[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136391#msg136391 date=1303296088] What we are dealing with here are Coptic clergy and laity who produced their work in Arabic.
Thanks. Sounds fine to me, just wanted to be clear about the inferences about whether or not our Eastern brothers actually shared in this heresy or not.
[quote author=LifeInDeath link=topic=11275.msg136421#msg136421 date=1303359656] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136391#msg136391 date=1303296088] What we are dealing with here are Coptic clergy and laity who produced their work in Arabic.
Thanks. Sounds fine to me, just wanted to be clear about the inferences about whether or not our Eastern brothers actually shared in this heresy or not.
God bless,
LiD So failing to understand the gist of what is being said and the implications mentioned I wish to ask what does 'partakers of the Divine Nature' mean, and what does 'He became man so that we could become God' refer too?
I believe the EO church looks at theosis in the light of the Transfiguration. People don't become God in essence but just as the God-man was transfigured so may we be.
However I don't wish to dig any deeper I'm not qualified. I know that Fr Matta was influenced by Fr Lazarus (Moore) to become a monk but I don't know if he was influenced doctrinally by him (Fr Lazarus was in the Russian Church).
Anyway this sounds interesting can we have more detail please.
Partaker of the Divine Nature takes us to Genesis 1 when God created man after His own image in purity, righteousness, saintly conduct, doing what is good, has the power of the weakness over the flesh...etc. Compare with Hebrews 3:1
He became man under the weakness of the flesh like us. He was tempted just like but was victorious. He blessed our nature through His incarnation and gave us the means to become sons of God.
The phrase "so that we could become God" means we could be God over our weaknesses, God over sin, God over Satan.
So failing to understand the gist of what is being said and the implications mentioned I wish to ask what does 'partakers of the Divine Nature' mean, and what does 'He became man so that we could become God' refer too?
I believe the EO church looks at theosis in the light of the Transfiguration. People don't become God in essence but just as the God-man was transfigured so may we be.
However I don't wish to dig any deeper I'm not qualified. I know that Fr Matta was influenced by Fr Lazarus (Moore) to become a monk but I don't know if he was influenced doctrinally by him (Fr Lazarus was in the Russian Church).
The commentary in The Orthodox Study Bible would seem to agree with Metropolitan Bishoy.
Can anyone clarify what Fr Matta's view was. The reason I ask is that I have read and re read a difficult collection of writings of his under the heading The Titiles of Christ. Much seems new to my ears. I don't care to read some sort of heresy.
The Oriental Church, including the Coptoc Church, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN DEIFICATION OF MAN as ascribed by Fr. Matta El Meskeen in his books.
The Orthodox Church, and I refer here to who you falsely label Oriental Church, including the Coptic Orthodox Church, most definitely follows the Fathers which Fr. Matta quoted in their intended context, which is totally opposite to what our very holy Pope Shenouda teaches. In fact, what the very holy current Pope teaches is a total separation between God and man, and uses Islamic terms to prove his case. Terms like "Allah munazah" and "Allah ta3alah" are understood in Arabic to signify that a complete estrangement between the Divine and the human, with no possibility of unity between both. Muslims use these blasphemous terms to express their total rejection of God’s unity with man in Christ and all His salvific actions from incarnation, baptism, Cross, resurrection and ascension. The disaster is that the very holy Pope used the term “El sherk bellah” to describe the teachings of the Cyril in attacking Father Matta El-Maskeen, which the same exact term the Muslims use to describe the Christian theology related to the Incarnation, worship of Christ, and the Eucharist. Knowing that Nestorianism and Arianism are the mother ideologies of Islam, the allegations of Nestorianism against the very holy Pope are not necessarily unfounded. As I showed by comparison between Nestorius teachings and the Pope's teachings, the very holy Pope quotes Nestorius to prove his case. Noticing that Nestorianism is also the mother of Protestantism, it makes perfect sense that the Nestorian line of thought has affected those who were raised in an era totally alien to the Fathers and embracing Sunday school teachings, among them the very holy Pope.
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
In which book, what page does Father Matta say such a corrupt and blasphemous teaching, namely that we become divine in essence? The book I referred to does not include any commentary or text to be taken out of context. These are long paragraphs from the Fathers, headed by Ignatius, Antony, Makarious, Athanasius, Cyril and some prominent saints and theologians who cannot be rejected for the favour of saving the honour of the very holy Pope. How do you anathemize them and by what power does the Synod or the Pope reject the teachings of the same saints they take the absolution from at the beginning of the liturgy?
The reason why the Pope cannot accept them because they reject his teachings and they very clearly teach Theosis, partaking in the divine nature, therefore embarrassing the very holy and honourable Pope, whose idea about deification denies fundamental teachings of the Fathers.
When St Athansius said that Christ took what we have and gave us what He has could be misquoted and used to prove deification.
I hope you understand that deification is not a heresy and is not a profane word. It is the central pillar of the theology of the Alexandrian Church.
It is the same idea the Protestants use of a verse to prove one idea.
