comments.
There are certain people, I am not going to go into details, who claim that because we take the divine nature inside us we are united with the divine nature just like the unity between humanity and divinity of our Lord. To stress their claim, they said that we eat and drink the divinity
So Pope Shenouda's response means that we cannot eat the divinity or drink it because the divinity has no bounds and is has no physical nature. What we eat is the body and the blood of our Lord that He has slain of his own will on the cross.
Your understanding is correct that we communicate of the one nature of Christ .
Thanks a million for the response imikhail!
Yes, I am aware that the Pope wanted to refute those who believed that we partook of the Divine Nature - but in refuting them, he's gone to the other extreme and removed from the Holy Body, the Divine Nature that was united to it.
Am I right or wrong here??
Is this an acceptable interpretation of things? I see where your question comes from Zoxsasi, and it is one I would ask too.
I am not sure of what exact words of His Holiness you are looking act. The ones I have are from two sources: His own sermon that he gave at the theological seminary where he explained that we cannot eat the divinity. He goes on to give the example of a beast eating an animal after killing it saying that the beast eats the flesh and not the soul the animal as the soul has no physical existence.
The other source is the Arabic book by the Title "Modern Heresies" where he comments on this topic and says that our Lord said in 6:54 whoever eats my body and not whoever eats my divinity.
In other sermons he comments on those who claim the divination of man through the unification of the human nature and the divine one through eating and drinking divinity. He says that there is no hypostatic unity at all through communion.
When you take these comments together, HH is not denying that we take the body of Christ that is united with the divine nature. I understand that if you just take a comment by itself out of context one could make the case that that HH is denying the divine nature of communion.
Thanks.
When you take these comments together, HH is not denying that we take the body of Christ that is united with the divine nature. I understand that if you just take a comment by itself out of context one could make the case that that HH is denying the divine nature of communion.
That's my point. It seems that there is a change in our dogmas.
he clearly said that we do not eat the DIVINE Holy Body.
We eat the "Life Giving Holy Body".
But, what makes it life-giving IS the Nature of it, for it is indeed the nature of Christ: Human + Divine.
The Pope's logic, and I'm paraphrasing him here: is that we cannot eat Divinity. But that presents us with the 2nd question that MUST be answered:
If the Pope is saying we cannot eat Divinity , because the divine nature is un-eatable, then how did the person of Christ manage to manifest Himself amongst us and unite with our nature if the Divine Nature had united with it? Surely, the Divine Nature, when uniting with the human nature would have consumed it???
The Bible does indeed say that Moses saw God's glory, and they had to hide his face because it was sooo bright. They put a towel over his face because the light from it was so bright.
So, in the person of Christ, how could the Divine nature manifest itself before our eyes??
The Pope explains this manifestation as attributable to certain qualities in Christ, but no one has ever explained it in terms of how it manifests itself to us in the physical form. For example - Christ being God, created eyes for the blind man. That's great. Creation IS an attribute of God. Christ forgave sins. Forgiving sins is an attribute of God.
But PHYSICALLY, this attribute should have had its consequences??? The Pope says that we cannot EAT the Divine nature, yet this very nature was indeed UNITED with OUR Human nature. How?????
Look at the words Im choosing: "OUR Human Nature" - i did not say "With Christ's Human nature" - because He took OUR Nature and United it with His Nature. He took flesh from Saint Mary - OUR FLESH - and united it with His Nature in the person of Christ.
So, if the Divine and the Human natures can unite in Christ, then our NATURE can also unite with the Divine nature - it would make sense. How? I DO NOT KNOW.
I'm not at all (AT ALL!!) contradicting his Holiness.. on the contrary, I just want to get to the bottom of this.
To tell me that we cannot eat Divinity is unexplainable when the Divine Nature united with our Human essence. How? If it united with it, then we do in fact eat the Life Giving Body of Christ that is HIS real nature: DIVINE + HUMAN.
Its a very serious subject, and NO ONE is talking about it. Its actually very core to our belief and who we are as Orthodox. This isn't a small matter.
Where is your spirit? If I were to stab your leg with a knife I would not be stabbing your spirit, even though your spirit is united with your body. Your body experiences those things proper to it, and your spirit expeirences those things proper to it, in a perfect unity of hypostasis. But the body and spirit are not mixed even though they are united.
I believe it is clear that His Holiness is only addressing the issue that we do not consume the divinity when we receive the body and blood of our Lord, and this is not controversial at all. The divinity cannot be consumed. But it is the body and blood of God and is filled with life and grace because it is the body and blood of God. It is divine because it belongs to God, but it is not the unknown and unknowable divinity. That is not a THING in any sense.
