Since when did our Patriarch become infallible? Since when did any man become infallible? Seriously?! Is it hard to believe that a patriarch, whoever they may be, can fall into heresy? It has happened before. I'm not saying one way or another that HH has fallen into heresy, or has a mistaken view on theosis. But based on what has been presented as Abouna Matta's views, there is nothing wrong with them as Fr. Peter pointed out. There seem to be extremists in both camps who seem to think they 'know' better about these issues. Who here can honestly say they know what was in Abouna Matta's mind or in HH's? Seriously folks, all these armchair theologians just make me laugh.
But based on what has been presented as Abouna Matta's views, there is nothing wrong with them as Fr. Peter pointed out.
What exactly are you referring to? Fr. Peter said he dies not know Arabic and does not know what is in Fr. Matta's books. So how could he make judgments or offer any views on what he has not read?
[quote=Father Peter]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.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg137099#msg137099 date=1304356440] 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.
No it is not because you have not included the other ideas I brought up. You chose what you like.
Here is my quote from April 27, 2011, 03:30:45 PM
Simply stated, the thought of Fr. Matta is that we should rely entirely on God's work for salvation. This is against Orthodoxy
He, Fr. Matta, says that we have ALL what Christ has through salvation. Again against the Orthodox teaching.
He says that Christ took our flesh and crucified it and that we died with Jesus on the Cross ... against Orthosox teaching
The list goes on
Now, I do not want to get in the arguments that were already presented since you seem you have not read the books or have listened to the sermons.
So, do not take sides in matters you have not studied. It is better to study matters you have access to materials you can understand - I am assuming you are not well versed in Arabic.
None of those statements are not-Orthodox in themselves. In each case it is necessary to ask what is meant.
If you have raised them as non-Orthodox teachings (and in themselves they are not non-Orthodox) then it seems only reasonable that you provide additional evidence, translating from Arabic if necessary, to show how these views were held in a non-Orthodox manner.
There is a sense in which we must rely entirely on Christ for our salvation.
There is a sense in which we have been crucified with Christ.
There is a sense in which we receive everything Christ has.
None of these are non-Orthodox in themselves. You need to explain why you think they are. In what way did Father Matta hold these views in a non-Orthodox manner?
I do not read Arabic, but I can respond to what you have written and disagree with it. If you said 'Nestorius has said in Greek that the Word was not born of the Virgin', I would not say, 'Oh, I have no opinion on that because I don't read Greek'. I would naturally respond to what you reported. This is what I have done in response to your comments about the teaching you describe as being of Father Matta.
You are mistaken if you think that there are not many Eastern Orthodox who consider that His Holiness is Nestorian, rejects Theosis, denies the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and is a Monothelite. Of course I do not believe that any of these accusations are true, but they are a result of bad translations of his works, or sometimes by a misrepresentation of his views. These things all need discussing and clarifying.
Often, it seems to me, a very narrow point is being made or resisted, and unfortunately in English it sometimes appears to people outside our Church that a wide and universal point is being made.
Having read a number of HH's works, I definitely agree with Fr. Peter that they require and deserve better translations than are currently available. Does anyone know if there is an effort being made to have them re-translated, or at least have any new translations looked over by native English speakers, preferably those with some background in Arabic? That would help reduce the number and magnitude of misunderstandings.
It seems to that we have to explore the issues one by one since people here are adamant on discussing things written they have no knowledge of.
Fr. Matta says that grace is all what we need to attain salvation with no effort at all on part of the believer. This is mentioned in his book about the epistle to the Galatians. As Oriental Orthodox, do we agree with this?
A little while ago I took one of His Holiness' English language books with a view to editing it into good English, but I had to abandon the project because in too many instances it was just not clear at all what the translation meant.
Now I am entirely sympathetic to His Holiness and so read everything with the desire to understand it in an Orthodox manner, but there are others who read some of these translations and are just left with a very wrong idea of what His Holiness means.
