[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=13432.msg157377#msg157377 date=1341533499] 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
Can you clarify the differece between the tems:
-Physis
-Ousiai
-Nature
Why do many of our clergy reject the sayimg that there are two Ousiai in Christ?
If the Chalcedonians mean that Christ is in two Ousiai when they say "two natures" why does our Church continue to reject this
Also, if this is the case should we not give up and forget about the term One Nature since to Most of the Orthosox ot has more Wutychian connotations. When we say in English One Nature we almost always have to go out of our way to explain that it is a composite nature of Two Ousiai.
Can the Coptic Church agree to speak in terms of One Hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos Who is in Two Ousiai?
It is a grave error to say that there is in Christ one ousia.
We are completely clear in our Christological tradition that we never deny the distinction between that which Christ is of. They are completely other and different from each other.
What was meant at Chalcedon by the term 'in two natures' is not necessarily what Chalcedonians mean now. They have had several councils since then to clarify things. This is why we tend not to use the phrase 'in two natures'. But we have ALWAYS spoken of 'two natures' because we have always insisted that Christ is 'of two natures'.
We would not normally say that Christ is 'in two ousia'. What does that mean? We say that Christ is 'of two natures', we could say that he is 'of two ousia', but it is problematic in our lexicon to say that Christ is 'in two ousia'.
When we say 'one nature', we do not mean a composite ousia. Indeed we do not say 'one nature', we say 'one incarnate nature' which is very different. Christ is not 'one nature', he is 'one incarnate nature or hypostasis'.
Ousia is generally the genus and common group to which a particular instance belongs. I am of the human ousia because I am a representative of the human genus.
Physis tends to mean an instance of a genus, so I am a human nature/physis because I am an instance of the human ousia.
Nature can mean either, the context is required, and what the parties to a conversation mean. For Chalcedonians it tends to mean ousia. But for St Cyril and many others it tended to mean an individual, an instance, of an ousia.
Christ is 'one incarnate nature' because he is one individual who is incarnate, that is, he is the divine son of God who is made flesh, while not ceasing to be what he is. It never means that the ousia is a composite. It never means that the humanity and divinity are mixed. The composition takes place at the level of the hypostasis, the inner identity of the Word. The humanity is glorified but it never ceases to be entirely and completely humanity, while the divinity remains always beyond all change.
I would be shocked to hear anyone deny that there are two ousia in Christ, or that Christ is of two ousia.
I'd like to bump this thread back to life with a question regarding this quote:
"And they said that God wanted us deified ever since the beginning!! If God wanted to deify us as they say, He would not have created us of dust and He would have protected us from falling in sin, and we would have not been created with a nature that can die…"
To be honest, the reasoning sounds a little skewed. I might as well have asked, "If God wanted to save us, why did he make a rule that could potentially kill us?" What does the creation of man from dust have to do with the deification? H.H then says that if God wanted to deify us, he would have stopped us from falling into sin. But it seems to me that that argument could be used against salvation. "If God wanted us to be saved, why did he let us fall in the first place."
The reasoning seems a little off to me. Can I get some clarification. Father Peter, I would love to have your opinion.
We must pray that the next Patriarch upholds the Orthodox and Apostolic faith of our Holy Fathers and is tonsured in a canonical manner. We cannot afford to have Met. Bishoy or someone like him, foist his scholastic views upon the Church.
I find nothing in Metropolitan Bishoy's letter as heterdox that Fr Athanasius commented on. In HE Met Bishoy's article, he makes a distinction by deification by adoption and deification by nature. HE does NOT deny deification by adoption, he denies deification of humans by nature as the phrase εν θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως (partakers IN the divine nature) implies. θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως, as 2 Peter 1:4 states is translated (partakers OF the divine nature) The prior implies deification by nature extends to human beings. This is a heresy and this is what his HE addresses. The latter implies deification by adoption, as HE illustrated through St Cyril's and St Athanasius' writings.