We are indeed united with God, this is also not controversial and is in all the Fathers, but we are united by grace in a secondary manner, rather than by hypostasis in a primary manner. The son of a King is always a prince. Even if he dresses as a poor man he remains a prince. It is a matter of who he is. But a poor man may become a prince only if the King chooses to adopt him into his family, and it is then not a matter of who he is, but the goodness of the King.
The nature of Christ is not human and divine if you mean the essence. There is not a third type of nature which mixes these two. When we speak of one incarnate nature of the Word we mean one hypostasis, one concrete being. Christ is indeed fully God and fully man, but in the manner which is proper to both of those elements. His hand was entirely and truly a human hand, but it was the human hand of the Word of God, it was not mixed with the divinity to make a divine-human hand - indeed that is not possible. The divine nature cannot be mixed with any created nature. But the Word of God united human nature to himself even while he remained God without change.
The union of divinity and humanity is in the hypostasis, the very identity of the Word of God, it is not at the element of generic natures. Humanity remains humanity, Divinity remains divinity, and as St Severus and St Cyril teach, these are utterly different and removed from each other. But they are united in the hypostasis of the incarnate Word.
To touch Christ is to touch God because Christ is God. But it is to touch the humanity of the Word of God. We must not think of the divine being as just the same as all created substances, but just bigger. God does not exist in that way at all. You cannot eat the Divine nature of God.
But we are united with God in the eucharist by receiving physically the body and blood of the incarnate Word of God, AND by receiving spiritually the presence of the Holy Spirit, AND by being mystically united with God in this communion of the holy mysteries.
We receive everything we need for body AND spirit, but in accordance with those different aspects of our human being. Physically and spiritually, while being united mystically.
We do not deny at all that the divine is united with these elements. Far from it. They are life-giving as the body and blood of the Word of God. They are not mere flesh, or only flesh, or simply flesh. But we are united spiritually with the divinity of our Lord while being united physically with the humanity of our Lord. We cannot consume the divine nature.
The Word of God was always united with his humanity, and remains united with his humanity, even on the cross. But the divine nature did not suffer on the cross, even while the Divine Person and hypostasis of the Word suffered in his own humanity.
It is a busy week, but I will pull out some passages from the Fathers if I am able to find time.
God bless
Father Peter
Please go ahead and add more quotes from the Church Fathers.
--> iMikhail:
Are you saying that people were believing that we were hypostatically united to God in the Holy Communion?
Fr. Peter - are you aware of the heresies that His Holiness Pope Shenouda was refuting? Do you know anything about the history of this?
I don't think those that disagree with His Holiness think that they hypostatically unite with the Divine Nature. Not at all. They are aware that we are all sons of God through adoption, not essence.
But what their issue is seems to be along the lines on what we partake of during the Holy Communion.
Fr. Peter, are you aware of any differences that we have with the EO concerning this issue? Is their Holy Communion anyway different than ours?
Why I'm asking this is because someone who disagreed with H.H's response said that the Pope has distanced us with the EO.
We have ALL what Christ has from the Father.
We are NOT guilty before the Father.
ALL what Christ has is ours.
and the list goes on.
They do not differentiate between Christ as the divine 2nd person with the all the divine characteristics and us who just received the divine grace.
The history of this goes to Fr Matta El Meskeen who started talking about the Holy Spirit, the body of the Church, the guilt of man, the resemtion, judgment. George Bebbawy, used to teach in the seminary, adopted Fr Matta's thoughts as well as some monks in the Abu Makar monastery in Egypt.
They strarted talking about divination or theosis citing Church Father, out of context I should say, to prove their point.They adopted a thought that is currently the Russian church is advocating and is contrary to the Oriental Churches as well as the Greek Church.
My suggestion to you Zoxsasi that instead of trying to read what these people wrote, that you focus more on strengthening your faith and to better understand the dogma of our Church, her prayers, praises, spirituality and rituals.
However, if you come across a certain text that you do not understand please ask but do not go and purposely look for that text :)
May God bless you.
Many thanks for your informative response.
Tasbeha.org has many sections - Faith Section is to understand the Coptic Orthodox Faith. This is my objective. Im not sure if you are aware, but those who happen to disagree with H.H Pope shenouda are quite a lot on this issue, and we are in fact exposed to their opinion more than you think.
Either we just listen to their opinion(s), or we come here and ask for guidance.
I've chosen to come and ask for guidance and clarification.
Fr. Peter's response is extremely valuable for me as it explains quite well everything I need to know.
But there is no harm in asking how we differ with the EO?