This is why, in the case of teachings reported as being of Father Matta, it is not enough just to post a single sentence as if that explained everything. Almost anything can be understood in many ways and requires context and substance to be provided.
Again imikhail, I think that it is YOU who must provide context.
You say that we do not believe that we have been crucified with Christ, yet even the Scriptures say that we have been. YOU raised this point, so what evidence can you provide to show that Father Matta uses this Scriptural teaching in an incorrect manner.
I think that many people here have some knowledge of doctrine, all that we need is to be given information about how Father Matta understood these things incorrectly. YOU have said he understood them incorrectly so please provide some lengthier quotes from his works to illustrate this.
When you say that Father Matta says we do not need to make any effort YOU need to provide some lengthy quotes from Father Matta so that we can see that he does say this, otherwise it is only a matter of you reporting your understanding of what Father Matta says.
Fair enough I will provide these quotes from his books with the page references.
I did not want this to be about judging Fr. Matta's works. Even Stavro admits that Fr. Matta made mistakes. However, I believe for the sake of the debate that is going on, I will take the time to give the references and HH comments on these references.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg137132#msg137132 date=1304367276] My question is VERY specific. Were you crucified on the cross with Christ?
I've already answered it. Our union with Christ is a mystical union.
There are correct ways to understand the Scripture that we are crucified with Christ. This is not the issue at first.
What we need to understand is how Father Matta described this union, not so that we can say anything about Father Matta, but so that we can understand why and how his view may or may not be non-Orthodox.
We should not turn away into a discussion of how WE understand this union until we have read and understand how Father Matta describes it.
So if you were crucified with Christ on the Cross, what use was His crucifixion? Did you die for your sins?
Why did the Scripture say (bold is mine):
"1 Who is this who comes from Edom, With dyed garments from Bozrah, This One who is glorious in His apparel, Traveling in the greatness of His strength?-- "I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save." 2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress? 3 "I have trodden the winepress alone, And from the peoples no one was with Me" Isaiah 63
I for one am not at all interested in playing a popularity contest between various figures. But if a particular view, especially one which is of Scriptural origin, is to be rejected then it is necessary to have some detailed presentation of the view that is rejected.
I believe that we are crucified with Christ, but until you provide some text by Father Matta it is not possible to say how my understanding differs from his.
[glow=red,2,300]In the Name of the FATHER+ and of the SON+ and of the HOLY SPIRIT+, the One True God. Amen.[/glow]
This thread has been very interesting and I thank everyone for their input. There are learned brethren in this thread (especially FR. Peter) who have shared some great points I am not aware of (Fr. Matta's writings, EO misconceptions of Coptic saints, papal writings. I generally enjoy HH Pope Sheonuda's works) which I will enjoy studying. I am Eastern Orthodox of the Antiochian Church (USA). I will very lightly touch upon 2 topics from this thread: Christ's Divinity in Eucharist and Theosis.
According to Russian Father Michael Pomazansky, (+1988) from his classic, 'Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" (page 282), he says " Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body and Blood of
the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being, that is, with His soul and with His very
Divinity, which is inseparably united to His humanity
2. Although, further, the Body and Blood of the Lord are broken in the Mystery of Communion
and distributed, still we believe that in every part — even in the smallest particle — of
the Holy Mysteries, those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being, that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P22.HTM.)".
This is traditional Eastern Orthodox theology. We receive the God-Man in His TOTALITY. His Divinity and Humanity never departed not even for ONE instance, ever! His body after the Resurrection is a Glorified body of flesh and spirit. He was touched by St. Thomas, ate fish on the beach and broke bread during the Emmaus journey as TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN.I'm not a patristic scholar nor a learned man in any ways (this is why I quoted Fr. Pomazanky's statement but I am only presenting the EO position on Eucharist to the best of my ability (any mistakes are mine).
I don't think that is different to the OO view. Rather I think that some of our bishops are wishing to oppose what might be a materialistic view of the divinity such that some might think that we eat the divine nature. Rather we 'receive' the whole Christ, divinity and humanity. But we do not consume the divine nature which is beyond touch. Even while we do take and eat of his body and blood. These are not separated or divided from his divinity but are received humanly as the divine presence is received spiritually.
