Having been a Protestant, and seen what sort of theology Augustine's ideas supported I have a natural disinclination towards his writings. And not least because Augustinianism opposed the spirituality of the Desert which was spread in the West by John Cassian.
I have always felt, even before becoming Orthodox 17 years ago, that Augustine, like Luther, had an unhealthy view of repentance which then dominated and coloured all of his theological and spiritual ideas. Augustine was a Manichean, and I think this sense of duality remained with him even when he became a Christian.
The ideas of Calvinism come from Augustine. The idea that everything a man does is utterly repellent to God is developed from Augustine, it could not come from St Cyril and St Severus.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11275.msg136607#msg136607 date=1303920289] 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.
Sorry, I didn't give a good example. Because the consensus of the Fathers never contradicts scripture, this is purely hypothetical. You are correct though, apologize for writing this.
But H.H. rejected it.
How so? Please cite this. HH doesn't seem to be against the actual Theosis.
There is a consensus, and H.H. does not follow this consensus. Theosis according to the Fathers is not what H.H. teaches.
Theosis according to the Fathers is not what HH condemns
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11275.msg136608#msg136608 date=1303920713] 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.
Father Peter
From a traditional perspective this is absolutely true, he has not been referenced in the Coptic Church except in recent times and I believe he was canonised recently.
I used him as an example because his popularity in the contemporary Coptic Church especially among the clergy.
The city I live in here is a world centre for St Severus study, its such an irony that even here most people have no idea who he is, what he did and why our Church remembers him first in so many of our commemoration in our liturgy.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=11275.msg136613#msg136613 date=1303923723] 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.
As Stavro mentioned, this matter was dealt with quietly so its hard to be objective about whether or not the perspectives of the fathers have been considered and to what degree. What we do see publicly is that they're not being mentioned frequently except in very limited and 'convenient' circumstances.
What I will say however is that Pope Theophilus is a good example of a Patriarch of blessed memory who made mistakes in his lifetime like deposing St John Chrysostom but we still remember him as a saint of our Church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136690#msg136690 date=1303953100] Canonized where? In the Coptic Church? No, I am afraid this is not true.
He has at least 17 points that are heretical to the Orthodox faith.
I was discussing this with someone on Coptic Hymns and they mentioned that he was canonised by the Synod some time last year, they may not see these 17 points you've mentioned as being an issue. I attended a course by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy and he spoke about him as a saint and quoted one of his error in his writing on the trinity but said that the Church forgave him and considers him a saint because at the start he wrote something like 'if I err in anything may God forgive me'.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136691#msg136691 date=1303953211] Who said that St Tawfilos's decision was a mistake? Not according to the Coptic Church.
I'm going to quote verbatim from Fr Tadros's book on The Coptic Church as a Church of Eurdition and Theology on the matters of the Origenist dispute with the monks and the matter of St John Chyrsostom which I take to be the Church perspective. Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? I have never heard anyone from the Church defend him before, both Fr Tadros and His Grace Bishop Youssef say that our tradition defends him because of the repentance of St Theophilus on his deathbed to St Cyril who added St John Chyrsostom to the commemoration.
St Tawfilos excommunicated St Chrysostom because he went against the canons of the Church by accepting excommunicated monks. The history tells us that both St Tawfilos and St Cyril did not forgive St John.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136701#msg136701 date=1303955102] St Tawfilos excommunicated St Chrysostom because he went against the canons of the Church by accepting excommunicated monks. The history tells us that both St Tawfilos and St Cyril did not forgive St John.
I have never heard or read anything from a person in the Church which says this, do you have a reference text I can read?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136700#msg136700 date=1303954985] It would be easier for the Church to forgive Origen than to forgive Augustine.
I would like to see the synod's text absolving Augustine.
I think the way the Church would respond to this would be by saying that there is nothing to absolve, I'm not sure that 'officially' they would recognise the 17 errors which you have mentioned, as an example I believe that the contemporary Coptic Church defends St Augustine's perspective on original sin. As far as these things go it is quite hard to tell (as with the current topic of discussion). Synodical decisions aren't well documented or publicised.