This is what I'd like to know -
Apparently, H.H's response distances us from the EO - how? What is so different about what they believe in the Eucharist and what we believe?
In fact the last part that quoted: "ruly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye; given for us for salvation and for the remission of sins ..." was added in the 12th century by Pope Ghobrial Ibn Trek to refute the Melekites, in Egypt, as to their belief of the two natures.
Thanks
Regarding communion, I do not see any difference between us and them.
See - this is why I'm asking. Apparently, the Pope's statements has distanced us from the EO. How? I don't know. How do I know this? Well, because the EO users on tasbeha.org and those I meet outside tasbeha.org have said so.
What did I understand from them?
So far, all i understood from their argument was that we ought to receive the FULL nature of Christ IN the Eucharist. We cannot just call it the Life Giving Body, when we just said that His Divinity did not depart from His Humanity.
How does that differ with the EO? I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA and is the reason why I'm posting in this thread. Apparently, there are more differences now, and mia/mono-physism is not it. I will ask them for more details. I'm not searching to find heresies, but Im surrounded by people who seem to disagree with His Holiness and are close to the EO, that I want to educate myself SO THAT MY FAITH is stronger!!!!
You see my logic in asking now on tasbeha.org????
Its precisely for the purpose of MY FAITH.
I commend you on your zealous to know.
One thing I like to point out is that HH Pope Shenouda is part of the Oriental Church. So, keep in mind that when you hear that HH distant us from the EO, are they referring in particular to the Coptic Church or the Oriental Churches? If they say just the Coptic Church, then you know there is something wrong in their statement, since the Coptic Church is still part of of the Oriental and has the same faith. If they say the Oriental, then they are wrong again because HH does not make up the doctrine of the Oriental Church.
I have one request, please get resources not just opinions or personal interpretations. For example, EO councils, scholars, theologians, liturgical prayers, ...etc. that the EO adhere to that are different than the Oriental Church.
Thanks and God Bless
1) How did Father Matta quote the Fathers out of context in subjects related to deification of man and the Eucharist? What is the correct context?
I am asking this question because one decision taken by the Pope Shenouda and the Holy Synod in May 2010 has been "silently" passed without much attention and publicity, yet it should be reviewed or at least explained for its consequences are problematic.
The decision I am referring to is to "anathemize" a book titled "a2wal mude'ah" (Luminous teachings). The book features are as follows:
1) Content: Nothing but the quotes by the Fathers on deification. The quotes are listed in Greek, English and Arabic and the translation is correct. The quotes are well referenced with their translation. There is no commentary on the quotes or personal reflection. The Fathers quoted are Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Antony, Macarios, Ireneous, Ignatius, Chrysostom, Polycarp, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Hypoliteus, Gregory the Theologian, gregory of Nyssa, Amonas (Antony's disciple), Isaac the Syrian, Isidore of Farma (contemoprary bishop of Athanasius).
2) Structure: The book is divided in chapters titled to cover the life of Christ from the Incarnation and Nativity till the Resurrection and Ascension, and "side" topics such as the Eucharist, Adoption in Christ and Martyrdom.
3)Author: Anonymous.
4)Publisher: Printer operated by Anba Botros, the General Bishop and Pope's Secretary.
The distribution of the book in the churches stopped because of its content that H.H. the Pope and the Holy Synod regarded as promoting the heresy of deification.
The link to the decision by the Synod is below:
http://www.copticpope.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=293&page=1
This book does not have a context to be misunderstood or commentary to be misinterpreted, and therefore my question above. The book definitely opposes H.H. writings on the subject, but to reject the above mentioned Fathers in favor of the H.H. is problematic.
2) Can you establish a link between modern Russian and Greek theologians and the writings of Father Matta? This would be most useful in studying how they influenced the thought of the most prominent Coptic Theologian in the 20's century. Father Matta never even replied to the attacks that were mounted against him in his life and "obviously" he was "silent" about the attacks after his death. St. Macarius monks have published two books to defend the man after his death, having been prevented by Father Matta to do so during his life, and they attack a line of thought that is indeed Nestorian. I have not found a direct reference to H.H. in their books, but it could be inferred that they meant the Pope or the Sunday School generation of which the Pope is an integral part.
Dr. George Bebawy did accuse H.H. of Nestorianism, but I am not concerned with him.
On a side note, most heresies are based on a non-christian view of the Transendence of God and His Impassibility. Nestorianism is no exception and therefore the denial of the Incarnation or its work in human nature through unity with God. Denial of the Incarnation is equal to confessing the incarnation and denial of its consequences for human nature. When a certain teacher interprets John 17:1 as:" The Father glorified Christ as befitting to a man and not with the divine glory", you must wonder what he means by this.