Comments
Since when did our Patriarch become infallible? Since when did any man become infallible? Seriously?! Is it hard to believe that a patriarch, whoever they may be, can fall into heresy? It has happened before. I'm not saying one way or another that HH has fallen into heresy, or has a mistaken view on theosis. But based on what has been presented as Abouna Matta's views, there is nothing wrong with them as Fr. Peter pointed out. There seem to be extremists in both camps who seem to think they 'know' better about these issues. Who here can honestly say they know what was in Abouna Matta's mind or in HH's? Seriously folks, all these armchair theologians just make me laugh.
[quote=Father Peter]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.
That is the crux of what Abouna Matta is saying.
Have you read his books? have you listened to HH sermon on Fr. Matta's books?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg137099#msg137099 date=1304356440]
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.
Seems to me like it is.
Here is my quote from April 27, 2011, 03:30:45 PM Now, I do not want to get in the arguments that were already presented since you seem you have not read the books or have listened to the sermons.
So, do not take sides in matters you have not studied. It is better to study matters you have access to materials you can understand - I am assuming you are not well versed in Arabic.
If you have raised them as non-Orthodox teachings (and in themselves they are not non-Orthodox) then it seems only reasonable that you provide additional evidence, translating from Arabic if necessary, to show how these views were held in a non-Orthodox manner.
There is a sense in which we must rely entirely on Christ for our salvation.
There is a sense in which we have been crucified with Christ.
There is a sense in which we receive everything Christ has.
None of these are non-Orthodox in themselves. You need to explain why you think they are. In what way did Father Matta hold these views in a non-Orthodox manner?
I do not read Arabic, but I can respond to what you have written and disagree with it. If you said 'Nestorius has said in Greek that the Word was not born of the Virgin', I would not say, 'Oh, I have no opinion on that because I don't read Greek'. I would naturally respond to what you reported. This is what I have done in response to your comments about the teaching you describe as being of Father Matta.
You are mistaken if you think that there are not many Eastern Orthodox who consider that His Holiness is Nestorian, rejects Theosis, denies the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and is a Monothelite. Of course I do not believe that any of these accusations are true, but they are a result of bad translations of his works, or sometimes by a misrepresentation of his views. These things all need discussing and clarifying.
Often, it seems to me, a very narrow point is being made or resisted, and unfortunately in English it sometimes appears to people outside our Church that a wide and universal point is being made.
Father bless!
Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Fr. Matta says that grace is all what we need to attain salvation with no effort at all on part of the believer. This is mentioned in his book about the epistle to the Galatians. As Oriental Orthodox, do we agree with this?
Now I am entirely sympathetic to His Holiness and so read everything with the desire to understand it in an Orthodox manner, but there are others who read some of these translations and are just left with a very wrong idea of what His Holiness means.
This is why, in the case of teachings reported as being of Father Matta, it is not enough just to post a single sentence as if that explained everything. Almost anything can be understood in many ways and requires context and substance to be provided.
Kindly reference everything in this book. Give us the title, page numbers, and copy and paste the text and give a translation.
You say that we do not believe that we have been crucified with Christ, yet even the Scriptures say that we have been. YOU raised this point, so what evidence can you provide to show that Father Matta uses this Scriptural teaching in an incorrect manner.
I think that many people here have some knowledge of doctrine, all that we need is to be given information about how Father Matta understood these things incorrectly. YOU have said he understood them incorrectly so please provide some lengthier quotes from his works to illustrate this.
When you say that Father Matta says we do not need to make any effort YOU need to provide some lengthy quotes from Father Matta so that we can see that he does say this, otherwise it is only a matter of you reporting your understanding of what Father Matta says.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg137121#msg137121 date=1304366407] HOW? I am not discussing baptism here.
'I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live, but Christ liveth in me;' - Galatians 2:20
And no, St. Paul is not discussing baptism.