Is it? The problem is that Father Matta does not use one quote, one so-and so Father in an isolated instance, but he uses the many prominent Fathers who wrote about deification on many occasions and it is central to their sacramental theology, Christology and Soteriology. He uses liturgical texts and the Fathers. What else should we use? The very holy Pope offered the infallible alternative in his sermon against Dr. Bebawy and the monks of St. Macarious monastery that preceded the anathema against Dr. Bebawy. The very pious Pope made three remarkable statements: a) I only use the Bible because it is the ultimate reference over the Fathers and cannot be refuted. Comment:Now, who is the Protestant here and who uses “Sola Scriptura”?) b) They refer to Athanasius and Cyril to prove the heresy of deification, as if they are the ultimate reference, but they neglect other fathers. Comment: This is not true by any means, for they quote many Fathers to show how Theosis is integral to the Christian thought, although indeed Cyril and Athanasius are enough and the neglect of both saints and attacking them from a Coptic Pope is a shame ) c) The book “the Patristic basis of the writings of Father Matta El-Maskeen”, issued by St. Macarious monastery after the death of Matta El Maskeen, is based on the teachings of Calvin and they refer to him as the first reference in their reference list. They use Protestants to prove their case.
Comment:The reference to Calvin in the body of the text, in the very beginning of the book, is to show the resemblance between the heresies such as Protestantism, Islam and other heresies and between those who deny deification in the modern Coptic Church. The book is not based on Calvin’s writing. Did the Pope even care to look up the reference to Calvin as any 8th grader would do? Or does the Pope take advantage of the ignorance of the audience and their trust in his holy person?)
The very holy Pope in his regrettable writings against Father Matta, before and after his death, adopts the Islamic approach in attacking the man by making unfounded allegations against the man and then violently attacking these false allegations. Similar to what the muslims do when they allege that we worship three different gods, misrepresenting the Trinity, and then ridicule our faith based on their own misrepresentation and lack of understanding. The holy Pope makes the following allegation about the writings of Father Matta. According to the Pope, the writings contain the following: 1) Man, by deification, become infinite 2) Man, by deification, will fill the entire Earth and Heaven 3) Man, by deification, becomes omniscient, just like God 4) Man, by deification, will perform wonders by his very own (human) power 5) Man, by deification, becomes infallible 6) Man, by deification, is not anymore a creation but a creator, and has no beginning or end Can you show us in what book Abona Matta wrote these corrupt teachings? They are unfounded.
Well, HH always says: "we are not against a particular person, but against an idea"
It is personal between the two, unless you missed the past 60 years.
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.
If what you write is true Stavro, then we can say that clearly HH Pope Shenouda has misunderstood Fr. Matta. Clearly all of the things that HH refuted are heresies. If I was in HH situation and I thought that this was what was being taught, I would probably be distraught with the whole thing and would probably answer similarly.
I was having a lot of problems dealing with this situation as Theosis is included in the writings of the Church Fathers and I wanted to buy HH's book on the deification of man to see what exactly was being refuted. Thankfully you have cleared this up. What is being refuted is all heretical and so we certainly can't say HH has fallen into any heresy. Theosis in its true form is taught by HH as you can see from reading his books although not outright, but only showing the concept of it.
HH's thoughts are the same thoughts that went through my head when I first read about Theosis, and if it were not properly explained, I would say the same things HH did. If it is explained correctly to HH, I don't think that he would reject it in any way. [quote author=Stavro link=topic=11275.msg136529#msg136529 date=1303753442] a) I only use the Bible because it is the ultimate reference over the Fathers and cannot be refuted. Comment:Now, who is the Protestant here and who uses “Sola Scriptura”?) b) They refer to Athanasius and Cyril to prove the heresy of deification, as if they are the ultimate reference, but they neglect other fathers. Comment: This is not true by any means, for they quote many Fathers to show how Theosis is integral to the Christian thought, although indeed Cyril and Athanasius are enough and the neglect of both saints and attacking them from a Coptic Pope is a shame )
a) What is meant by this? If what HH thinks is being taught was actually taught by the Fathers I would go against them and so should everyone as Scripture speaks directly against this. It would be like the Fathers against the Bible; fortunately this is not the case. b) This isn't attacking any saint. There needs to be a consensus of the Church Fathers for something to be taken up as true doctrine. Here this is the case, and this is a relief when Theosis is taught the correct way.
You say "Terms like "Allah munazah" and "Allah ta3alah" are understood in Arabic to signify that a complete estrangement between the Divine and the human, with no possibility of unity between both. "
What Arabic reference did you use to arrive at such conclusion? Or is this your own interpretation?
What was the context in which HH Shenouda used the terms "Allah ta3alah" that is an Islamic per your claim?
You say "The disaster is that the very holy Pope used the term “El sherk bellah” to describe the teachings of the Cyril in attacking Father Matta El-Maskeen, which the same exact term the Muslims use to describe the Christian theology related to the Incarnation, worship of Christ, and the Eucharist."
What exactly are you referring to? What sermon or passage are you referring to?
Do really muslims use “El sherk bellah” to describe incarnation? What is your reference? or is that your interpretation?
Muslims believe in incarnation as we do that the 3eesa ibn maryam is born of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Surat AlNessa 4:171.
