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
'The Heresy of Deifying the Human' - Pope Shenouda
Hi all,
I recently came across an article by our late, beloved father Pope Shenouda. It's from El-Keraza (23 Feb 2007), called 'The Heresy of Deifying the Human'. This particular part troubled me:
Criticising proponents of deification, HH says "They also say that we share the divine nature through the Eucharist Sacrament. Through which we eat and drink divinity!! And when we opposed them in this they accused us in our faith!"
He seems to be arguing that we do not share in the divine nature in the Eucharist. That we are not eating or drinking 'divinity' in the Eucharist. But doesn't the priest say 'His divinity parted not from His humanity, not for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye', and that we are partaking of both in the Eucharist?
There were some other troubling claims in the article as well, but I'm interested to know what people think about that in particular.
In XC
I recently came across an article by our late, beloved father Pope Shenouda. It's from El-Keraza (23 Feb 2007), called 'The Heresy of Deifying the Human'. This particular part troubled me:
Criticising proponents of deification, HH says "They also say that we share the divine nature through the Eucharist Sacrament. Through which we eat and drink divinity!! And when we opposed them in this they accused us in our faith!"
He seems to be arguing that we do not share in the divine nature in the Eucharist. That we are not eating or drinking 'divinity' in the Eucharist. But doesn't the priest say 'His divinity parted not from His humanity, not for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye', and that we are partaking of both in the Eucharist?
There were some other troubling claims in the article as well, but I'm interested to know what people think about that in particular.
In XC
Comments
The Divinity is not matter that it can be eaten nor is Gods divinity physical.
But yes! Gods Divinity is present in the Eucarist, just like the Divine Nature is in Christ without separation.
When Christ was slapped, pierced, spat on, etc. His Divine Nature did not suffer but His human nature suffered, even though His Divine Nature was present.
The same thing for example, If I were to poke you with a needle and you started to bleed, I did not poke your spirit but your flesh, even though your Spirit is present inside of you but it did not suffer.
The Son ie (The word of God) - does not have a form, He is Eternal, and He is not a Man, When He became Incarnated into the Flesh, He took on the full Humanity. As Saint Cyril of Alexandria says, we Do NOT separate the Son after the Birth...
Meaning That everything that Christ experienced was in both Natures without confusion or alteration. The Human Nature did its part (ie ate, drank, experienced all emotions/suffering) and the Divine Nature did its Part (Create eyes, walked on water, talked to Nature, Resurrected etc.)
And just like the Divine Nature does not feel pain, suffer etc. So also do we not Eat it in the sense of the Nature being Physical. Ie (we cannot chew on Divinity)
I hope that clarify it a little.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (The Great Catechism, Ch. 37)
Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Lecture XXII - On the Mysteries IV.)
"thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature."
St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies V.2)
"He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body."
"... how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.18)
It seems pretty clear patristically that we physically unite with the Incarnate Christ in the Eucharist, and that His divinity is ONE with His humanity, without mingling or confusion. His Body and His Spirit are united with His Divinity.
"This is the life-giving Body that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, took of our Lady, the Lady of us all, the Holy Theotokos St. Mary. He made IT one with His divinity ... (The Confession)
"[Christ's] soul parted from His body while His divinity in no way parted either from His soul or from His body." (The Syrian Fraction).
So Christ's Body is certainly believed to have been made one with His Divinity. And either way, aren't the spirit and the flesh united by the Incarnation? "Through the blood of His Cross, He established the reconciliation of the heavenly with the earthly and united the people with the peoples and the soul with the body." (The Syrian Fraction).
So to put the issue really clearly, we believe that Christ is Incarnate during the Eucharist as truly and as fully as He was when He walked around in Jersualem 2000 years ago. We also believe that He united His BODY with His Divinity, and that they never parted for a 'single moment, nor a twinkling of an eye'. So if we're not eating a UNITY of divinity and humanity, what are we eating?
PS: None of this is intended to be confrontational, and needless to say I have IMMENSE respect and love for Pope Shenouda and most of His works.
In XC
Somone pointed out to me that in their Kholagy (Liturgical book), it says "We eat your Divine Holy Body". For some reason, this is no longer in there.
I think it was an issue that divided Fr. Matta Al Maskeen with Pope Shenouda.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I don't believe we eat Divinity - neither probably did Fr. Matta, but what he meant was that we eat the "complete" body of Christ.
During the liturgy, the priest still says "THIS is the Body of Christ - that He took from Our Lady and Queen of us all, Saint Mary and United it with His Divinity, without separation and a twinkle of an eye".