These are the words of Nestorius from his own teachings and writings concerning the Eucharist which were quoted by the notary of the council of Ephesus:
"The priest Peter of Alexandria, senior notary, said: `We also have our hands on the books of the blasphemies of the Very Reverend Nestorius. From one of them we have selected excerpts. If the holy synod so desires we shall read them.
Bishop flavian of Philippi answered: `Let this be read and inserted the Acts.'
From: The Book of the Same Nestorius. Quaternion 4 On Dogma. Similarly from the same Book, Quaternion 4.
Listen, then, and pay attention to the words, for scripture says: `He who eats my flesh' (Jn.6.56). Remember that this is said about the flesh, and that this word `flesh' is not added by me --so then I cannot be accused by them of misinterpreting. He says: `He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood.' He did not say, `He who eats my Godhead and drinks my Godhead,' but `He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.'
And in another place:
But to sum up, `He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.' Remember that this is said about the flesh. `Just as the living Father has sent me' (Jn.6.57), me whom you see. But in case I am misinterpreting let us listen to what follows: `Just as the living Father has sent me' --well, my opponent says that this refers to the Godhead. I say it refers to the manhood. Let us see who is misinterpreting here. `Just as the living Father has sent me' -- the heretic says that here it is talking about the Godhead, meaning that he has sent God the Word. So, `Just as the living Father has sent me, so I live (and according to them that means the divine Word) through the Father'. But after this there follows: `And whoever eats me shall live' (Jn.6.58). In that case what is it we are eating? The Godhead or the flesh?"
The above text is quoted from "Acta Concilirum Oecumeniccorum" as edited by E. Schwartz, 1927. Similar editions could be found in "Nestor and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine" by F.Loofs, 1914 and "Saint Cyril of Alexandra and the Christological Controversy" by J. MacGuckin, 2004. The later book is available is published by SVS and could be found easily.
You seem to understand arabic. Compare the words of Nestorius to those of H.H. as published in El-Keraza on the same topic in this never ending dispute of the H.H. the Pope Pope and Father Matta.
One of the articles of the Pope on the subject is here.
http://www.copticpope.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=71&page=14&bcsi_scan_48D30DD978B1A292=Q4izdma1p2UfdEmvPbnzFewfcmYcAAAA9Ye3LQ==&bcsi_scan_filename=modules.php
The resemblence between the words in this article in the first paragraph and the words of Nestorius (in bold above) is scary.
The words of Father Matta are also not acceptable when he says we eat the divinity, but in attacking him, the very holy Pope used the words of Nestorius.
The Oriental Church, including the Coptoc Church, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN DEIFICATION OF MAN as ascribed by Fr. Matta El Meskeen in his books.
When he says all of what is Christ's is ours, Fr. Matta elevates man to be like Christ in His divine nature. All of the Fathers that you listed can be misquoted to prove any topic you like including deification
When St Athansius said that Christ took what we have and gave us what He has could be misquoted and used to prove deification. It is the same idea the Protestants use of a verse to prove one idea.
Deification according to the Orthodox teaching is that man partakes of the divine grace to do what is good and has the ability over weaknesses of the flesh. It also means that man, through the divine grace, has been forgiven his sins and is adopted to be the son of God.
Stvro
The Oriental Church, including the Coptoc Church, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN DEIFICATION OF MAN as ascribed by Fr. Matta El Meskeen in his books.
When he says all of what is Christ's is ours, Fr. Matta elevates man to be like Christ in His divine nature. All of the Fathers that you listed can be misquoted to prove any topic you like including deification
When St Athansius said that Christ took what we have and gave us what He has could be misquoted and used to prove deification. It is the same idea the Protestants use of a verse to prove one idea.
Deification according to the Orthodox teaching is that man partakes of the divine grace to do what is good and has the ability over weaknesses of the flesh. It also means that man, through the divine grace, has been forgiven his sins and is adopted to be the son of God.
I'm 99.9% sure that those I've spoken with do not believe that man becomes God. God humbled Himself that He became man, and so man exaltes Himself to become God? I doubt that.
Maybe, and this is just a maybe, do you think Fr. Matta has been misunderstood?
ps. I can't read arabic too well, but I noticed there's an article about Fr. Peter Farrington in the link you gave Stavro.
The idea of elevating man to be like Christ in His divine nature is found in his books. We understand that he is not a trained theologian and that he might have misspoken. But the ideas have to be refuted.
We are not condemning a person, we are condemning the ideas.
Lol! What does the link say about me? Who has reported me?
Apparently, you've won the annual tombola.