"Synodical decisions aren't well documented or publicised"
It should, otherwise things like the canonization of Augustine does call for confusion. For what is taught is something and what may be rumors from the synod would be something different.
The 17 errors are not trivial they are of utmost importance to the Orthodox faith (one of which is the filioque). So forgiving him would create confusion. Should we accept his faith? What about the EO who still do not recognize him nor his teachings?
Does accepting Augustine mean that we accept the filioque, celibacy is better than marriage, predestination, grace over works, ....
St Cyril of Alexandria added St John Chrysostom to the diptychs.
This shows to me that he considered that his predecessor had gone too far, as seems the case from any reading of history. We do not, it seems to me, always and in every case, need to defend everyone who had anything to do with Alexandria. There is only ONE Church, and both St Cyril, St Theophilus and St John Chrysostom are in it.
I do not agree that St Tawfilos went too far. How did he?
The reason I press this issue is that modern historians from the Coptic Church picture St Tawfilos as if he did something wrong. They picture him as if he singlehandedly excommunicated Chrysostom when in fact he did not. He held a council and there was a trial and Chrysostom was condemned.
And you know that the council was filled with his own supporters, and that St John Chrysostom was not condemned for any teaching but for not appearing at the council knowing that it was stacked against him.
This does not mean that St Theophilus was wrong, that is a separate issue. But it is not reasonable to suggest that a wholly neutral council gathered to consider the case. St Theophilus was sent to Constantinople to answer for his own behaviour, and he unexpectedly took 36 of his bishops with him so that he dominated by local council at Constantinople and was able to make St John Chrysostom the defendant.
St Dioscorus also refused to appear before a council that was stacked against him.
It is the case that St Cyril did rehabilitate the memory of St John Chrysostom to some extent, commending him against the example of Nestorius, and quoting from him in the Christological controversies of the 430s. Certainly St Severus quotes from St John Chrysostom.
It is also the case that St Cyril accepted the restoration of St John Chrysostom into the diptychs of Constantinople and Rome, as the price of continuing communion. Indeed it was even possible for St Cyril to accept the presence of arch-heretics such as Theodore of Mopsuestia in the diptychs of some Churches because he was aware that an absolute legality of approach did not always serve the Church well.
I have no doubt that St Cyril always thought that St Theophilus acted properly, but even someone wishing to see St Theophilus and St John Chrysostom in the best light, and able to criticise some of the actions of both as unwise, might still wish to see St Theophilus as acting in a Church political manner. This is not damaging to faith. The history of our Orthodox Church during the 6th/7th century is unfortunately evidence of pointless and harmful political divisions which hindered the life of the Church but which were slowly resolved.
I refute the idea that St Tawfilos was mistaken by condemning him. He did accept the Tall brothers who were excommunicated by Tawfilos and accepting them in Constantinople was not appropriate. St. Tawfilos did send an explanation why he excommunicated them, yet St. John accepted them.
All I am against is portraying St Tawfilos as being ruthless, arrogant, using the army to achieve his goal as portrayed by the Greeks and unfortunately modern Copt historians.
I certainly don't think we should easily accept any view of St Theophilus. It is necessary for anyone wishing to form a view to read many materials describing the entire controversy.
I tend to the view that many controversies were caused by hasty responses, unwise actions, and by the difficulty of communication.
I don't usually consider any figures to be as appalling as their opponents paint them. St Cyril is accused of the same character traits as St Theophilus, and so is St Dioscorus. I don't accept such portraits un-critically in any case. St Dioscorus, for instance, from all of the writings I have read of his, and from the accounts of those who knew him, was nothing like the man he is described by the Roman Catholics and Byzantines. Indeed I love him very much, together with St Timothy, St Severus and all our Fathers.
I guess that St Severus was swept up in the general condemnation of anyone who maintained the traditional terminology of 'one incarnate nature'. This was often taken by the Chalcedonians to mean that the humanity of Christ was denied, though even a passing knowledge of St Severus' writings would show that this is far off the mark.