So, the Eucharist, according to the above statement being said by the priest during the liturgy, is the true Body of Christ: in all its essence: What He took from Saint Mary, and what He United with His Divinity. We eat this.
There are certain people who argue that what Pope Shenouda said was incorrect, in that he reduces the Body of Christ only to what is Human, and we divide His nature in our mouth (metaphorically speaking).
I think the Pope tried to refute heresies in the Church that thought we eat Divinity. Divinity is not touchable, nor is it edible. So, ultimately, what happens, if I'm not mistaken, is that we only partake of the Holy Body of Christ. Not the Divine Holy Body.
Is that right?????
It must be - because if we could eat of the Divine nature, we wouldn't die. yet we die. How does the work of Holy Body of Christ work in us? that is the question?
This is a physical entity that has a spiritual effect. How is that? If its a physical entity we eat, then what is its effect in us? Surely this could be monitored???
Its a hard subject, and no doubt (and I hope) we can expect to hear from Fr. Peter who can explain this.
I've just stated what i've heard from others.
Despite all this, I know that such statements, for some reason, have alienated us from the Greeks a bit more.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=13432.msg157014#msg157014 date=1340453048]
During the liturgy, the priest still says "THIS is the Body of Christ - that He took from Our Lady and Queen of us all, Saint Mary and United it with His Divinity, without separation and a twinkle of an eye".
So, the Eucharist, according to the above statement being said by the priest during the liturgy, is the true Body of Christ: in all its essence: What He took from Saint Mary, and what He United with His Divinity. We eat this.
Yeah! That's a really good, clear way to put it. That much seems undeniable. I can understand why people argue that the Pope went too far with his wording, because he does certainly seem to be saying that what we're eating isn't divine. But maybe that's because being 'united' to divinity doesn't make something itself divine? I don't know. It's complicated, and I suspect that once we're mincing words so finely, it really doesn't matter. We all believe that we are eating the Body that Christ 'took of the Theotokos', and that it is a perfect unity of Humanity and Divinity.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=13432.msg157014#msg157014 date=1340453048]
It must be - because if we could eat of the Divine nature, we wouldn't die. yet we die. How does the work of Holy Body of Christ work in us? that is the question?
Well, that's the thing isn't it? Our bodies DON'T die. They're resurrected - we become immortal.
"And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption ..." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.2.3)
So our bodies receive immortality. We will die a temporary death, while the world is still fallen, but at the end, because we've communed physically with Christ, our bodies will be raised up. I'm not sure how there could be a physical resurrection if physical matter isn't united to Christ's Divinity. But again, the Confession prayer is pretty clear that the physical bread IS the 'life-giving Body' which Christ 'took of the Theotokos', and which He 'made one with His Divinity.' So the Eucharistic Bread has been 'made one with Christ's divinity.' That much seems absolutely essential to our understanding of the liturgy.
So is it such a massive jump to think that our physical resurrection is made possible by our physical communion with Christ's Body?
In XC
This issue is so divisive. I really think Fr. Peter should answer. The pope's comments did, at the time, agitate some people within the Church.
We do say though that we partake of "Christ's Holy Body" - Not the 'Divine Body".
We only consume what is consumable. what i fail to understand is:
The spiritual entities should be for the spiritual entities. How does the "physical" Eucharist have its effect on us spiritually??? what's the mechanism?
Please take the time to read it as it is fundamental to understand the proper Orthodox thought on the matter.
http://synaxisstudy.blogspot.com/2011/01/st-cyril-of-alexandria-on-holy.html?m=1
As it is important for us as Christians to seek answers through the divinely inspired fathers, I have attached, in full, an exegesis on the matter by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Rather than referring to secondary sources and, at times, improper interpretation, may we read the original words that these great Fathers set out.
Please take the time to read it as it is fundamental to understand the proper Orthodox thought on the matter.
http://synaxisstudy.blogspot.com/2011/01/st-cyril-of-alexandria-on-holy.html?m=1
Thanks ChildofOrthodoxy,
I'm dying to read this, except I think I need to get the new Retina Display MacBook Pro to actually be able to see the text on that page.
Can you kindly summarize it, or if you know the author, could you kindly tell him or her to just change the font and enlarge it a bit?
Thanks
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=13432.msg157023#msg157023 date=1340485889]
As it is important for us as Christians to seek answers through the divinely inspired fathers, I have attached, in full, an exegesis on the matter by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Rather than referring to secondary sources and, at times, improper interpretation, may we read the original words that these great Fathers set out.