Fr Athanasius' response implies that HE stated there is no deification of humans. This is literally taking the title of HE's article, "Sayings of the Fathers Disapproving the Innovation of Deifying Man", out of context. It seems obvious that Fr Athanasius' intention is not to defend theosis and deification but rather to oppose anything HE writes because, as Fr Athanasius put it "you are not ashamed of campaigning to become the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria."
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13432.msg159193#msg159193 date=1345651711] I find nothing in Metropolitan Bishoy's letter as heterdox that Fr Athanasius commented on. In HE Met Bishoy's article, he makes a distinction by deification by adoption and deification by nature. HE does NOT deny deification by adoption, he denies deification of humans by nature as the phrase εν θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως (partakers IN the divine nature) implies. θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως, as 2 Peter 1:4 states is translated (partakers OF the divine nature) The prior implies deification by nature extends to human beings. This is a heresy and this is what his HE addresses. The latter implies deification by adoption, as HE illustrated through St Cyril's and St Athanasius' writings.
Fr Athanasius' response implies that HE stated there is no deification of humans. This is literally taking the title of HE's article, "Sayings of the Fathers Disapproving the Innovation of Deifying Man", out of context. It seems obvious that Fr Athanasius' intention is not to defend theosis and deification but rather to oppose anything HE writes because, as Fr Athanasius put it "you are not ashamed of campaigning to become the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria." There are other topics HE is wrong about such as calling the assumption of the Theotokos a heresy (I do not want to reopen that discussion), Augustine's doctrine of original guilt, and Judas' participation in the Eucharist. Plus, appointing a Metropolitan to the Papacy goes against Nicea.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13432.msg159193#msg159193 date=1345651711] I find nothing in Metropolitan Bishoy's letter as heterdox that Fr Athanasius commented on. In HE Met Bishoy's article, he makes a distinction by deification by adoption and deification by nature. HE does NOT deny deification by adoption, he denies deification of humans by nature as the phrase εν θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως (partakers IN the divine nature) implies. θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως, as 2 Peter 1:4 states is translated (partakers OF the divine nature) The prior implies deification by nature extends to human beings. This is a heresy and this is what his HE addresses. The latter implies deification by adoption, as HE illustrated through St Cyril's and St Athanasius' writings.
Fr Athanasius' response implies that HE stated there is no deification of humans. This is literally taking the title of HE's article, "Sayings of the Fathers Disapproving the Innovation of Deifying Man", out of context. It seems obvious that Fr Athanasius' intention is not to defend theosis and deification but rather to oppose anything HE writes because, as Fr Athanasius put it "you are not ashamed of campaigning to become the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria."
Metropolitain Bishoy's real problem was in his refusal to understand those around him as correct. His problem is heresy hunting. If he took the time to understand the writings of those people whom he violently opposed, then he would not have to write such articles regarding theosis. I have written a response to his article, and I can send it in PM, although, to be honest, I don't think it would be a good idea. In the end, Anba Bishoy set up a straw man of his opponents, and destroyed them, claiming victory over the real people.
I have searched high and low for one single piece of evidence that would incriminate Abouna Matta of believing in a change in nature (as Met. Bishoy's article suggests he did-albeit calling him "a monk from St. Macarius' monastery." I have however found proof for the opposite. Abouna Matta says, "The deification that the Fathers had in mind does not mean the change of the human nature into a divine one." (Orthodox Prayer life, Page 197) If you look in the article, he makes no reference to anything which Abouna Matta actually writes.
If you ask my honest opinion, that article does one major thing, which is to show that Met. Bishoy is theologically not proficient. I have a serious problem trusting him. He spends hours upon hours ripping on people who are more theologically proficient than him, and he has nothing to actually say. He is disrespectful to other denominations, and is very rash in condemning everyone around him. This is not love, and by extension, not God. This is a problem.
