Christ and Church in the thought of some theologians

[Mina Monir]

a famous coptic orthodox monk called "Mathew the poor" or 'matta el Maskeen' in arabic , he shares some russian theologians in a very strange point about the body of christ and the church. he defends for an idea states that if the christ is one , a human nature united with divine nature ... and the church is the body of christ ... so, the church is a human nature united with divine nature.

this idea pushes him and his supporters to believe that we are taking the divine nature since it is one with human nature in eucharist. Orthodox church of Alexandria and russian church in the latest dialogues declared together that this idea is not orthodox , we do not take divine nature , but we take the energy and power of grace in eucharist , uniting with christ in his body ... being partakers of the divine nature (2 peter 1:4)

...partakers of divine nature , not partakers in divine nature

what do u think of that wave ?

is these ideas spreading in the west , or in eastern churches?
in christ,
Mina

[Arsenios]

I have been posting with a Roman Catholic who tells me that the teaching of his Church is that we [who are Christians] are Jesus Christ Himself, because we partake IN the divine nature in the Eucharist. I was dumfounded by his statement, and queried him closely, and he affirmed it and supported it with a quotation from the [or 'a'?] Roman catechism...

I do not know of an Orthodox Christian alive who would not be scandalized by such a notion... Or caught dead affirming one... We partake of God's energies - The essence of God is totally inaccessible to us...

That is my take, at least...

I have been wrong before...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Mina Soliman]

Hi Mina,

I can barely read Arabic, so I do not understand the full story. What I can hope for is that this is a misunderstanding.

On one side, our Coptic Church may misunderstand Fr. Matta of thinking that we partake of the essence of God (ousia). That would make him sound like a Eutychian in metaphysics.

From what I hear about Fr. Matta, he is a theologian par excellence, and many in the Coptic Church today do not understand his level, for he is at the same level as many Byzantine theologians who have contributed to the theology of theosis. (In fact, St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary published two books in English "Orthodox Prayer" and "Communion of Love." The fact that St. Vlad's published material by a Coptic priest shows how much respected as a theologian he is by many EO's).

We know that the divine nature of God contains the ousia which only the Trinity partakes of and the UNCREATED energies which we can partake of. In fact, the reason St. Cyril believes in Miaphysis and many of his Alexandrian predecessors is because of St. Clement's famous quote:

"God became man so that man may become God."

This is a very important central point in theosis. We are not only morally becoming better, but metaphysically better as well. When we are "putting on Christ" and the Church is the "body of Christ," then it makes sense that we are in fact "partakers of the Divine Nature." We do not partake of the Ousia of God, but the Energia of God, that which is revealed to us that is uncreated. Fr. Tadros Malaty, Coptic historian and theologian, quotes someone who defined "grace" not just as a gift, but as the uncreated energy of God. This is what I believe Fr. Matta is saying. I don't believe Fr. Matta says that we partake of the ousia of God. I think we are jumping to conclusions in condemning Fr. Matta as such.

I may be wrong however, since I am not very well in the Arabic language. I have heard that this type of language is written in his series on "The Eucharist" (in Arabic, "El Efkharistia"), which is only available in Arabic, as much as I know.

God bless.

Mina

[Mina Monir]

dear . rdr.Arsenios ,

your view is the orthodox view

Divine essence is inaccessible , simply , if we have a divine nature ... we would be infallible because dark and light cannot unite.and this is against scripture. the work of the holy spirit is different to his 'Ousia' , the theologians who defend for this idea go to a very mad result ... it is that we all crucified with the christ , a russian monk said in his book : salvation is accomplished BY us through christ . and this is also against scripture which said : "I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me(isaiah 63 : 3)" , a strange chain of results .

I believe that catholic theology also supports such ideas , but let me ask them a simple question , if the eucharist gives divine nature , and they give communion to non believers ... so, the Muslims of indonesia -whom pope john paul II gave them eucharist - are partakers of divine nature!!
http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/lol.gif
in christ we all died and resurracted ... but through baptism "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.(colossians 2:12)"

besides we cannot say we are all christ, there is one , and only one who is the almighty and eternal ... his two natures became one incarnated nature through a hypostatic union and not a prosopic union because the same eternal who appeared to ibrahim , isaiah and other old testament fathers , incarnated in the fullness of time taking one infullible body with a rational soul without a person ... and personalized it by his person ... one single person. a hypostatic union tends a physical union "henwsys kath hypostasin = henwsis kath physis"... not a prosopic union . this one is worshipped becaue he is the same logos who is one with the father (john 10:30 )... stipped on the clay and made eyes , died and resurracted , the only begotten son. his divinity exists with his humanity without confusion nor separation... any one says two persons are united let be anathema as Cyril said ... one and only MONO person .. but one MIA nature from two natures united hypostatically. that is why we kneel one kneel to the same child in the manger of cows. because he is the Alpha and Omega. do u think u have these characteristics ? so, we are not the christ. but the christ gave us through him something we live for ... it is "ut ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.(romans 8 : 15)" and "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.(galatians 4:5)". and the different between the relation between us and father ,and between the logos and father is clear ... the jews recognized that and " Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.(john 5:18 ) !!!! because : In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(jn 1:1) and sure : No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.(1:18)