You say "I hope you understand that deification is not a heresy and is not a profane word. It is the central pillar of the theology of the Alexandrian Church. "
I never said it is. It is a heresy if it is taken in the context of elevating man to be like Christ in everything like Fr. Matta portrays it 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
You asked the following question:
"In which book, what page does Father Matta say such a corrupt and blasphemous teaching, namely that we become divine in essence?"
Here is the answer:
Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians (Arabic) page 271 (toward the bottom of the page).
I wrote: "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."
Then you posted a question: "Is the Pope a trained theologian? "
Fr. Matta, to my knowledge, never graduated from a seminary. Pope Shenouda did. So, the answer to your question is YES.
The orthodox church's view on salvation is centered around one goal: deification.
We have clearly become catholic in our soteriology.
I suggest we discuss what theosis is and what it isn't.
The Protestants do not have this nor the Catholics.
Christ called Himself the Son of Man so that we may be called the sons of God.
We are sons by adoption, not essence.
Agreed?
As far as I'm aware partaking of the divine nature is this:
We Put on Christ during baptism. We have therefore partaken in the divine nature. We have been sanctified by Christ ; we have shared in the divine nature for Christ is Holy. Christ raises us to His level , but not to His Essence, for we are co hiers with Christ.
The question is: Are we doing ANYTHING else other than this? I have NEVER heard anyone think or say that we become Divine in Nature.
This is not theosis.
When I said that we distance our selves from the Greeks (EO), I mean that for them, the EO, their entire spiritual life, their objective, and their raison d'etre IS THEOSIS.
Or am I wrong? It seems this way!
Here's a statement from a proponent of Fr. Matta:
"Concerning the Holy Communion, where we eat the Body and Blood of Christ, we take Christ - COMPLETE. As His Divinity did not depart from His Humanity, neither do we separate it in the Eucharist, nor do we divide this Unity by our teeth. "
True or False?
As far as I can see, we have been called to Holiness. Holiness is an attribute of the Divine Nature, and by being Holy, we have partaken of the Divine Nature.
Forgiveness is an attribute of the Divine Nature - when we forgive we have partaken of the Divine Nature.
True or False?
We partake in the attributes of the Divine Nature, not in the Essence.
What worries me more is the distance we have made with our EO brothers. What, in their opinion, are we missing or being heretical in??
I want to make a short post so that we don't get hysterical over all of this, there will be a right and a wrong view point but this is all sadly part of the earthly life of the church is that everyone is capable or erring and we must never take our Orthodox faith for granted. Sometimes fathers like even the great St Augustine mistakenly developed teachings such as predestination; it is therefore the duty of everyone small and great to be vigilant for Orthodoxy's sake.
The views of a person or persons don't necessarily constitute the views of the 'Church'; the views of the Church are attested to by Tradition and Patristic consensus. Of the two parties which we've mentioned Fr Matta has tried to draw from Patristic sources and this is clearly the right idea because the rightness and wrongness of our ideas is judged on the basis of how much of an accord there is between what we teach and what was taught by those before us, as a wonderful priest said to me once it is not us who have Orthodoxy it is Orthodoxy which has us.
Matters of faith and theology are absolutely paramount; we must preserve the truth to our dying breaths but nevertheless we all err whether we are St Peter, Moses, St Augustine and history attests that the righteous man is not one who is sinless, he is one who repents quickly when their error is revealed.
St Gregory the Theologian wrote that in his era a person couldn't go for a hair cut without having a discussion on the Arian controversy but for all the widespread conjecture of the masses the Church in its memory doesn't proclaim that popular opinion resolved the controversy. The way that the Orthodox Church remembers the resolution of this heresy is that certain souls fought to preserve apostolic continuance (which is why we have given the title of Apostolic to St Athanasius). As much as we may have opinions we must submit all them to God and ask Him to lead us into the Truth because it is His Truth to be revealed to those whom He Wills.
So for us here we can be passionate, concerned and we can express opinions but this is not what is important, what is important is that the voice of the Holy Spirit is heard and obeyed by the Church and history has shown that this happens first in the hearts of the select few who lead us less enlightened souls. As in all things we're first and foremost approaching a mystery of God something which no man no matter how educated is qualified to speak on, God gave the law to the lawgiver He and likewise He will give the truth to quiet, sanctified hearts that ascend to Him who will see the truth with their eyes and communicate it back to us.
For all of our arm-chair theology there are two distinct gifts that we do well to acknowledge; the gift of seeing the inexpressible mysteries of God through faith and the ability to express the inexpressible to unenlightened souls who do not have this illumined vision.
Do not be fearful or worry, the Head of the Church is not a human figure, it is Christ and as far as Heads go His leadership is not inadequate for the current task.
So as I said before and I will say again before we write a word or form images as we muse, we must pray that God makes our words and expression acceptable in His sight and take comfort because He is the true Shepherd of the Church even until today.
I think that what would be wonderful is to approach this matter in its most basic form, by thinking about and praying over the teachings of the great fathers and hero's of our faith.
If what you write is true Stavro, then we can say that clearly HH Pope Shenouda has misunderstood Fr. Matta.