Please take the time to read it as it is fundamental to understand the proper Orthodox thought on the matter.
http://synaxisstudy.blogspot.com/2011/01/st-cyril-of-alexandria-on-holy.html?m=1
Thanks ChildofOrthodoxy,
I'm dying to read this, except I think I need to get the new Retina Display MacBook Pro to actually be able to see the text on that page.
Can you kindly summarize it, or if you know the author, could you kindly tell him or her to just change the font and enlarge it a bit?
Thanks
I second that request :-)
But, I just copied and pasted it on Microsoft Word and enlarged the font from there.
I second that request :-)
But, I just copied and pasted it on Microsoft Word and enlarged the font from there.
You know Andrew, thinking out of the box isn't always good. It was my chance to get the new Mac with the retina display, and you ruined it.
Please erase your word document, and try and be a bit proactive.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=13432.msg157031#msg157031 date=1340518333]
I second that request :-)
But, I just copied and pasted it on Microsoft Word and enlarged the font from there.
You know Andrew, thinking out of the box isn't always good. It was my chance to get the new Mac with the retina display, and you ruined it.
Please erase your word document, and try and be a bit proactive.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=13432.msg157032#msg157032 date=1340519165]
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=13432.msg157031#msg157031 date=1340518333]
I second that request :-)
But, I just copied and pasted it on Microsoft Word and enlarged the font from there.
You know Andrew, thinking out of the box isn't always good. It was my chance to get the new Mac with the retina display, and you ruined it.
Please erase your word document, and try and be a bit proactive.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
You mean someone could be serious about this?
Sorry, i was being sarcastic. I would have to find some excuse to justify paying $2000 for a 15' laptop.
Anyway - my apologies Andrew, please could you kindly summarize for this article?
Thanks
Well, that's the thing isn't it? Our bodies DON'T die. They're resurrected - we become immortal.
Hi guys,
Epchoice,
from what i have read, our bodies do die. The body which we receive in the second coming is a glorified body and which differs from our natural physical body which we know have.
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." [51] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
The verse is explains that the body we receive in resurrection has many differences to our current body,
here is a commentary on this subject from St John Chrysostom and St Augustine i found.They can explain it better then i can.
Chrysostom: Is our present body not spiritual as well? Yes it is, but then it will be more so. For now the grace of the Holy Spirit often leaves people who commit great sins, and even if he remains, the life of the flesh depends on the soul, with the result that the Spirit plays no part. But after the resurrection this will no longer be so, because then the Spirit will dwell permanently in the flesh of the righteous and the victory will be his, even while the soul is also alive. Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians 41.5
Augustine: As the Spirit, when it serves the flesh, is not improperly said to be carnal, so the flesh, when it serves the spirit, will rightly be called spiritual-not because changed into spirit, as some suppose who misinterpret the text, “What is sown a natural body rises a spiritual body,” but because it will be so subject to the spirit that, with a marvelous pliancy of perfect obedience, it will accept the infallible law of its indissoluble immortality, putting aside every feeling of fatigue, every shadow of suffering, every sign of slowing down. This “spiritual body” will not only be better than any body on earth in perfect health but will surpass even that of Adam or Eve before their sin. City of God 13.20.35
So in essence i suppose you could say we do become immortal but not in our current state. However is it the divinity which we "consume" in the body of Christ that gives us this Resurrection in the glorified body?
Very interesting topic!
I would love to know Fr Peter's thought on this subject
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=13432.msg157033#msg157033 date=1340520594]
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=13432.msg157032#msg157032 date=1340519165]
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=13432.msg157031#msg157031 date=1340518333]
I second that request :-)
But, I just copied and pasted it on Microsoft Word and enlarged the font from there.
You know Andrew, thinking out of the box isn't always good. It was my chance to get the new Mac with the retina display, and you ruined it.
Please erase your word document, and try and be a bit proactive.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
You mean someone could be serious about this?
Sorry, i was being sarcastic. I would have to find some excuse to justify paying $2000 for a 15' laptop.
Anyway - my apologies Andrew, please could you kindly summarize for this article?
Thanks
No need to apologize. Tough for me to pick up sarcasm online!
Summarizing St. Cyril may be above my paygrade, lol.
If it's clear to me, I will try though.
Father Peter Farrington
I will make only a few brief comments here, but if God wills then I will extend them in a separate paper.