I did not want this to be about judging Fr. Matta's works. Even Stavro admits that Fr. Matta made mistakes. However, I believe for the sake of the debate that is going on, I will take the time to give the references and HH comments on these references.
Thank you. No one is saying people don't make mistakes. But who's to say that the Pope himself didn't make a mistake. That is all.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg137121#msg137121 date=1304366407] HOW? I am not discussing baptism here.
'I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live, but Christ liveth in me;' - Galatians 2:20
And no, St. Paul is not discussing baptism.
So what is he discussing? That he was crucified on the cross with Christ? Common.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Thank you. No one is saying people don't make mistakes. But who's to say that the Pope himself didn't make a mistake. That is all.
What does this have to do with what we are discussing here. The topic is not the infallibility of the pope. Or is it?
Are we not members of Christ? Do we not become one with Christ through communion of His Body and Blood? So yes, we are crucified with Christ.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg137130#msg137130 date=1304367143]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11275.msg137128#msg137128 date=1304367064]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Thank you. No one is saying people don't make mistakes. But who's to say that the Pope himself didn't make a mistake. That is all.
What does this have to do with what we are discussing here. The topic is not the infallibility of the pope. Or is it?
Obviously not. We are discussing whether what Abouna Matta says is not Orthodox. If it is Orthodox, then clearly the Pope's teachings aren't.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11275.msg137132#msg137132 date=1304367276]
My question is VERY specific. Were you crucified on the cross with Christ?
I've already answered it. Our union with Christ is a mystical union.
What we need to understand is how Father Matta described this union, not so that we can say anything about Father Matta, but so that we can understand why and how his view may or may not be non-Orthodox.
We should not turn away into a discussion of how WE understand this union until we have read and understand how Father Matta describes it.
Why did the Scripture say (bold is mine):
"1 Who is this who comes from Edom, With dyed garments from Bozrah, This One who is glorious in His apparel, Traveling in the greatness of His strength?-- "I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save." 2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress? 3 "I have trodden the winepress alone, And from the peoples no one was with Me" Isaiah 63
How did you die mystically on the Cross?
Otherwise we are at a disadvantage because you have read his writings and we/I have not.
We should discuss the Scriptural idea of our being crucified with Christ after we know how Father Matta understands the idea.
Just a few paragraphs should surely be enough.
I for one am not at all interested in playing a popularity contest between various figures. But if a particular view, especially one which is of Scriptural origin, is to be rejected then it is necessary to have some detailed presentation of the view that is rejected.
I believe that we are crucified with Christ, but until you provide some text by Father Matta it is not possible to say how my understanding differs from his.
This thread has been very interesting and I thank everyone for their input. There are learned brethren in this thread (especially FR. Peter) who have shared some great points I am not aware of (Fr. Matta's writings, EO misconceptions of Coptic saints, papal writings. I generally enjoy HH Pope Sheonuda's works) which I will enjoy studying.
I am Eastern Orthodox of the Antiochian Church (USA). I will very lightly touch upon 2 topics from this thread: Christ's Divinity in Eucharist and Theosis.
According to Russian Father Michael Pomazansky, (+1988) from his classic, 'Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" (page 282), he says "
Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body and Blood of
the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being, that is, with His soul and with His very
Divinity, which is inseparably united to His humanity
2. Although, further, the Body and Blood of the Lord are broken in the Mystery of Communion
and distributed, still we believe that in every part — even in the smallest particle — of
the Holy Mysteries, those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being, that is,
in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P22.HTM.)".
This is traditional Eastern Orthodox theology. We receive the God-Man in His TOTALITY. His Divinity and Humanity never departed not even for ONE instance, ever! His body after the Resurrection is a Glorified body of flesh and spirit. He was touched by St. Thomas, ate fish on the beach and broke bread during the Emmaus journey as TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN.I'm not a patristic scholar nor a learned man in any ways (this is why I quoted Fr. Pomazanky's statement but I am only presenting the EO position on Eucharist to the best of my ability (any mistakes are mine).