Indeed all of his writings in Greek had been destroyed after 518 AD and therefore Maximus would have had little knowledge of what St Severus actually taught, other than in the criticisms which other people had written previously.
We have a vast amount of his writings available to us, but they have been transmitted in Syriac, and his sermons, for instance, were being translated into Syriac even while he was alive.
St Severus certainly does not deny the full humanity of Christ, and I have written quite a bit about St Severus to illustrate this.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11275.msg136759#msg136759 date=1303985211] St Cyril of Alexandria added St John Chrysostom to the diptychs.
This shows to me that he considered that his predecessor had gone too far, as seems the case from any reading of history. We do not, it seems to me, always and in every case, need to defend everyone who had anything to do with Alexandria. There is only ONE Church, and both St Cyril, St Theophilus and St John Chrysostom are in it.
Father Peter
FWIW, the Coptic Tradition is that St Theophilius repented on his deathbed and that St Cyril did so with respect for the repentance of his uncle.
There is no such tradition . If it is mentioned in some modern Coptic books it is copied from Byzantine one. St Cyril followed St Tawfilos' way and did not add St John at least till the year 417 (some say 444). St Tawfilos was not in error to repent.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg136837#msg136837 date=1304039618] There is no such tradition . If it is mentioned in some modern Coptic books it is copied from Byzantine one. St Cyril followed St Tawfilos' way and did not add St John at least till the year 417 (some say 444). St Tawfilos was not in error to repent.
Is there a particular book that can be read as a good exposition of the Coptic perspective?
Neither, do your research ... Here are some points that will help you
Read about the canons of Nicea and the jurisdiction of each Archbishop Read about the political ramifications of moving the capital from Rome to Constantinople Read about Origenism and why it was rejected by the Church Read about Pope Demetrius condemnation of Origen Read about Origenism during the time of St Tawfilos (Jerome, Epihanius, St Makarius the Great) Read about the Correspondence between St Tawfilos and St Epiphanius Read about the Tall brothers and why St Tawfilos excommunicated them Read about the synod of Oak and why was it really held (Was it really for the trial of Chrysostom? Do the research and you will find out) Read about St Cyril and Origenism
When you do research, you would not rely on the seminary, or a verbal input as you put it. You must read about the whole topic from its roots and see how things developed.
In my research I have found different stories or different perspectives on St Tawfilos simply because of the attitude toward Alexandria. Keep in mind that the See of Alexandria dominated the first three Councils .. this is not a brag but simply the facts. Thus, there are political reasons for the Byzantines to paint St Tawfilos in a bad way especially if he ended up excommunicating their pope.
Now your question regarding Coptic books showing Coptic perspective .. unfortunately I have found few but do not go deep into the whole issue. Thus, the guidance above.
In many cases we the Copts take what is written about us from other Churches and just regurgitate it without any research and believe that the other side is true. This is evident in the case of St. Tawfilos and the tall brothers, St. Dioscorus at Chalcedon, when did Jesus hold the Passover, and others.
My advice to all on this forum do not rely on one source to reach the facts because different authors tend to write according to their own view of things.
Even different translations of the same thing differ depending on the translator viewpoint. This is very obvious in the different translations of the Bible.
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.
I do not think you showed us where Fr. Matta erred and where he stated that deification leads to "being divine in essence". Your reference to Fr. Matta's exposition on St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians, page 271, does not prove anything. Arabic is my mother tongue, I consulted the book and there is no reference whatsoever to any "divine essence of believers".
In any case, my main concern is not to defend Fr. Matta nor to attack the very holy Pope. Fr. Matta has done mistakes and taught some wrong concepts but his teachings on deification is not one of them.
My concern is to expose the Nestorian approach to the faith that has infiltrated our church since 1971. This approach preaches Christianity as a moral and ascetic code of conduct, void of ANY change in human nature from corruption to incorruption by divine grace. The catastrophe is that such corrupt teachings has been taught for so long and as the truth, leading to lost generations of Copts who have been fed this very elusive heretical teaching.