Among other places where St Cyril discusses the eucharist is his Sermon 142 on the Commentary of the Gospel of St Luke. It is necessary to consider this Sermon in some detail if we wish to adopt a properly Orthodox opinion on the matter of receiving Christ in the elements set before us at every Liturgy.
His sermon considers the passage from Luke 22 where our Lord celebrates the Last Supper with his disciples, and uses the words, ‘This is my body’, and ‘This is the cup of the new covenant’. He begins by reminding us that we are partakers of Christ, and that this is a great blessing. He says that in the first place we partake of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that he dwells in us and makes his abode in us. We may understand that this first dwelling is by means of the sacrament of baptism and chrismation, by which we are made new creations in Christ, and at which time we receive the Holy Spirit by the anointing with oil. We become part of the Body of Christ at our baptism, and Christ takes up his dwelling within us.
But, St Cyril says, there is another means by which we also become partakers of Christ, and this is through the reception of the elements of the eucharist which are offered on altars around the world. The events of the Last Supper were a pattern for us of how the Church should offer the elements with prayer, thanksgiving and praise so that we might also receive the ‘life-giving blessing’. What are we to believe happens in the eucharist? St Cyril says..
..believing that we receive life and blessing both spiritually and corporeally: for we receive in us the Word of the Father, Who for our sakes became man, and Who is Life, and the Giver of life.
We need to note here that in the eucharist we are receiving life and blessing in two manners, both spiritually and physically. But we must especially consider that in the eucharist we are receiving the Word Himself who has become flesh, because it is he who is life itself and the one who gives life. The eucharist is therefore a personal encounter with Christ, the Word of God incarnate, and not merely a reception of some blessing. It is Christ we meet in the eucharist.
St Cyril then reminds us that because of Satan, man has fallen under the power of death and is mortal. It was not right that the power of the devil should be more lasting than the will of God and so he has come to our aid. The Word shines forth from the Father as being life, just as the Father is life. By the Son, in the Holy Spirit, the Father gives life to all things that have existence. Nothing that is created has life of its own nature, but all things receive life from God who is alone life and the source of life.
We must ask how man, once he has fallen into his natural mortality can return to incorruption, that is, to a state of immortality, if he is not in himself the source of his own life? St Cyril says..
I answer, that this dying flesh must be made partaker of the life-giving power which comes from God. But the life-giving power of God the Father is the Only-begotten Word: and Him He sent to us as a Saviour and Deliverer.
We see here that it is not possible for man to save himself and restore himself to life, but he must once more participate in life itself which is from God. And this life-giving power is none other than the Word himself. This Word of God became flesh, while not ceasing to be what he always is. Where we could not be united with life, Life itself has united himself to our humanity. St Cyril says..
..having implanted Himself in us by an inseparable union, He might raise us above the power both of death and corruption.
So we see that the aim of the incarnation is, in one sense, to provide the means by which mortal men might be freed from death and corruption, from the power of mortality and sin. The Word had united himself to our humanity, ‘by an inseperable union’, for this purpose. This is so that just as death came by a man, so the resurrection would also come by means of a man.
The Word therefore, by having united to Himself that flesh which was subject to death, as being God and Life drove away from it corruption, and made it also to be the source of life: for such must the body of Him Who is the Life be.
Now St Cyril uses the analogy of iron and fire. The iron does nto cease to be what it is, but when heated it takes on the character also of fire. And so it is with the humanity of Christ. It does not cease to be what it is, but it becomes filled with life and is life-giving because it is the body of the Word of God who is himself life. And this is where St Cyril particularly discusses the eucharist, and those words of the Lord,
Verily, I say to you, he that believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life." And again, "I am the living bread, that came down from heaven; if a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I shall give is My flesh for the life of the world. Verily, I say to you, that if you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He that eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father; so He that eats Me shall also live because of Me.
In all of these verses we see that our Lord is referring to the bread and wine, his body and blood, being means of receiving him, and receiving life. We receive Christ, and we receive life, for Christ is Life. It is this person whom we receive, not something apart from him. This is why St Cyril continues..
When therefore we eat the holy flesh of Christ, the Saviour of us all, and drink His precious blood, we have life in us, being made as it were, one with Him, and abiding in Him, and possessing Him also in us.
It seems to me that the holy flesh and the precious blood must be understood as elements of the incarnation of our Lord. Apart from his incarnation the Word of God does not have flesh or blood. But we are not made one with the flesh and blood, but one with Christ, whose flesh and blood it is, and this becomes the means by which we are united with the one who is Life. By receiving Christ in his flesh and blood we are permitted to enter into a union with the whole Christ, with the Word of God incarnate. Now we do not enter into that same union which the Word has with his own flesh. He does not become incarnate in us, for he is already incarnate in his own humanity. But we have a relative participation in Christ, a union with the person of Christ through his body and blood.