The fact that Met. Bishoy is trying so hard to justify his validity (and the reponse which he wrote shows to an even greater degree that he has a very limited scope of understanding) worries me deeply concerning the morality of his actions.
We are deified, it is a hypostatic union, it is not the change in nature (no body claimed it was).
Maybe HE Metropolitan Bishoy is heresy hunting. Maybe no one ever claimed deification by nature and HE is rebutting an imaginary claim. Regardless of who may or may not have claimed deification by nature, it is irrelevant to the issue. Does anything HE say in the article contradict the Orthodox concept of theosis, as Fr Athanasius' response claimed? I personally do not believe so.
Secondly, it is also irrelevant what his HE's positions on other dogmas. If time allows, we can really address all of them. But attacking HE's character doesn't justify claiming HE is heterodox. Let's stick to the actually theology and avoid the ad hominem that Fr Athanasius and canon15.nicaea.ca is using. (As a side note, HE Metropolitan Bishoy is also using ad hominem attacks unjustifiably).
Thirdly, I will not reopen the "New Pontiff" thread in respect of Fr Peter's wishes. But since you, Severian, brought it up, I must reiterate. Nicaea does not forbid a metropolitan to the papacy since the concept of papacy didn't exist. And even if Nicaea canon 15's language did explicitly condemn a metropolitan to the papacy, it is still a κανων kanon (guideline), not a νομος [/i]nomos[/i] (law).
Finally, RO, what do you mean by "We are deified, it is a hypostatic union, it is not the change in nature"? If it is a hypostatic union, then a union of what? Natures? Ousias? Physis? Hypostases? Following Fr Peter's definitions he just gave us in reply #32, a hypostatic union is a union of an individual instances of a genus (physis). In marriage, two hypostases become one spiritual and metaphysical hypostasis, yet each individual hypostasis or person continues to exist in the general ousia of humanity and the individual human instance or physis. In deification, are you saying man in general is united with God in general in a hypostatic union? This would imply two ousias uniting, which is exactly what HE is rightly disputes. If you are saying a physis or an individual human unites with an individual God, then no in is disagreement as long as we are clear that it is by adoption and not change or mixing of ousia.
Please understand, my intention is not to attack either of you, Fr Athanasius, canon15.nicaea.ca, or anyone. Neither is it to defend HE, myself or any individual. My intention was to address specific arguments and claims of heresy, not personalities.
We are deified, it is a hypostatic union, it is not the change in nature (no body claimed it was).
Within theology, the term "Hypostatic union" means the deity united with the humanity.
The only time this took place is when the Son took flesh from St Mary. This was the miraculous conception of the Son. It happened only once for the purpose of Incarnation and won't happen again.
Maybe HE Metropolitan Bishoy is heresy hunting. Maybe no one ever claimed deification by nature and HE is rebutting an imaginary claim. Regardless of who may or may not have claimed deification by nature, it is irrelevant to the issue. Does anything HE say in the article contradict the Orthodox concept of theosis, as Fr Athanasius' response claimed? I personally do not believe so.
I'm not too sure I find anything wrong with Met. Bishoy's article that really contradict. The problem is that he is really vague, so I don't know exatcly what it is he believes. This leads me to seek clarification, for which he cannot give. I will look at other articles of his, and see if he is correct or not. My biggest problem was the fact that this article was heresy hunting.
Secondly, it is also irrelevant what his HE's positions on other dogmas. If time allows, we can really address all of them. But attacking HE's character doesn't justify claiming HE is heterodox. Let's stick to the actually theology and avoid the ad hominem that Fr Athanasius and canon15.nicaea.ca is using. (As a side note, HE Metropolitan Bishoy is also using ad hominem attacks unjustifiably).
His character will not justify that he is heterodox. But when you are campaigning for patriarch, your character is going to come up. I would still have to agree with you that Fr. Athanasius is using many ad hominem attacks, and Met. Bishoy is responding likewise. However, theology is not the only factor here. He may be Orthodox in theology (and no, I do not actually believe so) but he is not Orthodox in practice. It is evident that he is working really hard for the throne. I have to attack this point. One has to expose this.