Not every controversy should be blamed on misunderstanding. We find it an easy and diplomatic way out, but its consequences are terrible for it covers the false line of thought.
In this case, there are two clear contradicting lines of thoughts between two individuals that cannot intersect. One line of thought promotes grace and synergy between God and man as the basis of salvation, and the other insists on human morals alone as the foundation of the faith and denies any communion between God and man.
There is personal rivarly and mutual disrespect that dates from the mid 1950's, so the issue cannot be blamed on misunderstanding.
Both live within 100 km from each other, speak the same language, write and think in the same language, belong to the same generation, have dealt extensively with each other when Pope Shenouda was the disciple of Father Matta in the 1950's and ever since, although without much love.
If I was in HH situation and I thought that this was what was being taught, I would probably be distraught with the whole thing and would probably answer similarly.
And why "think" and "guess" in the first place? Read the books and consult faithful orthodox men who are well versed in Patristics and Patrology such as Abona Tadros Malaty and Anba Rofail and come to a conclusion. Compare the teachings with those of the Fathers.
What is being refuted is all heretical and so we certainly can't say HH has fallen into any heresy. Theosis in its true form is taught by HH as you can see from reading his books although not outright, but only showing the concept of it.
I am not sure where H.H. has enlightened us with his view on Theosis, except in his books, articles and sermons against Father Matta. The content of these articles is by no means what the Fathers taught. H.H. view is a moral one, that partaking in the divine nature means that we work with God, fulfill his commandements and ... that is it. As for the Eucharist, H.H. is clear that we only partake of the body without divinity. Judge for yourself.
If it is explained correctly to HH, I don't think that he would reject it in any way.
But H.H. rejected it.
) What is meant by this? If what HH thinks is being taught was actually taught by the Fathers I would go against them and so should everyone as Scripture speaks directly against this. It would be like the Fathers against the Bible; fortunately this is not the case.
Never take this approach of opposing the consensus of the Fathers. The Bible is not self-sufficient nor the ultimate authority, the Church's interpretation of the Bible is though (in good times, that is). Taking this approach means that the Fathers did not know the Faith nor the Bible, which is a disaster, or they knew it and misrepresented it, which is a catastrophy, taking into account that we received the faith from them.
The Fathers do not need H.H. Pope Shenouda to correct them. H.H. Pope Shenouda is not an authority above the Fathers. It is not one Father or a controversial figure, it is the consensus of the Fathers.
This isn't attacking any saint. There needs to be a consensus of the Church Fathers for something to be taken up as true doctrine. Here this is the case, and this is a relief when Theosis is taught the correct way.
There is a consensus, and H.H. does not follow this consensus. Theosis according to the Fathers is not what H.H. teaches.
Augustine is not a Father of the Church. He was entirely un-referenced by any Eastern Orthodox writers until the 14th century under the influence of Roman Catholics.
I am constantly surprised at how often he is mentioned, though not an Orthodox Father, while such spiritual giants as St Severus remain unknown to most Copts.
First of all, the fact that we are even having this conversation is a disaster and failure of the church leadership. Orthodoxy is about doing what you have always done , and not on sola scriptura: therefore, the sayings and teachings of the church fathers are paramount.
If we do not follow them, we have absolutely nothing. It seems, if what stavro is saying is correct, that at best we are an orthodox Protestant church. Ridiculous !!!
Ok. Before we make any judgements, I would like you to give and quote references stavro (if you please?)
What is theosis for fr matta and what is it for pope Shenouda?
I am fully aware that his holiness, along with several bishops have gone triple A on us: acquinas, anselm and Augustine w.r.t. our soteriology.
The fact that these non orthodox fathers are being used by his holiness to explain salvation means that our current understanding of it is corrupted. OUUUUUUFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we are an ORTHODOX church for goodness sake. We should not even be having this discussion.
Stavro, using references, please explain to us the differences between Fr. Matta and pope Shenouda concerning theosis.
I don't think it is best to compare and contrast two modern sources. This makes the issue one of competition. It would be better to begin and end with what the Fathers say about this topic.
There are many modern scholarly books which deal with this subject in English and are worth studying.
I agree with Fr. Peter. I misread LID's to refer to St Augustine.
St Augustine has at least 17 heretical teachings ....
I do respect St Sawiros and am very careful to honor him on his feasts in my church. The Copts love him so much that he is listed number one in the list of saints in Servants Absolution, every liturgy, eben before St. Mark and St. Athanasius.
Unfortunately Fr. Matta did not quote the fathers when he wrote his books on the Gospel. He relied mostly on Western theologians. This is why he fell into lot of mistakes. This is in contrast to Fr. Tadros Malaty who explained the Scriptures entirely from the Fathers.
Stavro keeps defending Fr. Matta's teachings and challenged to show Fr. Matta's error and I did. Yet, he keeps on defending him. I wish that we did not reach that point. However, the truth must be said for the benefit of the readers.
Simply stated, the thought of Fr. Matta is that we should rely entirely on God's work for salvation. This is against Orthodoxy
He, Fr. Matta, says that we have ALL what Christ has through salvation. Again against the Orthodox teaching.
He says that Christ took our flesh and crucified it and that we died with Jesus on the Cross ... against Orthosox teaching
The list goes on.