It was fitting therefore for Him to be in us both divinely by the Holy Spirit, and also, so to speak, to be mingled with our bodies by His holy flesh and precious blood: which things also we possess as a life-giving eucharist, in the form of bread and wine. For lest we should be terrified by seeing (actual) flesh and blood placed upon the holy tables of our churches, God, humbling Himself to our infirmities, infuses into the things set before us the power of life, and transforms them into the efficacy of His flesh, that we may have them for a life-giving participation, and that the body of (Him Who is the) Life may be found in us as a life-producing seed.
Therefore we see that Christ is in us in both a divine and a physical manner. He is in us divinely by the presence of the Holy Spirit, given in baptism and renewed constantly in the life of the faithful Orthodox Christian. In the eucharist we ask that the Holy Spirit be sent down upon us, and on the gifts. In this we see that the divine infusion of the Holy Spirit unites us with Christ in a divine manner, and that he dwells in us spiritually by the same Holy Spirit. But we also ask that the Spirit descend on the gifts and make them the body and blood of Christ. But this is not bare flesh and blood, but it is the flesh and blood of the Word of God, who is life and life-giving. Therefore it gives life to those who receive it.
Do we need to understand this? St Cyril does not believe so, and says..
For the words of God are of course true, and in no manner whatsoever can they be false: for even though we understand not in what way God works acts such as these, yet He Himself knows the way of His works.
But what of the divine nature? The divine nature is beyond all being and describing. It is not a thing or a substance that can be consumed in any manner. Just as we understand and believe that it was in his humanity that our Lord suffered on the cross, but it was truly the Word of God who suffered. What are we trying to conserve? It must be the truth that we are participating in divine Life in the eucharist, and that we are entering into union with the Word of God himself. We are not receiving bare flesh and blood. But the flesh and blood of the Word of God who makes his own flesh and blood to be Life and Life-Giving.
St Cyril could never be considered as one who lacks a sense of the union of humanity and divinity in Christ, but his concern is to insist that in the eucharist we receive the flesh and blood of Christ, of the Word of God incarnate, which is Life and Life-giving. This is to say that the flesh and blood, the humanity of Christ, becomes the means and the vehicle for our participating in the divine Life, that Life which Adam and Eve had already participated in through a provisional gift.
I must conclude that His Holiness was correct to insist that we should not speak of consuming the divine nature in the eucharist. The divine nature cannot be consumed. The error in reading such a consideration would be to then insist that all that we receive is a bare humanity. This is not the case either. We do indeed receive the Word of God in the eucharist, the Second Person of the Trinity, who condescends to abide in the bread and wine which become his own flesh and blood by the action of the Holy Spirit. We receive a divine life, but this does not make us divine, since St Cyril says that though we receive Life, we do not receive it in such a way that we become Life ourselves. We always share in the Life of God by means of a relative participation. We receive this divine life by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and by the physical participation in the body and blood of our Lord. We do not receive this life, and this union with Christ by consuming in any sense the divine nature, which remains beyond our comprehension.
Can you just tell us, in perhaps a few words, without quoting the fathers:
Is the Eucharist we partake/eat of in the Holy Liturgy, Divine or not?
Many thanks.
this is my understanding, grossly oversimplifying and editing father peter's excellent post (which has already reduced many thousands of words to just a few).
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13432.msg157054#msg157054 date=1340573232]
St Cyril and the Eucharist
Father Peter Farrington
By receiving Christ in his flesh and blood we are permitted to enter into a union with the whole Christ, with the Word of God incarnate. Now we do not enter into that same union which the Word has with his own flesh. He does not become incarnate in us, for he is already incarnate in his own humanity. But we have a relative participation in Christ, a union with the person of Christ through his body and blood.
Therefore we see that Christ is in us in both a divine and a physical manner. He is in us divinely by the presence of the Holy Spirit, given in baptism and renewed constantly in the life of the faithful Orthodox Christian.
But what of the divine nature? The divine nature is beyond all being and describing. It is not a thing or a substance that can be consumed in any manner.
I must conclude that His Holiness was correct to insist that we should not speak of consuming the divine nature in the eucharist. The divine nature cannot be consumed.