Call the Holy Synod to collect your life time supply of free humous.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136218#msg136218 date=1303130038] They actually say that HH is Nestorian denying the divine nature of Christ. Of course this is a lie. HH is very clear on this subject .. he wrote about Christology, has 5 sermons "Against Arius", 5 sermons about the Nature of Christ, sermon about the Incarnation and others where he very clearly explain the Orthodox faith from the Holy Tradition and the Fathers like St Athansius, St Cyril, St Dioscorus and others. He clearly explain the formula used at the Councils of Nicea and Ephesus.
The history of this goes to Fr Matta El Meskeen who started talking about the Holy Spirit, the body of the Church, the guilt of man, the resemtion, judgment. George Bebbawy, used to teach in the seminary, adopted Fr Matta's thoughts as well as some monks in the Abu Makar monastery in Egypt.
They strarted talking about divination or theosis citing Church Father, out of context I should say, to prove their point.They adopted a thought that is currently the Russian church is advocating and is contrary to the Oriental Churches as well as the Greek Church.
My suggestion to you Zoxsasi that instead of trying to read what these people wrote, that you focus more on strengthening your faith and to better understand the dogma of our Church, her prayers, praises, spirituality and rituals.
However, if you come across a certain text that you do not understand please ask but do not go and purposely look for that text :)
May God bless you.
Mikhail, if you could briefly explain one thing for me..Does Baba Shenoda reject the belief in theosis? Or what does the Coptic church exactly belief and reject? What did Dr George say about theosis that was considered heresey? Thanks
From page 145--outlines on theosis and heresy
http://www.4shared.com/get/cVqGzF-1/34_online.html;jsessionid=E923F492F7DF05170FEB800BB07D3793.dc285
I don't think you were mentioned on the page. Zoxsasi's just in a light-hearted mood I guess ;).
I have also explained it in this thread. Please, read it.
Thanks
Mozes, It seems you know Arabic and understand it well, correct me if I am wrong. Consequently, read HH book "the Modern Heresies", listen to his sermons on copticpope.org to get the answers to your question.
I have also explained it in this thread. Please, read it.
Thanks
I appreciate your reply! Thanks. I will heed your advice.
Stvro
The Oriental Church, including the Coptoc Church, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN DEIFICATION OF MAN as ascribed by Fr. Matta El Meskeen in his books.
When he says all of what is Christ's is ours, Fr. Matta elevates man to be like Christ in His divine nature. All of the Fathers that you listed can be misquoted to prove any topic you like including deification
When St Athansius said that Christ took what we have and gave us what He has could be misquoted and used to prove deification. It is the same idea the Protestants use of a verse to prove one idea.
Deification according to the Orthodox teaching is that man partakes of the divine grace to do what is good and has the ability over weaknesses of the flesh. It also means that man, through the divine grace, has been forgiven his sins and is adopted to be the son of God.
Hi imikhail,
I have no knowledge of Arabic but there is one important thing which I wish to add to the discussion. My father of confession loves the writings of Anthony Coniaris who was one of the writers that was labelled with this slur. He met with the bishop and the bishop demonstrated with passages from the Arabic translation of his work why this writing was not acceptable but my FoC compared the translation to the English and found that the English work that it was originally written in was completely Orthodox.
My FoC's theory was that there are people in Egypt who have a vested interest in the debate who are intentionally corrupting the translations and adding unorthodox statements to them, we need to be certain that we're not unintentionally attacking people who have a genuine love of Orthodoxy.
God bless,
LiD
So what does it really say? I couldn't see my name.
There's a pic of you with other OO priests in stevenage.
I think it was to do with the day of Unity? Remember?
Having said that, being Coptic Orthodox, there was a high chance you could have honestly won a lifetime supply of humous.
But I was kidding. I don't know what it said exactly, but im sure it was to do with that.
Let's follow iMikhail's advice at least: Im NOT searching for heresies, but I want to iron them out for the benefit of my own faith and steadfastness in the faith.
Let's just focus on doing that.
Thanks.
but can i ask (any of you) a question on behalf of a friend?
as we (orthodox) know, Jesus' divine and human natures did not become separate when he went to hades and preached to the dead souls.
but my friend thinks it is the broken (dead, spiritless) 'human' body of Jesus we take in Holy Communion, not the divine/human body that enters us physically and spiritually.
how can i explain that it is not just a 'dead' spiritless body we take in Holy Communion?
feel free to answer after the resurrection feast and to not miss the rest of Holy week where we repent, fast, pray and thank God for His very great gift. only 3 days and a few hours to go! :o
glory to God for His mercy :)