Finally, RO, what do you mean by "We are deified, it is a hypostatic union, it is not the change in nature"? If it is a hypostatic union, then a union of what? Natures? Ousias? Physis? Hypostases? Following Fr Peter's definitions he just gave us in reply #32, a hypostatic union is a union of an individual instances of a genus (physis). In marriage, two hypostases become one spiritual and metaphysical hypostasis, yet each individual hypostasis or person continues to exist in the general ousia of humanity and the individual human instance or physis. In deification, are you saying man in general is united with God in general in a hypostatic union? This would imply two ousias uniting, which is exactly what HE is rightly disputes. If you are saying a physis or an individual human unites with an individual God, then no in is disagreement as long as we are clear that it is by adoption and not change or mixing of ousia.
You are correct. this is exactly what I mean by hypostatic union, and yes, I am speaking about indiviidual man, and individual God. But the problem is in the part I bolded. Disputing what? Who even says this? That is my point.
My point is not to prove he is a heretic. I don't care to much about that. He has been saying things I disagree with for countless years now, and it's nothing new. My goal is clear. Keep him away from the throne. I see, however, that the title of this thread is on the deification of man. I will not comment any more on Met. Bishoy except in a thread dedicated for that issue. I am willing, however, to comment on the article by Pope Shenouda on the deification of man.
Thanks very much, Rem, for that fair explanation of a hypostatic union.
Comments
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
Can you clarify the differece between the tems:
-Physis
-Ousiai
-Nature
Why do many of our clergy reject the sayimg that there are two Ousiai in Christ?
If the Chalcedonians mean that Christ is in two Ousiai when they say "two natures" why does our Church continue to reject this
Also, if this is the case should we not give up and forget about the term One Nature since to Most of the Orthosox ot has more Wutychian connotations. When we say in English One Nature we almost always have to go out of our way to explain that it is a composite nature of Two Ousiai.
Can the Coptic Church agree to speak in terms of One Hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos Who is in Two Ousiai?
We are completely clear in our Christological tradition that we never deny the distinction between that which Christ is of. They are completely other and different from each other.
What was meant at Chalcedon by the term 'in two natures' is not necessarily what Chalcedonians mean now. They have had several councils since then to clarify things. This is why we tend not to use the phrase 'in two natures'. But we have ALWAYS spoken of 'two natures' because we have always insisted that Christ is 'of two natures'.
I have published a number of Christological podcasts at http://orthodoxfaith.podbean.com, or you may be interested in purchasing my collection of Christological essays at http://www.lulu.com/shop/father-peter-farrington/orthodox-christology/paperback/product-10969273.html
We would not normally say that Christ is 'in two ousia'. What does that mean? We say that Christ is 'of two natures', we could say that he is 'of two ousia', but it is problematic in our lexicon to say that Christ is 'in two ousia'.
When we say 'one nature', we do not mean a composite ousia. Indeed we do not say 'one nature', we say 'one incarnate nature' which is very different. Christ is not 'one nature', he is 'one incarnate nature or hypostasis'.
Ousia is generally the genus and common group to which a particular instance belongs. I am of the human ousia because I am a representative of the human genus.
Physis tends to mean an instance of a genus, so I am a human nature/physis because I am an instance of the human ousia.
Nature can mean either, the context is required, and what the parties to a conversation mean. For Chalcedonians it tends to mean ousia. But for St Cyril and many others it tended to mean an individual, an instance, of an ousia.
Christ is 'one incarnate nature' because he is one individual who is incarnate, that is, he is the divine son of God who is made flesh, while not ceasing to be what he is. It never means that the ousia is a composite. It never means that the humanity and divinity are mixed. The composition takes place at the level of the hypostasis, the inner identity of the Word. The humanity is glorified but it never ceases to be entirely and completely humanity, while the divinity remains always beyond all change.