catholic depend in their explanation for the nature of christ on the weakest document called the tome of Leo , this tome failed to explain what I explained before ... because my explanation is extracted from the alexandrian christology of St.Cyril of Alexandria. but we can't find any thing about accepting hypostatic union and refusing prosopic union called by nestor . that's why alot of them describe the christ as a person and we can be him ... this man has followed the logos. so, we can be him because he is not god but united with god by divine nature and prosopic union. catholic theology refuse prosopic union ... but again , the weakness of leo's tome led alot of them to this disastrous result. father george florovsky referred to "the weakness of leo's tome" in the ecumenical dialogues. as a conclusion , the misunderstanding of personhood of christ led alot of theologians to believe that we can be that great man ... so, we can unite with god. a mixture of nestorianism and paganism which stated a concept of the unity of existence including god.

... to be continued
in christ
Mina

[Mina Monir]

note ,
unfortunately ... St.Vladimir orthodox seminary publishes such books for father Mathew the poor

[Arsenios]

Dear Mina...

What an awesome reply!

I am going to copy and edit it so your English will be polished and shining...

Prosopic union is a new term for me - I thought prosopos was "face", or "facing" or some such... Could you explain it a little more please?

Thank-you -

Rdr. Arsenios

[Mina Monir]

dear mina soliman ,

Matta el maskin is a heretic ... and he does not have a level to talk with . he - like the russian monks he translate from... and the catholic - cannot prove anything ... his writings makes me laugh.

no one read for him ... just know him , unfortunately , the propaganda makes him as a (da7eyya) or sacrifice ... but no one can accept one like him .

he said bad words on Pope kyrellos and described him as a stupid ... this pope who is a great saint and his miracles are known for every one outside egypt...

matta el maskin believes in the salvation of non-Believers and said about president mohammed anwar el-Sadat who persecuted the copts that he is a martyr and will go to heaven!! sure I wont talk about his offensive and bad words he said about our pope because we don't partake divine ousia!

let me now explain the thoughts of this man :
1) u said : "From what I hear about Fr. Matta, he is a theologian par excellence, and many in the Coptic Church today do not understand his level, for he is at the same level as many Byzantine theologians who have contributed to the theology of theosis." no , he is not par excellent ... he is (par cozeba) which means the son of liars in hebrew. because he makes doubts on four parts in the gospel and I do not think that u can accept that. HH pope shenouda answered him in the series of comperative theology books and we can read how wrong he is. besides, let me stop at ur word "I heard" , I think u need to read not hear to know how heretic he is... he says that the 16th chapter of mark's gospel is not written by him and he studies biblical criticism!! the EO churches do not believe in his idea about taking the divine ousia . he fought for that in his famous book (el osool el abaa2eyya el orthodoxya) and mentioned it clear that we are partakers IN the divine ousia ... and any one does not believe in that he loses hope .

2) u mentioned :} "We know that the divine nature of God contains the ousia which only the Trinity partakes of and the UNCREATED energies which we can partake of. In fact, the reason St. Cyril believes in Miaphysis and many of his Alexandrian predecessors is because of St. Clement's famous quote:"God became man so that man may become God." "
matta translates the writings of the fathers in a very bad way , the greek language professors in egypt become depressed from his weak translation. the writings of athanasius (the incarnation of the word ) is clear .. it mentioned the previous quote , but truly and in detail described how we are gods ... we are gods as in exodus and in john , we are gods as in Genesis ... in the shape of god ... but we can't bear the divinity . this does not mean that salvation and becoming better is moral and not metaphysic ... don't forget the role of the holy spirit through baptism and eucharist. but please read my previous post to recognize this point. Eastern orthodox church can't accept doubts on the gospels ... and HH patriarch alexi of russia said that the monks of russia who believe in that idea like matta they do not represent EO theology.

and HE Metropolitan Bishoy answered him . Athanasius of makarius monastery , his famous defender wrote a black book defending for the christology of nestorian church of assyria, and metropolitan bishoy answered him and Mar Baway suro the archbishop of the assyrians. and they could not reply in the famous book (how could we be silent!!) , meanwhile, the catholic church made the official embarrasing agreement with the assyrian in 1994 mentioning clearly that the name 'christotokos' is accurate than 'theotokos' and cyril fought nestour not for christology but for politics ( this reminds me the story of leo of rome ).