If you are reading what I referred to, then you will agree that Fr. Matta does say that we have everything that Christ has. This is saying we became like Him which means that we have the same essence as Him which means that we are divine which means BLASPHEMY.
If you cannot process this, then I am afraid I have nothing further to discuss with you for you either cannot comprehend intellectually what I am saying or you purposely shutting your eyes from the truth.
It will not benefit any here to discuss things that are solely written in Arabic.
I also do not like the fact that you are translating materials on other sites run by either Bebawy, or his supporters, word for word and posting it here as propaganda.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ARABIC, PLEASE LISTEN TO HH POPE SHENOUDA'S SERMONS ON THE EXPLANATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, THE WORD "KOL", THEOSIS (2 LECTURES) On:
www.copticpope.org.
HH cite the pages where Fr. Matta has errored from his books. If you need the actual books I can mail them to you.
I do not have Arabic so I cannot comment on the page in the book by Father Matta.
But to say that we have everything that Christ has does not seem to me to be heretical at all and definitely does not require us to say that we become Divine in essence. The name of Christ belongs to the incarnate Word and not the Word in His Divinity. Therefore when someone is speaking about gaining those things which belong to Christ it would be unjust (without clear evidence) to assume that he is speaking of those things which belong to the Word in His Divinity. I would certainly not assume that anyone meant that unless they made it clear that they did.
Indeed the idea that we recieve those things which belong to Christ is common among the traditional Protestant background I grew up in and there was absolutely and definitely no sense at all in which such a saying might be taken as referring to those things belonging to the Divine nature of the Word.
What we have in Christ is sonship, immortality, incorruptibility, and the indwelling Spirit. We receive all of these in union with Christ. We receive them as gifts of grace, and not as anything to which we have a claim. But we receive all of these as they belong to the humanity of Christ, for Christ means 'the Word incarnate and made man' and not the Word in His Divinity.
Do you have clear evidence that anyone who says that we have everything which belongs to Christ means those things which belong to His Divine nature? It would seem difficult to imagine that you could have. The humanity of Christ is not omnipresent for instance, nor is the humanity of Christ uncreated spirit in nature. It is the same substance as belongs to each of us.
If we do not recieve all that belongs to Christ, which means to the humanity of the Word incarnate, then what is lacking to us in eternity according to the will of God for our salvation? I do not agree at all that saying we have everything which Christ has is the same as saying we become divine in essence. I would consider it necessary to have very clear evidence that such an odd view were proposed. Indeed it is almost impossible to believe such a view since it is incompatible with the Christian faith and would require that each one of us became Divine and an eternal and consubstantial member of the Holy Trinity, which would then mean that having existed before all time as Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity there could have been no Fall, no Creation, and no need of Salvation.
I agree with Stavro that there is a need to discuss some of those presentational issues which mean that the Coptic Church is considered by some/many Eastern Orthodox to have adopted various heresies. Since this cannot be because His Holiness has adopted any such false views it must be because the translations of his works have not allowed his Orthodox teaching to be properly described. There are many who consider that we teach Nestorianism for instance. It is not enough to say 'rubbish'. If this is how our teachings are understood then we need to do everything necessary to make sure that the teachings of our bishops, and our ancient Tradition are not misunderstood. There are many Eastern Orthodox who think that His Holiness is proposing simply a moral and ethical code of conduct in place of the traditional understanding of union with God. It is necessary that we make clear that His Holiness has not at all abandoned any of the Traditional Orthodox teachings, and has been misunderstood.
Since most of us here only know English, and most of those becoming confused about our beliefs who belong to other communities only speak English it seems necessary to me that the issues be discussed in English so that it can become clear what we actually believe and teach.
I am not very concerned with the controversy between Father Matta and His Holiness. I am much more concerned about it being clear what we believe and teach. It does not seem to me that it is edifying to take sides in that personal controversy, but it is necessary that we ourselves are able to explain and understand what we believe.