I would be shocked to hear anyone deny that there are two ousia in Christ, or that Christ is of two ousia.
"And they said that God wanted us deified ever since the beginning!! If God wanted to deify us as they say, He would not have created us of dust and He would have protected us from falling in sin, and we would have not been created with a nature that can die…"
To be honest, the reasoning sounds a little skewed. I might as well have asked, "If God wanted to save us, why did he make a rule that could potentially kill us?" What does the creation of man from dust have to do with the deification? H.H then says that if God wanted to deify us, he would have stopped us from falling into sin. But it seems to me that that argument could be used against salvation. "If God wanted us to be saved, why did he let us fall in the first place."
The reasoning seems a little off to me. Can I get some clarification. Father Peter, I would love to have your opinion.
ReturnOrthodoxy
http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/50-fr-athanasius-sends-sayings-of-the-fathers-disapproving-the-innovation-of-deifying-man
Orthodox.
Fr Athanasius' response implies that HE stated there is no deification of humans. This is literally taking the title of HE's article, "Sayings of the Fathers Disapproving the Innovation of Deifying Man", out of context. It seems obvious that Fr Athanasius' intention is not to defend theosis and deification but rather to oppose anything HE writes because, as Fr Athanasius put it "you are not ashamed of campaigning to become the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria."
I find nothing in Metropolitan Bishoy's letter as heterdox that Fr Athanasius commented on. In HE Met Bishoy's article, he makes a distinction by deification by adoption and deification by nature. HE does NOT deny deification by adoption, he denies deification of humans by nature as the phrase εν θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως (partakers IN the divine nature) implies. θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως, as 2 Peter 1:4 states is translated (partakers OF the divine nature) The prior implies deification by nature extends to human beings. This is a heresy and this is what his HE addresses. The latter implies deification by adoption, as HE illustrated through St Cyril's and St Athanasius' writings.
Fr Athanasius' response implies that HE stated there is no deification of humans. This is literally taking the title of HE's article, "Sayings of the Fathers Disapproving the Innovation of Deifying Man", out of context. It seems obvious that Fr Athanasius' intention is not to defend theosis and deification but rather to oppose anything HE writes because, as Fr Athanasius put it "you are not ashamed of campaigning to become the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria."
There are other topics HE is wrong about such as calling the assumption of the Theotokos a heresy (I do not want to reopen that discussion), Augustine's doctrine of original guilt, and Judas' participation in the Eucharist. Plus, appointing a Metropolitan to the Papacy goes against Nicea.
I find nothing in Metropolitan Bishoy's letter as heterdox that Fr Athanasius commented on. In HE Met Bishoy's article, he makes a distinction by deification by adoption and deification by nature. HE does NOT deny deification by adoption, he denies deification of humans by nature as the phrase εν θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως (partakers IN the divine nature) implies. θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως, as 2 Peter 1:4 states is translated (partakers OF the divine nature) The prior implies deification by nature extends to human beings. This is a heresy and this is what his HE addresses. The latter implies deification by adoption, as HE illustrated through St Cyril's and St Athanasius' writings.
Fr Athanasius' response implies that HE stated there is no deification of humans. This is literally taking the title of HE's article, "Sayings of the Fathers Disapproving the Innovation of Deifying Man", out of context. It seems obvious that Fr Athanasius' intention is not to defend theosis and deification but rather to oppose anything HE writes because, as Fr Athanasius put it "you are not ashamed of campaigning to become the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria."
Metropolitain Bishoy's real problem was in his refusal to understand those around him as correct. His problem is heresy hunting. If he took the time to understand the writings of those people whom he violently opposed, then he would not have to write such articles regarding theosis. I have written a response to his article, and I can send it in PM, although, to be honest, I don't think it would be a good idea. In the end, Anba Bishoy set up a straw man of his opponents, and destroyed them, claiming victory over the real people.