HH Pope Shenouda, as the protector of the Church's faith, must attack these teachings. There is no way around it.
Unfortunately, like the rest of the Patristic writings, we do not have Arabic translations of his writings. St Cyril, St Athanasius, or St Dioscorus for example, we have around 10% of what they wrote, yet they are ones of the greatest defenders of the Orthodox faith.
Surely most of the people posting here are able to read and write in English? There are huge amounts of our primary texts available in English and French.
Why is Augustine so popular among Copts if the writings of St Cyril have not been translated into Arabic?
St Augustine is popular due to his writings on repentance which was pushed fervently by Pope Shenouda. However, on an academic level, St Augustine is not received in the Coptic Church officially, he is not in the Congregation of saints, he is mentioned to have lot of errors, his title is "the blessed Augustine" rather than "St. Augustine".
If he is not considered a saint, and the Orthodox have not traditionally considered him so, then how are there churches, priests and laity all being named for him and icons being created of him?
Comments
What we are dealing with here are Coptic clergy and laity who produced their work in Arabic.
Thanks.
Sounds fine to me, just wanted to be clear about the inferences about whether or not our Eastern brothers actually shared in this heresy or not.
God bless,
LiD
[quote author=LifeInDeath link=topic=11275.msg136421#msg136421 date=1303359656]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136391#msg136391 date=1303296088]
What we are dealing with here are Coptic clergy and laity who produced their work in Arabic.
Thanks.
Sounds fine to me, just wanted to be clear about the inferences about whether or not our Eastern brothers actually shared in this heresy or not.
God bless,
LiD
So failing to understand the gist of what is being said and the implications mentioned I wish to ask what does 'partakers of the Divine Nature' mean, and what does 'He became man so that we could become God' refer too?
I believe the EO church looks at theosis in the light of the Transfiguration. People don't become God in essence but just as the God-man was transfigured so may we be.
However I don't wish to dig any deeper I'm not qualified. I know that Fr Matta was influenced by Fr Lazarus (Moore) to become a monk but I don't know if he was influenced doctrinally by him (Fr Lazarus was in the Russian Church).
Anyway this sounds interesting can we have more detail please.
Partaker of the Divine Nature takes us to Genesis 1 when God created man after His own image in purity, righteousness, saintly conduct, doing what is good, has the power of the weakness over the flesh...etc. Compare with Hebrews 3:1
He became man under the weakness of the flesh like us. He was tempted just like but was victorious. He blessed our nature through His incarnation and gave us the means to become sons of God.
The phrase "so that we could become God" means we could be God over our weaknesses, God over sin, God over Satan.
So failing to understand the gist of what is being said and the implications mentioned I wish to ask what does 'partakers of the Divine Nature' mean, and what does 'He became man so that we could become God' refer too?
I believe the EO church looks at theosis in the light of the Transfiguration. People don't become God in essence but just as the God-man was transfigured so may we be.
However I don't wish to dig any deeper I'm not qualified. I know that Fr Matta was influenced by Fr Lazarus (Moore) to become a monk but I don't know if he was influenced doctrinally by him (Fr Lazarus was in the Russian Church).
Metropolitan Bishoy explains 'paratakers of the Devine Nature in detail - http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/articles/partakers.doc
Can anyone clarify what Fr Matta's view was. The reason I ask is that I have read and re read a difficult collection of writings of his under the heading The Titiles of Christ. Much seems new to my ears. I don't care to read some sort of heresy.
Have a blessed Pascha
Be Echristos Aftonf. The Orthodox Church, and I refer here to who you falsely label Oriental Church, including the Coptic Orthodox Church, most definitely follows the Fathers which Fr. Matta quoted in their intended context, which is totally opposite to what our very holy Pope Shenouda teaches. In fact, what the very holy current Pope teaches is a total separation between God and man, and uses Islamic terms to prove his case. Terms like "Allah munazah" and "Allah ta3alah" are understood in Arabic to signify that a complete estrangement between the Divine and the human, with no possibility of unity between both. Muslims use these blasphemous terms to express their total rejection of God’s unity with man in Christ and all His salvific actions from incarnation, baptism, Cross, resurrection and ascension. The disaster is that the very holy Pope used the term “El sherk bellah” to describe the teachings of the Cyril in attacking Father Matta El-Maskeen, which the same exact term the Muslims use to describe the Christian theology related to the Incarnation, worship of Christ, and the Eucharist.
Knowing that Nestorianism and Arianism are the mother ideologies of Islam, the allegations of Nestorianism against the very holy Pope are not necessarily unfounded. As I showed by comparison between Nestorius teachings and the Pope's teachings, the very holy Pope quotes Nestorius to prove his case. Noticing that Nestorianism is also the mother of Protestantism, it makes perfect sense that the Nestorian line of thought has affected those who were raised in an era totally alien to the Fathers and embracing Sunday school teachings, among them the very holy Pope. In which book, what page does Father Matta say such a corrupt and blasphemous teaching, namely that we become divine in essence?