Since the majority here do not know Arabic I am not going to discuss Fr. Peter's previous comment in light of HH teachings. However, I do not want misconception about the disagreement between HH and Fr. Matta that it is personal as his supporters want to paint it. This is nonsense.
I agree that we need to discuss what is our belief instead of going back and forth between HH and Fr. Matta which I did not like from the start.
I do not agree that someone come in here and attach HH and describe him as a Nestorian.
This shakes the belief of the Copts, in the diaspora, in their own Church and in there own Pope. Since the discussion here is only in English let the reference be in English and not just translation for as I said before translations are "tweaked" to fit the translator's own concept and usually is not objective especially in matters of debate.
Again, it is not right at all to describe HH as a Nestorian especially when the material discussed cannot be accessed by the majority of the readers.
if you read 'the nature of Christ' by our most beloved patriarch shenouda 3rd (available in english), you will see he is the least nestorian person there is. :)
Comments
Having been a Protestant, and seen what sort of theology Augustine's ideas supported I have a natural disinclination towards his writings. And not least because Augustinianism opposed the spirituality of the Desert which was spread in the West by John Cassian.
I have always felt, even before becoming Orthodox 17 years ago, that Augustine, like Luther, had an unhealthy view of repentance which then dominated and coloured all of his theological and spiritual ideas. Augustine was a Manichean, and I think this sense of duality remained with him even when he became a Christian.
The ideas of Calvinism come from Augustine. The idea that everything a man does is utterly repellent to God is developed from Augustine, it could not come from St Cyril and St Severus.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11275.msg136607#msg136607 date=1303920289]
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.
Sorry, I didn't give a good example. Because the consensus of the Fathers never contradicts scripture, this is purely hypothetical. You are correct though, apologize for writing this. How so? Please cite this. HH doesn't seem to be against the actual Theosis. Theosis according to the Fathers is not what HH condemns
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.
Father Peter
From a traditional perspective this is absolutely true, he has not been referenced in the Coptic Church except in recent times and I believe he was canonised recently.
I used him as an example because his popularity in the contemporary Coptic Church especially among the clergy.
The city I live in here is a world centre for St Severus study, its such an irony that even here most people have no idea who he is, what he did and why our Church remembers him first in so many of our commemoration in our liturgy.
God bless,
LiD
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.
As Stavro mentioned, this matter was dealt with quietly so its hard to be objective about whether or not the perspectives of the fathers have been considered and to what degree. What we do see publicly is that they're not being mentioned frequently except in very limited and 'convenient' circumstances.
What I will say however is that Pope Theophilus is a good example of a Patriarch of blessed memory who made mistakes in his lifetime like deposing St John Chrysostom but we still remember him as a saint of our Church.
God bless,
LiD
He has at least 17 points that are heretical to the Orthodox faith.
Canonized where? In the Coptic Church? No, I am afraid this is not true.
He has at least 17 points that are heretical to the Orthodox faith.
I was discussing this with someone on Coptic Hymns and they mentioned that he was canonised by the Synod some time last year, they may not see these 17 points you've mentioned as being an issue. I attended a course by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy and he spoke about him as a saint and quoted one of his error in his writing on the trinity but said that the Church forgave him and considers him a saint because at the start he wrote something like 'if I err in anything may God forgive me'.
God bless,
LiD
Who said that St Tawfilos's decision was a mistake? Not according to the Coptic Church.
I'm going to quote verbatim from Fr Tadros's book on The Coptic Church as a Church of Eurdition and Theology on the matters of the Origenist dispute with the monks and the matter of St John Chyrsostom which I take to be the Church perspective. Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? I have never heard anyone from the Church defend him before, both Fr Tadros and His Grace Bishop Youssef say that our tradition defends him because of the repentance of St Theophilus on his deathbed to St Cyril who added St John Chyrsostom to the commemoration.
God bless,
LiD
I would like to see the synod's text absolving Augustine.
St Tawfilos excommunicated St Chrysostom because he went against the canons of the Church by accepting excommunicated monks. The history tells us that both St Tawfilos and St Cyril did not forgive St John.
