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
father matta elmakeen
http://www.fathermatta.com/english/index.php
pray for me
pray for me
Comments
GBU
sandra
God Bless
Pope Shenouda has in fact addressed certain unOrthodox theological opinions of Fr. Matta in the keraza. It's a fact. In fact, if you check the latest edition of the karaza (which can be viewed here), you will find a section written concerning Fr. Matta. In that section, it makes a point regarding the fact that Pope Shenouda has written 8 booklets against Fr. Matta.
minagir,
Pope Shenouda has in fact addressed certain unOrthodox theological opinions of Fr. Matta in the keraza. It's a fact. In fact, if you check the latest edition of the karaza (which can be viewed here), you will find a section written concerning Fr. Matta. In that section, it makes a point regarding the fact that Pope Shenouda has written 8 booklets against Fr. Matta.
would you have the 8 booklets ur talking about. because i woudl really like to read them.
I would suggest you click on the link that Iqbal has pasted and you will be able to get your answer.
In His Name
No I don't. But they are mentioned in the Keraza edition (page 6) which I linked you to, and that is the reliable source that I am basing my information on. The fact that His Holiness has had issues with Fr. Matta and has written booklets against him is the only fact I am attempting to establish.
[quote author=joyisgod link=board=4;threadid=4074;start=0#msg57233 date=1151996000]
Minagir,
I would suggest you click on the link that Iqbal has pasted and you will be able to get your answer.
In His Name
i knwo for a fact that there is a problem and have read the part aabout abouna Mata in the arabic kerazza.
1) The idea that divinity and humanity united at Pentecost in like manner that the divinity of Christ united with His humanity at the Incarnation.
2) The idea that we consume the divinity of Christ when we partake of the Eucharist.
1) The idea that divinity and humanity united at Pentecost in like manner that the divinity of Christ united with His humanity at the Incarnation.
2) The idea that we consume the divinity of Christ when we partake of the Eucharist.
I can clearly see the fault made with #1, but could you explain what is wrong with #2. Surely, if Christ's humanity and divinity are inseperably united, when we receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, we are receiving His divinity in a sense, are we not? I would have thought to say otherwise would be Nestorianism.
I would be greatful if you could clarify this for me, thanks.
In the Eucharist, we partake of the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Christ alone. The humanity of Christ that we partake of is the incorruptible post-Resurrection humanity of Christ. It is the humanity that was sanctified by His divinity, which is why the priest in fact refers to it as the "life-giving body".
By the way, are you representing the EO position on the Eucharist when you depict it as the united humanity and divinity of Christ, or are you just expressing a personal argument?
Just my personal judgment. Your explanation makes sense, so I'm quite happy to accept it. I don't think I've ever heard an EO position as to whether one partakes in the humanity only or both. To be honest it was not something I'd ever really considered until you brought it up in relation to Matthew the Poor.
also if we say we take the humanity in the eucharist it is nestorious dogma
the humanity and divinity inseparatable
http://www.fathermatta.com/english/about_jesus.php
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arbible/message/31747
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arbible/message/31751
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arbible/message/31705
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arbible/message/31681
Would you like to accuse His Holiness of taking Fr. Matta out of context? If so, then please give us some evidence that that is what has been done.
Here is the quotation from Fr. Matta's book "The Pentecost" that was published in 1990, concerning the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles:
"We are in front of a burning bush, like the old times, in front of a one nature out of divinity and humanity, exactly like the unity between humanity and divinity in the person of Christ."
Now the onus is on you to get this book and prove that the context is significantly relevant to the meaning of this sentence. In other words, prove that the intended meaning of this sentence is not that which one plainly infers from reading it on its own. No, you are advocating a heresy now. I have already explained that the accusation of Nestorianism is ridiculous; care to answer my response? The only accusation that lawfully stands, is the accusation of utter blasphemy against those who believe that man can consume the divine essence of God. What absurdity! The Divine essence of God cannot be beheld by ANYONE let alone consumed.
It is one thing to try and defend Fr. Matta from heresy, and it's another to openly admit and advocate his heresies. Let it be known very clear that there is no question about the fact that it is pure heresy to say that we consume the divinity of Christ. This blasphemy is not supported by the Tradition of the Church. When Abouna proclaims the Eucharist, He proclaims it as the life-giving body and precious blood of Christ, not the life-giving body, precious blood, and divinity of Christ.
Ma salaama,
Matt..
the hypostatic union prevent us to say the humanity is so.. and divinity is so.. for this we are miaphysite not diophysite
this is the anathema of st. CYRIL:
2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or
hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.
12. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema.
if your rev. read carfully the confession and the prayer before ot we cannot say we take humanity or divinity
the divinity not a material to be take
we take the peice of iron which united with the fire and I think more than that is a mysterios thing for this reason the eucharist is sarament
also the flesh alone nothing, read JN 6 HE not speak about the flesh of humanity
about abouna matthew u can understand his mind if u read what he say from the beginning
also, no one infallable, I think his books need grad mind to be realize his words
also sometimes the expression by words may not give what we experiance and want to say specially in heavenly things
warmly reagards
Your whole post regarding the hypostatic union is irrelevant. We are not talking about the hypostatic union, we are talking about the Eucharist. We do not partake of the hypostasis of Christ in the Eucharist, hence how the divinity and humanity of Christ relate to His hypostasis is irrelevant. Again, please read the response of mine which I referred you to in my previous post. Here it is, pasted for you:
The obvious fault in such reasoning is that it fails to recognise the fact that the Nestorian heresy concerns how the humanity and divinity of Christ relate to His hypostasis/person. The inseparability of Christ's humanity and divinity are of relevance to their union in the person/hypostasis of Christ. In the Eucharist, we are not partaking of Christ's hypostasis/person, hence how His humanity and divinity relate with respect to His person does not dictate the nature of the Eucharist.
In the Eucharist, we partake of the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Christ alone. The humanity of Christ that we partake of is the incorruptible post-Resurrection humanity of Christ. It is the humanity that was sanctified by His divinity, which is why the priest in fact refers to it as the "life-giving body".
Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand the fact that the Lord Christ transforms the body and blood into His humanity. He does not separate His humanity from His divinity to then apportion it to the faithful. Believe me, I am not the one who needs to read carefully. It is you who needs to read carefully. A couple of posts ago, I made it clear that the flesh we partake of in the Eucharist is in fact the flesh that was sanctified by Christ's divinity i.e. the "life-giving flesh". As such, it is comparable to the glowing iron that has come out of the fire. However, we do not partake of Christ's humanity united with divinity i.e. in reference to your analogy, we do not take the iron and the fire together. That's besides the point. The point here is that he indeed got some vital points wrong, and you are defending one of these errors, and not dealing with the other.
Thanks in Advance
c
The only accusation that lawfully stands, is the accusation of utter blasphemy against those who believe that man can consume the divine essence of God. What absurdity! The Divine essence of God cannot be beheld by ANYONE let alone consumed.
Could I just clarify the fact that what I suggested above with regards to partaking of Christ's divinity was a reference, not to the divine essence, but to the divine energies. But, as I said before, your explanation of hypostatic union, etc. is not something I feel opposed to - I just wanted to clarify my previous statement.
I honestly was not trying to subtly accuse you personally of anything.
Nevertheless, when speaking of the inseparability of Christ's humanity and divinity as a safeguard against Nestorianism, one generally understands "divinity" to refer to the divine essence of the Word, and not the divine energies. As such, theomariam's argument in particular cannot stand on such a disclaimer, for such a disclaimer deems the essential argument itself senseless.