The book I referred to does not include any commentary or text to be taken out of context. These are long paragraphs from the Fathers, headed by Ignatius, Antony, Makarious, Athanasius, Cyril and some prominent saints and theologians who cannot be rejected for the favour of saving the honour of the very holy Pope. How do you anathemize them and by what power does the Synod or the Pope reject the teachings of the same saints they take the absolution from at the beginning of the liturgy?
The reason why the Pope cannot accept them because they reject his teachings and they very clearly teach Theosis, partaking in the divine nature, therefore embarrassing the very holy and honourable Pope, whose idea about deification denies fundamental teachings of the Fathers.
I hope you understand that deification is not a heresy and is not a profane word. It is the central pillar of the theology of the Alexandrian Church. Is it? The problem is that Father Matta does not use one quote, one so-and so Father in an isolated instance, but he uses the many prominent Fathers who wrote about deification on many occasions and it is central to their sacramental theology, Christology and Soteriology. He uses liturgical texts and the Fathers. What else should we use?
The very holy Pope offered the infallible alternative in his sermon against Dr. Bebawy and the monks of St. Macarious monastery that preceded the anathema against Dr. Bebawy. The very pious Pope made three remarkable statements:
a) I only use the Bible because it is the ultimate reference over the Fathers and cannot be refuted.
Comment:Now, who is the Protestant here and who uses “Sola Scriptura”?)
b) They refer to Athanasius and Cyril to prove the heresy of deification, as if they are the ultimate reference, but they neglect other fathers.
Comment: This is not true by any means, for they quote many Fathers to show how Theosis is integral to the Christian thought, although indeed Cyril and Athanasius are enough and the neglect of both saints and attacking them from a Coptic Pope is a shame )
c) The book “the Patristic basis of the writings of Father Matta El-Maskeen”, issued by St. Macarious monastery after the death of Matta El Maskeen, is based on the teachings of Calvin and they refer to him as the first reference in their reference list. They use Protestants to prove their case.
Comment:The reference to Calvin in the body of the text, in the very beginning of the book, is to show the resemblance between the heresies such as Protestantism, Islam and other heresies and between those who deny deification in the modern Coptic Church. The book is not based on Calvin’s writing. Did the Pope even care to look up the reference to Calvin as any 8th grader would do? Or does the Pope take advantage of the ignorance of the audience and their trust in his holy person?)
The very holy Pope in his regrettable writings against Father Matta, before and after his death, adopts the Islamic approach in attacking the man by making unfounded allegations against the man and then violently attacking these false allegations. Similar to what the muslims do when they allege that we worship three different gods, misrepresenting the Trinity, and then ridicule our faith based on their own misrepresentation and lack of understanding.
The holy Pope makes the following allegation about the writings of Father Matta. According to the Pope, the writings contain the following:
1) Man, by deification, become infinite
2) Man, by deification, will fill the entire Earth and Heaven
3) Man, by deification, becomes omniscient, just like God
4) Man, by deification, will perform wonders by his very own (human) power
5) Man, by deification, becomes infallible
6) Man, by deification, is not anymore a creation but a creator, and has no beginning or end
Can you show us in what book Abona Matta wrote these corrupt teachings? They are unfounded. It is personal between the two, unless you missed the past 60 years. Is the Pope a trained theologian?
I was having a lot of problems dealing with this situation as Theosis is included in the writings of the Church Fathers and I wanted to buy HH's book on the deification of man to see what exactly was being refuted. Thankfully you have cleared this up. What is being refuted is all heretical and so we certainly can't say HH has fallen into any heresy. Theosis in its true form is taught by HH as you can see from reading his books although not outright, but only showing the concept of it.
HH's thoughts are the same thoughts that went through my head when I first read about Theosis, and if it were not properly explained, I would say the same things HH did. If it is explained correctly to HH, I don't think that he would reject it in any way. [quote author=Stavro link=topic=11275.msg136529#msg136529 date=1303753442]
a) I only use the Bible because it is the ultimate reference over the Fathers and cannot be refuted.
Comment:Now, who is the Protestant here and who uses “Sola Scriptura”?)
b) They refer to Athanasius and Cyril to prove the heresy of deification, as if they are the ultimate reference, but they neglect other fathers.
Comment: This is not true by any means, for they quote many Fathers to show how Theosis is integral to the Christian thought, although indeed Cyril and Athanasius are enough and the neglect of both saints and attacking them from a Coptic Pope is a shame )
a) What is meant by this? If what HH thinks is being taught was actually taught by the Fathers I would go against them and so should everyone as Scripture speaks directly against this. It would be like the Fathers against the Bible; fortunately this is not the case.
b) This isn't attacking any saint. There needs to be a consensus of the Church Fathers for something to be taken up as true doctrine. Here this is the case, and this is a relief when Theosis is taught the correct way.
You say "Terms like "Allah munazah" and "Allah ta3alah" are understood in Arabic to signify that a complete estrangement between the Divine and the human, with no possibility of unity between both. "
What Arabic reference did you use to arrive at such conclusion? Or is this your own interpretation?
What was the context in which HH Shenouda used the terms "Allah ta3alah" that is an Islamic per your claim?