I have never heard or read anything from a person in the Church which says this, do you have a reference text I can read?
It would be easier for the Church to forgive Origen than to forgive Augustine.
I would like to see the synod's text absolving Augustine.
I think the way the Church would respond to this would be by saying that there is nothing to absolve, I'm not sure that 'officially' they would recognise the 17 errors which you have mentioned, as an example I believe that the contemporary Coptic Church defends St Augustine's perspective on original sin. As far as these things go it is quite hard to tell (as with the current topic of discussion). Synodical decisions aren't well documented or publicised.
God bless,
LiD
It should, otherwise things like the canonization of Augustine does call for confusion. For what is taught is something and what may be rumors from the synod would be something different.
The 17 errors are not trivial they are of utmost importance to the Orthodox faith (one of which is the filioque). So forgiving him would create confusion. Should we accept his faith? What about the EO who still do not recognize him nor his teachings?
Does accepting Augustine mean that we accept the filioque, celibacy is better than marriage, predestination, grace over works, ....
Thanks.
This shows to me that he considered that his predecessor had gone too far, as seems the case from any reading of history. We do not, it seems to me, always and in every case, need to defend everyone who had anything to do with Alexandria. There is only ONE Church, and both St Cyril, St Theophilus and St John Chrysostom are in it.
Father Peter
The reason I press this issue is that modern historians from the Coptic Church picture St Tawfilos as if he did something wrong. They picture him as if he singlehandedly excommunicated Chrysostom when in fact he did not. He held a council and there was a trial and Chrysostom was condemned.
This does not mean that St Theophilus was wrong, that is a separate issue. But it is not reasonable to suggest that a wholly neutral council gathered to consider the case. St Theophilus was sent to Constantinople to answer for his own behaviour, and he unexpectedly took 36 of his bishops with him so that he dominated by local council at Constantinople and was able to make St John Chrysostom the defendant.
St Dioscorus also refused to appear before a council that was stacked against him.
It is the case that St Cyril did rehabilitate the memory of St John Chrysostom to some extent, commending him against the example of Nestorius, and quoting from him in the Christological controversies of the 430s. Certainly St Severus quotes from St John Chrysostom.
It is also the case that St Cyril accepted the restoration of St John Chrysostom into the diptychs of Constantinople and Rome, as the price of continuing communion. Indeed it was even possible for St Cyril to accept the presence of arch-heretics such as Theodore of Mopsuestia in the diptychs of some Churches because he was aware that an absolute legality of approach did not always serve the Church well.
I have no doubt that St Cyril always thought that St Theophilus acted properly, but even someone wishing to see St Theophilus and St John Chrysostom in the best light, and able to criticise some of the actions of both as unwise, might still wish to see St Theophilus as acting in a Church political manner. This is not damaging to faith. The history of our Orthodox Church during the 6th/7th century is unfortunately evidence of pointless and harmful political divisions which hindered the life of the Church but which were slowly resolved.
Father Peter
I refute the idea that St Tawfilos was mistaken by condemning him. He did accept the Tall brothers who were excommunicated by Tawfilos and accepting them in Constantinople was not appropriate. St. Tawfilos did send an explanation why he excommunicated them, yet St. John accepted them.
All I am against is portraying St Tawfilos as being ruthless, arrogant, using the army to achieve his goal as portrayed by the Greeks and unfortunately modern Copt historians.
I tend to the view that many controversies were caused by hasty responses, unwise actions, and by the difficulty of communication.
I don't usually consider any figures to be as appalling as their opponents paint them. St Cyril is accused of the same character traits as St Theophilus, and so is St Dioscorus. I don't accept such portraits un-critically in any case. St Dioscorus, for instance, from all of the writings I have read of his, and from the accounts of those who knew him, was nothing like the man he is described by the Roman Catholics and Byzantines. Indeed I love him very much, together with St Timothy, St Severus and all our Fathers.