I have searched high and low for one single piece of evidence that would incriminate Abouna Matta of believing in a change in nature (as Met. Bishoy's article suggests he did-albeit calling him "a monk from St. Macarius' monastery." I have however found proof for the opposite. Abouna Matta says, "The deification that the Fathers had in mind does not mean the change of the human nature into a divine one." (Orthodox Prayer life, Page 197) If you look in the article, he makes no reference to anything which Abouna Matta actually writes.
If you ask my honest opinion, that article does one major thing, which is to show that Met. Bishoy is theologically not proficient. I have a serious problem trusting him. He spends hours upon hours ripping on people who are more theologically proficient than him, and he has nothing to actually say. He is disrespectful to other denominations, and is very rash in condemning everyone around him. This is not love, and by extension, not God. This is a problem.
The fact that Met. Bishoy is trying so hard to justify his validity (and the reponse which he wrote shows to an even greater degree that he has a very limited scope of understanding) worries me deeply concerning the morality of his actions.
We are deified, it is a hypostatic union, it is not the change in nature (no body claimed it was).
ReturnOrthodoxy
Maybe HE Metropolitan Bishoy is heresy hunting. Maybe no one ever claimed deification by nature and HE is rebutting an imaginary claim. Regardless of who may or may not have claimed deification by nature, it is irrelevant to the issue. Does anything HE say in the article contradict the Orthodox concept of theosis, as Fr Athanasius' response claimed? I personally do not believe so.
Secondly, it is also irrelevant what his HE's positions on other dogmas. If time allows, we can really address all of them. But attacking HE's character doesn't justify claiming HE is heterodox. Let's stick to the actually theology and avoid the ad hominem that Fr Athanasius and canon15.nicaea.ca is using. (As a side note, HE Metropolitan Bishoy is also using ad hominem attacks unjustifiably).
Thirdly, I will not reopen the "New Pontiff" thread in respect of Fr Peter's wishes. But since you, Severian, brought it up, I must reiterate. Nicaea does not forbid a metropolitan to the papacy since the concept of papacy didn't exist. And even if Nicaea canon 15's language did explicitly condemn a metropolitan to the papacy, it is still a κανων kanon (guideline), not a νομος [/i]nomos[/i] (law).
Finally, RO, what do you mean by "We are deified, it is a hypostatic union, it is not the change in nature"? If it is a hypostatic union, then a union of what? Natures? Ousias? Physis? Hypostases? Following Fr Peter's definitions he just gave us in reply #32, a hypostatic union is a union of an individual instances of a genus (physis). In marriage, two hypostases become one spiritual and metaphysical hypostasis, yet each individual hypostasis or person continues to exist in the general ousia of humanity and the individual human instance or physis. In deification, are you saying man in general is united with God in general in a hypostatic union? This would imply two ousias uniting, which is exactly what HE is rightly disputes. If you are saying a physis or an individual human unites with an individual God, then no in is disagreement as long as we are clear that it is by adoption and not change or mixing of ousia.
Please understand, my intention is not to attack either of you, Fr Athanasius, canon15.nicaea.ca, or anyone. Neither is it to defend HE, myself or any individual. My intention was to address specific arguments and claims of heresy, not personalities.
The only time this took place is when the Son took flesh from St Mary. This was the miraculous conception of the Son. It happened only once for the purpose of Incarnation and won't happen again.
My point is not to prove he is a heretic. I don't care to much about that. He has been saying things I disagree with for countless years now, and it's nothing new. My goal is clear. Keep him away from the throne. I see, however, that the title of this thread is on the deification of man. I will not comment any more on Met. Bishoy except in a thread dedicated for that issue. I am willing, however, to comment on the article by Pope Shenouda on the deification of man.
Thanks very much, Rem, for that fair explanation of a hypostatic union.
ReturnOrthodoxy