We receive a divine life, but this does not make us divine, since St Cyril says that though we receive Life, we do not receive it in such a way that we become Life ourselves.
so i understand that we take part in the divine nature (not just in the Holy Communion but through a Godly life, as described by saint peter in his letters) but we do not become 'gods'.
we come into a union with God, which is like the union between a husband and wife.
just as it would be bizarre for the husband to wear the wedding dress because he is 'one' with his wife, it is also bizarre for us to think of ourselves as divine.
In a similar way we are invited to share in the divine life by union and participation but not by nature. And in any case the divine nature must not be considered a thing. It is life and being and we participate in a relative sense to the extent that our createdness can reflect the light of life.
We are like the moon. We may shine but it is with a reflected light and it is not a light that is natural to us as if we were the source of light. If we wander from the presence of the light then we no longer shine.
To be partakers in the divine nature is to share and participate humanly in the divine life as far as we are able. It is to be glorified and changed into glory while remaining what we are. This is not accomplished bg consuming divine nature - which is an altogether false concept at many levels - but by being united with the divine person of the Word in his own glorified body which we receive kn the Eucharist.
It is all about union with Christ, the Word of God incarnate. This is divine life and participation in the divine nature. I think that His Holiness is entirely correct in what he said even if I think the non-argument was not always best expressed and explained. It seems to me that most disputes arise from taking only one view into account. I think this is what happened in this case.
:)
and a much nicer image than my analogy!
;)
+ In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen. +
Dearest brothers and sisters in Christ,
As we find ourselves in the Fast of the Apostles, I feel that it is prudent that we examine the faith of the Apostles that has been carried through the centuries by the great Fathers of the Church, and will be carried unto the ages, as it is the faith of Truth. The topic at hand is by no means an unimportant one; indeed, it is befitting that a proper knowledge be had concerning the matter of what it is that we partake in the Holy Eucharist, as this addresses topics not only of Christology proper, but also cosmology, ontology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and the like. It is principally the question of "Who is Christ?" not only insofar as His Person is concerned, but, additionally, who we are in relation to Him, and what it is that He has bestowed on us by His Blessed Incarnation, Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension into the heavens.
Mention must be made, initially, of a certain term that has been used by the Fathers, namely, ousia. This term signifies "essence;" God is, in essence, Divine. Only God is Divine in His essence. God the Father is Divine in His essence. God the Son is Divine in His essence. God the Holy Spirit is Divine in His essence. There can be no other which is signified as Divine properly, as that would insinuate that this "other" is Divine, which would mean that this "other" was also God, properly, in essence. There is no disputation in this.
How, then, can we make amends with the words of St. Athanasius the Apostolic? How can it be that "God became man so that man might become a god"? How, indeed, can it be that the divinely inspired Psalmist proclaims "I said ye are 'gods', ye are all sons of the Most High" (Psalm 82:6)? How can the Holy Apostle, Peter, write "by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4)? And, in the most telling of examples, how is it that the Word of God, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ our Lord, says "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34).
We must, necessarily, examine these words in the proper Orthodox faith. The topic is a large once, and writing a clear explanation of it, insofar as has been revealed to man, would be an undertaking that would take several pages. As such, I will attempt to summarize as far as possible.
Man can never be God in essence. As we have asserted previously, if man could be God in essence, then he would properly become "God." This would mean that God can "change" as man was not God before, and therefore, God would not be God. Man is a creature, by essence, and God is divine, by essence. How, then, can we become "gods"? It is through the participation in the energies of God. Allow me to include an extract from Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos:
"It is a basic teaching of the Church that every essence has its energy. If the essence is uncreated, its energy is also uncreated; if the essence is created, its energy is also created. Likewise, as St. John of Damaskos says, the essence or nature is one thing, and the energy is another, the one acting is the one thing and the thing done, the result of the energy, is another. The energy is the glory of the essence, but the one acting is the person. This means that the Persons of the Holy Trinity have a common nature and energy. We human beings, as the Fathers teach, do not see or partake of God's nature, but we partake of His energy. So the Disciples on Tabor did not see God's nature, but they saw His energy in the human nature of the Word."
We, then, become glorified through the energy of God. In the Holy and Divine Liturgy, the priest proclaims "The Holies are for the Holy," but who is Holy other than God? Those who choose to live a life in Christ, a life of holiness, are endowed, by the grace of God, with glory. It is for this reason that saints are called saints, which is to say, those who are sanctified; in Greek, the term is Hagios or Agios, which is to say, Holy, those who participate in the Holiness of the Holy by grace. This is not by nature. This is by the work of the Holy Spirit who operates, and man, who co-operates. Man is not by nature Holy, but by grace, he may be made Holy.