I'm just reading a book about the disputation between St Maximos the Confessor and one Pyrrhus.
Apparently Maximos had it in for St Severus. He called those with similar beliefs severians.
I know I'm wading in too deep but I would love to understand simply what it is about St Severus that Chalcedonians object to.
Help! Thanks
Indeed all of his writings in Greek had been destroyed after 518 AD and therefore Maximus would have had little knowledge of what St Severus actually taught, other than in the criticisms which other people had written previously.
We have a vast amount of his writings available to us, but they have been transmitted in Syriac, and his sermons, for instance, were being translated into Syriac even while he was alive.
St Severus certainly does not deny the full humanity of Christ, and I have written quite a bit about St Severus to illustrate this.
God bless your studies
Father Peter
St Cyril of Alexandria added St John Chrysostom to the diptychs.
This shows to me that he considered that his predecessor had gone too far, as seems the case from any reading of history. We do not, it seems to me, always and in every case, need to defend everyone who had anything to do with Alexandria. There is only ONE Church, and both St Cyril, St Theophilus and St John Chrysostom are in it.
Father Peter
FWIW, the Coptic Tradition is that St Theophilius repented on his deathbed and that St Cyril did so with respect for the repentance of his uncle.
There is no such tradition . If it is mentioned in some modern Coptic books it is copied from Byzantine one. St Cyril followed St Tawfilos' way and did not add St John at least till the year 417 (some say 444). St Tawfilos was not in error to repent.
Is there a particular book that can be read as a good exposition of the Coptic perspective?
Neither, do your research ... Here are some points that will help you
Read about the canons of Nicea and the jurisdiction of each Archbishop
Read about the political ramifications of moving the capital from Rome to Constantinople
Read about Origenism and why it was rejected by the Church
Read about Pope Demetrius condemnation of Origen
Read about Origenism during the time of St Tawfilos (Jerome, Epihanius, St Makarius the Great)
Read about the Correspondence between St Tawfilos and St Epiphanius
Read about the Tall brothers and why St Tawfilos excommunicated them
Read about the synod of Oak and why was it really held (Was it really for the trial of Chrysostom? Do the research and you will find out)
Read about St Cyril and Origenism
When you do research, you would not rely on the seminary, or a verbal input as you put it. You must read about the whole topic from its roots and see how things developed.
In my research I have found different stories or different perspectives on St Tawfilos simply because of the attitude toward Alexandria. Keep in mind that the See of Alexandria dominated the first three Councils .. this is not a brag but simply the facts. Thus, there are political reasons for the Byzantines to paint St Tawfilos in a bad way especially if he ended up excommunicating their pope.
Now your question regarding Coptic books showing Coptic perspective .. unfortunately I have found few but do not go deep into the whole issue. Thus, the guidance above.
In many cases we the Copts take what is written about us from other Churches and just regurgitate it without any research and believe that the other side is true. This is evident in the case of St. Tawfilos and the tall brothers, St. Dioscorus at Chalcedon, when did Jesus hold the Passover, and others.
My advice to all on this forum do not rely on one source to reach the facts because different authors tend to write according to their own view of things.
Even different translations of the same thing differ depending on the translator viewpoint. This is very obvious in the different translations of the Bible.
My advice again is BE WARE.
In any case, my main concern is not to defend Fr. Matta nor to attack the very holy Pope. Fr. Matta has done mistakes and taught some wrong concepts but his teachings on deification is not one of them.
My concern is to expose the Nestorian approach to the faith that has infiltrated our church since 1971. This approach preaches Christianity as a moral and ascetic code of conduct, void of ANY change in human nature from corruption to incorruption by divine grace. The catastrophe is that such corrupt teachings has been taught for so long and as the truth, leading to lost generations of Copts who have been fed this very elusive heretical teaching.
If you cannot process this, then I am afraid I have nothing further to discuss with you for you either cannot comprehend intellectually what I am saying or you purposely shutting your eyes from the truth.
It will not benefit any here to discuss things that are solely written in Arabic.