You say "The disaster is that the very holy Pope used the term “El sherk bellah” to describe the teachings of the Cyril in attacking Father Matta El-Maskeen, which the same exact term the Muslims use to describe the Christian theology related to the Incarnation, worship of Christ, and the Eucharist."
What exactly are you referring to? What sermon or passage are you referring to?
Do really muslims use “El sherk bellah” to describe incarnation? What is your reference? or is that your interpretation?
Muslims believe in incarnation as we do that the 3eesa ibn maryam is born of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Surat AlNessa 4:171.
You say "I hope you understand that deification is not a heresy and is not a profane word. It is the central pillar of the theology of the Alexandrian Church. "
I never said it is. It is a heresy if it is taken in the context of elevating man to be like Christ in everything like Fr. Matta portrays it in his books.
You commented on my comment: You asked the following question:
"In which book, what page does Father Matta say such a corrupt and blasphemous teaching, namely that we become divine in essence?"
Here is the answer:
Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians (Arabic) page 271 (toward the bottom of the page).
You say the following
"It is personal between the two, unless you missed the past 60 years."
in response to my comment: "Well, HH always says: "we are not against a particular person, but against an idea"
You are entitled to your own opinion and do not expect agreement.
I wrote: "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."
Then you posted a question:
"Is the Pope a trained theologian? "
Fr. Matta, to my knowledge, never graduated from a seminary. Pope Shenouda did. So, the answer to your question is YES.
We have clearly become catholic in our soteriology.
I suggest we discuss what theosis is and what it isn't.
The Protestants do not have this nor the Catholics.
Christ called Himself the Son of Man so that we may be called the sons of God.
We are sons by adoption, not essence.
Agreed?
As far as I'm aware partaking of the divine nature is this:
We Put on Christ during baptism. We have therefore partaken in the divine nature.
We have been sanctified by Christ ; we have shared in the divine nature for Christ is Holy.
Christ raises us to His level , but not to His Essence, for we are co hiers with Christ.
The question is: Are we doing ANYTHING else other than this? I have NEVER heard anyone think or say that we become Divine in Nature.
This is not theosis.
When I said that we distance our selves from the Greeks (EO), I mean that for them, the EO, their entire spiritual life, their objective, and their raison d'etre IS THEOSIS.
Or am I wrong? It seems this way!
Here's a statement from a proponent of Fr. Matta:
"Concerning the Holy Communion, where we eat the Body and Blood of Christ, we take Christ - COMPLETE. As His Divinity did not depart from His Humanity, neither do we separate it in the Eucharist, nor do we divide this Unity by our teeth. "
True or False?
As far as I can see, we have been called to Holiness. Holiness is an attribute of the Divine Nature, and by being Holy, we have partaken of the Divine Nature.
Forgiveness is an attribute of the Divine Nature - when we forgive we have partaken of the Divine Nature.
True or False?
We partake in the attributes of the Divine Nature, not in the Essence.
What worries me more is the distance we have made with our EO brothers. What, in their opinion, are we missing or being heretical in??
I want to make a short post so that we don't get hysterical over all of this, there will be a right and a wrong view point but this is all sadly part of the earthly life of the church is that everyone is capable or erring and we must never take our Orthodox faith for granted. Sometimes fathers like even the great St Augustine mistakenly developed teachings such as predestination; it is therefore the duty of everyone small and great to be vigilant for Orthodoxy's sake.
The views of a person or persons don't necessarily constitute the views of the 'Church'; the views of the Church are attested to by Tradition and Patristic consensus. Of the two parties which we've mentioned Fr Matta has tried to draw from Patristic sources and this is clearly the right idea because the rightness and wrongness of our ideas is judged on the basis of how much of an accord there is between what we teach and what was taught by those before us, as a wonderful priest said to me once it is not us who have Orthodoxy it is Orthodoxy which has us.
Matters of faith and theology are absolutely paramount; we must preserve the truth to our dying breaths but nevertheless we all err whether we are St Peter, Moses, St Augustine and history attests that the righteous man is not one who is sinless, he is one who repents quickly when their error is revealed.
St Gregory the Theologian wrote that in his era a person couldn't go for a hair cut without having a discussion on the Arian controversy but for all the widespread conjecture of the masses the Church in its memory doesn't proclaim that popular opinion resolved the controversy. The way that the Orthodox Church remembers the resolution of this heresy is that certain souls fought to preserve apostolic continuance (which is why we have given the title of Apostolic to St Athanasius). As much as we may have opinions we must submit all them to God and ask Him to lead us into the Truth because it is His Truth to be revealed to those whom He Wills.
So for us here we can be passionate, concerned and we can express opinions but this is not what is important, what is important is that the voice of the Holy Spirit is heard and obeyed by the Church and history has shown that this happens first in the hearts of the select few who lead us less enlightened souls. As in all things we're first and foremost approaching a mystery of God something which no man no matter how educated is qualified to speak on, God gave the law to the lawgiver He and likewise He will give the truth to quiet, sanctified hearts that ascend to Him who will see the truth with their eyes and communicate it back to us.
For all of our arm-chair theology there are two distinct gifts that we do well to acknowledge; the gift of seeing the inexpressible mysteries of God through faith and the ability to express the inexpressible to unenlightened souls who do not have this illumined vision.