St. Athanasius the Apostolic writes in his Discourses Against the Arians: "Christ was not man [first], and then became God. Rather, he was [first] God, and then he became man, and that to deify us. When he became man, he was called Son and God, but before he became man, God had called the ancient people sons. In fact, he made Moses a god to Pharaoh, and Scripture says of many, “God stands in the congregation of gods.” Since this is so, it is plain that he is called Son and God later than they are. How then are all things through him, and how is he before everything? Or, how is he “firstborn of the whole creation” if he has others before him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers do not partake of the Word?
This opinion is not true; it is a device of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as their Father? For there can be no adoption apart from the real Son, who says, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before him? And yet, he says to their brothers the Jews, “If he called them gods, to whom the Word of God came.” And if all who are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son himself is the Word, it is plain that they all exist through him, and he himself is before all. Or rather, he himself is the only true Son, and he alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for his virtue or being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence. For he is offspring of the Father’s essence, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable."
Indeed, it is not only St. Athanasius that writes on the topic, but also St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, etc. Thus, man becomes a god, not by nature (ousia, essence), but by grace, in the participation of the energies of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit, accepted by man not rationally but noetically, by means of purification, illumination and deification.
What, then, on the topic of the Eucharist? The Divine nature cannot be co-mingled with the human nature; the celebrator of the liturgy proclaims this in the great Confession prior to the distribution of the Mysteries: "I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint May. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration." How can the body, then, be life-giving? In the hypostatic union, the Divine nature and the human nature are in one Person, namely, Jesus Christ.
Metropolitan Hierotheos: "Whereas in Christ the divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature, in Adam and in everyone who is deified, his nature is united with God by grace and not hypostatically. Therefore hypostatic union of the divine and human natures happened only in Christ. In order to make this understood we must say that according to St. John of Damaskos there are three ways of uniting. The first is in essence, which occurs in the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The second way of uniting occurred in Christ through the incarnation and is the hypostatic one, because Christ is the only Godman. And the third way of union is by grace and occurs in deified persons, who are not united with God in essence, for this happens only in the Persons of the Holy Trinity, nor do they unite with God hypostatically, for the Godman is single, but they are united through the participation of grace. Therefore the saints are not, even by grace, called godmen, but gods by grace, deified."
It is in this hypostatic union of Christ that humanity gains the opportunity to be deified, as He took human nature with its corruptibility and consequence of death, and transformed it by death, trampling down death by death and bestowing life to those who were in the tombs. His flesh is life giving because it is united to the divinity hypostatically; I speak of two, but this uniting was at the first moment of His conception, and indeed, is the one incarnate nature of the Divine Logos (St. Cyril of Alexandria).
St. Cyril of Alexandria writes: "When the life-giving Word of God dwelt in human flesh, he changed it into that good thing which is distinctively his, namely, life; and by being wholly united to the flesh in a way beyond our comprehension, he gave it the life-giving power which he has by his very nature. Therefore, the body of Christ gives life to those who receive it. Its presence in mortal men expels death and drives away corruption because it contains within itself in his entirety the Word who totally abolishes corruption."
When we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, we do not eat His Divinity, just as His Divinity did not suffer on the Cross. To say such would be to insinuate that the divine nature died on the Cross, which is nonsense, as God is Life, and it is in the absence of Life that death occurs. To say that the divine nature died would be to say that God ceased to be God. We do, however, eat of the flesh that was hypostatically united to the Divinity. It is this life giving flesh that becomes our means of deification, our means of becoming gods, as mentioned by the Prophet David, the Apostle Peter, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, and by Christ Himself.
I urge us all, myself before all of you, to read the Fathers of the Church. Read "From Glory to Glory," a series of writings pieced together from the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Read St. Athanasius. Read St. Cyril of Alexandria. Read the Fathers of the Church and discover the fruits which they were granted through their asceticism, the teachings we have received by means of their purification, illumination, and deification. If we do not read, we will be shocked by many things that we hear and will consider them non-Orthodox, when in fact, they are, and we have only not heard of them because of our lackadaisical attitude to our faith.
May the Lord be with you all in this blessed Fast of the Apostles,
childoforthodoxy
Actually, Pope Shenuda is very correct that we DO NOT eat Divinity in the Eucharist.
The Human Nature did its part (ie ate, drank, experienced all emotions/suffering) and the Divine Nature did its Part (Create eyes, walked on water, talked to Nature, Resurrected etc.)