I also do not like the fact that you are translating materials on other sites run by either Bebawy, or his supporters, word for word and posting it here as propaganda.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ARABIC, PLEASE LISTEN TO HH POPE SHENOUDA'S SERMONS ON THE EXPLANATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, THE WORD "KOL", THEOSIS (2 LECTURES) On:
www.copticpope.org.
HH cite the pages where Fr. Matta has errored from his books. If you need the actual books I can mail them to you.
I think Fr. Peter needs to lock this thread.
But to say that we have everything that Christ has does not seem to me to be heretical at all and definitely does not require us to say that we become Divine in essence. The name of Christ belongs to the incarnate Word and not the Word in His Divinity. Therefore when someone is speaking about gaining those things which belong to Christ it would be unjust (without clear evidence) to assume that he is speaking of those things which belong to the Word in His Divinity. I would certainly not assume that anyone meant that unless they made it clear that they did.
Indeed the idea that we recieve those things which belong to Christ is common among the traditional Protestant background I grew up in and there was absolutely and definitely no sense at all in which such a saying might be taken as referring to those things belonging to the Divine nature of the Word.
What we have in Christ is sonship, immortality, incorruptibility, and the indwelling Spirit. We receive all of these in union with Christ. We receive them as gifts of grace, and not as anything to which we have a claim. But we receive all of these as they belong to the humanity of Christ, for Christ means 'the Word incarnate and made man' and not the Word in His Divinity.
Do you have clear evidence that anyone who says that we have everything which belongs to Christ means those things which belong to His Divine nature? It would seem difficult to imagine that you could have. The humanity of Christ is not omnipresent for instance, nor is the humanity of Christ uncreated spirit in nature. It is the same substance as belongs to each of us.
If we do not recieve all that belongs to Christ, which means to the humanity of the Word incarnate, then what is lacking to us in eternity according to the will of God for our salvation? I do not agree at all that saying we have everything which Christ has is the same as saying we become divine in essence. I would consider it necessary to have very clear evidence that such an odd view were proposed. Indeed it is almost impossible to believe such a view since it is incompatible with the Christian faith and would require that each one of us became Divine and an eternal and consubstantial member of the Holy Trinity, which would then mean that having existed before all time as Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity there could have been no Fall, no Creation, and no need of Salvation.
I agree with Stavro that there is a need to discuss some of those presentational issues which mean that the Coptic Church is considered by some/many Eastern Orthodox to have adopted various heresies. Since this cannot be because His Holiness has adopted any such false views it must be because the translations of his works have not allowed his Orthodox teaching to be properly described. There are many who consider that we teach Nestorianism for instance. It is not enough to say 'rubbish'. If this is how our teachings are understood then we need to do everything necessary to make sure that the teachings of our bishops, and our ancient Tradition are not misunderstood. There are many Eastern Orthodox who think that His Holiness is proposing simply a moral and ethical code of conduct in place of the traditional understanding of union with God. It is necessary that we make clear that His Holiness has not at all abandoned any of the Traditional Orthodox teachings, and has been misunderstood.
Since most of us here only know English, and most of those becoming confused about our beliefs who belong to other communities only speak English it seems necessary to me that the issues be discussed in English so that it can become clear what we actually believe and teach.
I am not very concerned with the controversy between Father Matta and His Holiness. I am much more concerned about it being clear what we believe and teach. It does not seem to me that it is edifying to take sides in that personal controversy, but it is necessary that we ourselves are able to explain and understand what we believe.
Father Peter
I agree that we need to discuss what is our belief instead of going back and forth between HH and Fr. Matta which I did not like from the start.
I do not agree that someone come in here and attach HH and describe him as a Nestorian.
This shakes the belief of the Copts, in the diaspora, in their own Church and in there own Pope. Since the discussion here is only in English let the reference be in English and not just translation for as I said before translations are "tweaked" to fit the translator's own concept and usually is not objective especially in matters of debate.
Again, it is not right at all to describe HH as a Nestorian especially when the material discussed cannot be accessed by the majority of the readers.
:)