Do not be fearful or worry, the Head of the Church is not a human figure, it is Christ and as far as Heads go His leadership is not inadequate for the current task.
So as I said before and I will say again before we write a word or form images as we muse, we must pray that God makes our words and expression acceptable in His sight and take comfort because He is the true Shepherd of the Church even until today.
I think that what would be wonderful is to approach this matter in its most basic form, by thinking about and praying over the teachings of the great fathers and hero's of our faith.
God bless,
LiD
You mentioned:
"Sometimes fathers like even the great St Augustine mistakenly developed teachings such as predestination;"
This is very interesting. Will you please share the reference(s) about this?
thank you for your balanced post.
Anba Bola, Not every controversy should be blamed on misunderstanding. We find it an easy and diplomatic way out, but its consequences are terrible for it covers the false line of thought.
In this case, there are two clear contradicting lines of thoughts between two individuals that cannot intersect. One line of thought promotes grace and synergy between God and man as the basis of salvation, and the other insists on human morals alone as the foundation of the faith and denies any communion between God and man.
There is personal rivarly and mutual disrespect that dates from the mid 1950's, so the issue cannot be blamed on misunderstanding.
Both live within 100 km from each other, speak the same language, write and think in the same language, belong to the same generation, have dealt extensively with each other when Pope Shenouda was the disciple of Father Matta in the 1950's and ever since, although without much love. And why "think" and "guess" in the first place? Read the books and consult faithful orthodox men who are well versed in Patristics and Patrology such as Abona Tadros Malaty and Anba Rofail and come to a conclusion. Compare the teachings with those of the Fathers. I am not sure where H.H. has enlightened us with his view on Theosis, except in his books, articles and sermons against Father Matta. The content of these articles is by no means what the Fathers taught. H.H. view is a moral one, that partaking in the divine nature means that we work with God, fulfill his commandements and ... that is it. As for the Eucharist, H.H. is clear that we only partake of the body without divinity. Judge for yourself. But H.H. rejected it. Never take this approach of opposing the consensus of the Fathers. The Bible is not self-sufficient nor the ultimate authority, the Church's interpretation of the Bible is though (in good times, that is). Taking this approach means that the Fathers did not know the Faith nor the Bible, which is a disaster, or they knew it and misrepresented it, which is a catastrophy, taking into account that we received the faith from them.
The Fathers do not need H.H. Pope Shenouda to correct them. H.H. Pope Shenouda is not an authority above the Fathers. It is not one Father or a controversial figure, it is the consensus of the Fathers.
There is a consensus, and H.H. does not follow this consensus. Theosis according to the Fathers is not what H.H. teaches.
I am constantly surprised at how often he is mentioned, though not an Orthodox Father, while such spiritual giants as St Severus remain unknown to most Copts.
Father Peter
If we do not follow them, we have absolutely nothing.
It seems, if what stavro is saying is correct, that at best we are an orthodox Protestant church. Ridiculous !!!
Ok. Before we make any judgements, I would like you to give and quote references stavro (if you please?)
What is theosis for fr matta and what is it for pope Shenouda?
I am fully aware that his holiness, along with several bishops have gone triple A on us: acquinas, anselm and Augustine w.r.t. our soteriology.
The fact that these non orthodox fathers are being used by his holiness to explain salvation means that our current understanding of it is corrupted. OUUUUUUFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we are an ORTHODOX church for goodness sake. We should not even be having this discussion.
Stavro, using references, please explain to us the differences between Fr. Matta and pope Shenouda concerning theosis.
There are many modern scholarly books which deal with this subject in English and are worth studying.
I understand your perspective, but I have read literature by Coptic bishops who are quoting anselm.
I want to get to the bottom of this issue.
If we went back to the fathers and quoted them, both pope Shenouda and Fr matta would say :"I agree with this"
Therefore let's see where they are different?
I want to get to the bottom of this, and I find that my learning and faith is stumbled by the needless protocol we are giving to our leadership.
If the pope is incorrect, it will not change my love for him.
If Fr matta is incorrect, the same. I don't mind.
St Augustine has at least 17 heretical teachings ....
I do respect St Sawiros and am very careful to honor him on his feasts in my church. The Copts love him so much that he is listed number one in the list of saints in Servants Absolution, every liturgy, eben before St. Mark and St. Athanasius.
Stavro keeps defending Fr. Matta's teachings and challenged to show Fr. Matta's error and I did. Yet, he keeps on defending him. I wish that we did not reach that point. However, the truth must be said for the benefit of the readers.
Simply stated, the thought of Fr. Matta is that we should rely entirely on God's work for salvation. This is against Orthodoxy
He, Fr. Matta, says that we have ALL what Christ has through salvation. Again against the Orthodox teaching.
He says that Christ took our flesh and crucified it and that we died with Jesus on the Cross ... against Orthosox teaching
The list goes on.
HH Pope Shenouda, as the protector of the Church's faith, must attack these teachings. There is no way around it.
Thaanks.
Why is Augustine so popular among Copts if the writings of St Cyril have not been translated into Arabic?
This trend is a very modern one.