This sounds a bit nestorian. We rejected the Tomb of Leo because it spoke this way, ascribing different actions to two natures. If we follow our Miaphystie way of speaking we do not say that the humanity did this and the divinity did that, we say that the Incarnate Logos, drank expereinced all emotions/suffereing, created eyes, spit on the ground, walked on water, talked to nature and Resurrected).
St. Paul also speaks this way when he says that God purchased the Church with His Own Blood and they "crucified the Lord of Glory".
If His Holiness Pope Shenouda of Thrice Blessed Memory meant by his writings that we do not become Gods in Essence by partaking of the Eucharist, I agree. But if His Holiness meant that the Divinity of Christ is not present in His True Body and Blood, then I have to disagree.
In Keeping with our Miaphysite terminology, I think we do partake of the Incarnate Logos, who is true God and True Man.
"God became man so that man might become a god." ~St. Athanasius the Apostolic
When we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, we do not eat His Divinity, just as His Divinity did not suffer on the Cross. To say such would be to insinuate that the divine nature died on the Cross, which is nonsense, as God is Life, and it is in the absence of Life that death occurs. To say that the divine nature died would be to say that God ceased to be God. We do, however, eat of the flesh that was hypostatically united to the Divinity. It is this life giving flesh that becomes our means of deification, our means of becoming gods, as mentioned by the Prophet David, the Apostle Peter, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, and by Christ Himself.
We also can NOT imply that His Divinity Parts from His Humanity when He enters our mouths at communion. We can not imply that the Holy Spirit takes His True Body and His True blood, separate from His Divnity when we take communion. If it is the Person of the Incarnate Logos that we injest at communion, this Person is Still Divine and Human. This Blood and this Flesh is still hypostatically united to His Divinity. An implication that this is not so, would not be correct.
Judas was with Jesus, listened to the word, watched the miracles, and paticipated in the life of Christ, and still it was of no effect because he still betrayed this divine nature. He had an experiance of divinity but he still made his chose.
"For thus we say that He both suffered and rose again, not as though God the Word suffered in His own Nature either stripes or piercings of nails or the other wounds (for the Godhead is Impassible because It is also Incorporeal), but since that which had been made His own body suffered these things, He again is said to suffer for us, for the Impassible was in the suffering Body. In like manner do we conceive of His Death too. For the Word of God is by Nature Immortal and Incorruptible and Life and Life-giving: but since again His own Body by the grace of God (as Paul saith) tasted death for every man, Himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as though He had experienced death as far as pertains unto His own Nature (for it were distraction to say or think this) but because (as I said just now) His flesh tasted death. Thus too when His Flesh was raised, the Resurrection again is said to be His, not as though He fell into decay (not so!) but because His Body again was raised. Thus shall we confess One Christ and Lord"
St. Cyril's 12th Anathema:
"Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the
flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the
dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema"
It must be emphasized that when we speak of a divine nature and a human nature, we are speaking of essences (ousia). There are two ousia's within the one person of Jesus Christ. The one person is of one hypostasis. We are not speaking about physis here. Miaphysis does not preclude two ousias. Christ is fully God (Divine ousia) and fully man (Human ousia). Let's not confuse which does what.
If we confuse ousia with physis, we set ourselves up for misunderstanding one another. Ousia is one thing, physis a different thing. When people speak of a Divine Nature, it refers to the Divine Ousia (Essence). It does not refer to the "nature" in terms of physis.
One Person, with one Hypostasis, Miaphysis, with two Ousias, is Jesus Christ, the Logos incarnate.
childoforthodoxy
I believe this. However when I mention Two Ousiai in Christ, most Coptic priests I have spoken to say it is unacceptable to speak this way presumably because it still distinguishes the two- and not in thought alone.
One priest also told me that the Chalcedonians meant physis not ousiai when the controversy started.
They are, indeed, distinguished, and not in thought alone, but in point of fact. "He made it one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration." We proclaim that there is a distinct Divine ousia, a distinct Human ousia, in one hypostasis, Miaphysis.
childoforthodoxy
My dear metouro,
They are, indeed, distinguished, and not in thought alone, but in point of fact. "He made it one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration." We proclaim that there is a distinct Divine ousia, a distinct Human ousia, in one hypostasis, Miaphysis.
childoforthodoxy
I agree. Are we then ready to accept the Chalcedonian way of speaking and accept the formula that "Christ is in two ousiai" and proceed with full communion?
Also, how do we distinguish between St. Cyril's terms when he says that the two natures are distinguished in thought alone as opposed to the two ousiai or the two physis.?