I have a library in my home just for the writings of matta el maskin , I studied it and I extracted his heresies, the book of eucharist u mentioned is one of the most disastrouss books!! he said that" the 7 sacraments were limited as 7 by thomas aquinas".aquinas is the famous catholic theologian who invinted the worst heresey I have ever seen.. the heresey of purgatory. matta in his book : "el tagassod el elaahy" said that the holy spirit united with the apostles HYPOSTATISTICALLY. and in the book (el osool el abaa'eyya) the title was : THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF THE CHRIST , A HUMAN NATURE UNITED WITH THE DIVINE NATURE and the scripture says that the church is the group of believers! he says that's why we are like christ (el osool el abaa2eya) .. no one accepts this madness.

3) u said : } then it makes sense that we are in fact "partakers of the Divine Nature." We do not partake of the Ousia of God, but the Energia of God, that which is revealed to us that is uncreated. Fr. Tadros Malaty, Coptic historian and theologian, quotes someone who defined "grace" not just as a gift, but as the uncreated energy of God. This is what I believe Fr. Matta is saying. I don't believe Fr. Matta says that we partake of the ousia of God. I think we are jumping to conclusions in condemning Fr. Matta as such.

all u mentioned is correct , and father tadros is one of the greatest theologians in the church now. but believe it : matta says we take the divine ousia. he said : we eat the divinity in eucharist !!!! (the eucharist book)

before I forget : u said two books published by st.Vladimir for him . the orthodox life prayer is written firstly by two great theologians : John of Kronstadt . and pope shenouda when he was a solitary monk . matta rearranged the books of john and pope shenouda ... and added some quotes from the Nicene\post Nicene fathers , and published it. the second book has a funny story, I wont say it here.

More heresies :

Fthr Matta does not accept the concept of anathema. in his book (the christian unity) he says that the protestant church is like the catholic and orthodox church , no anathemas BECAUSE THE DOGMAS ARE HUMAN INVENTION , AND CHRIST DID NOT PUT A DOGMA!!! I don't think EO can accept that.

about the gospel , in his interpretation of st.Mark gospel he said that :
MARK DID NOT WRITE THE 16TH CHAPTER, BUT A THEOLOGIAN IN THE SECOND CENTURY CALLED ARISTON WROTE IT that's why he refused to interpret this chapter. note that this chapter is not the only part he did not accept , he refused many parts of the gospel depending on very weak protestant and catholic resources of very known characters .
he believes in the salvation of non believers . he said : WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE CHRIST OF BUDDHISTS AND OTHER GROUPS? THE CHRIST CAN NOT BE A PRISONER OF A ONE PLACE OR A CHURCH OR A GROUP!!! BUT THE SALVATION HIS BLOOD IS FOR ALL WHO KNOW HIM OR DON'T.!!! do u think it is a level to talk about? this man flattered (mesh 3awez a2ool kelma tania ) the muslim president Mohammed anwar el sadat who supported the jihadis and terrorists and persecuted the copts and sent our metropolitans to jail and pull out the chin of metropolitan bishoy as Leo did to dioscorus , and killed my uncle in Assiut islamic revolution ...

he said to the new york times : EL SADAT SHAHEED RAA7 EL SAMA do u want to know more about him ?

in Christ
Mina

[Mina Monir]

dear Rdr.Arsenious

firstly , would u please tell me what does (Rdr) refer to?

secondly, In fact , I have a very weak english , I'm an engineering student , so, My strong english is the Technical english ... so , I'm really weak in english , I apologize for any misunderstood sentences , and please forgive me.

prosopic union is came from a greek word : Prosopon = person in english.

some people follow nestor (practically. but theoretically they condemn him like leo of rome) a mad Idea says that there was a person called Jesus .. he was a good man , he united with the eternal hypostasis of the son. and so, there is a union between two persons , one is worshipped and the other is not (one makes miracles and the other sustains pain , as leo said in his tome) . this is prosopic union according to nestour . WE CAN'T ACCEPT THAT ... because this is not only against scripture . but also against the equity and justice of god . why jesus was crucified? he is a man , he cannot give an infinite salvation enough for the whole humanity in all ages (sure the salvation is for the believers) ?!
and this is a christological important point.

we can discuss it in detail if u would like .
I hope I could explain it as possible.
and sorry again for my weak english.

in Christ,
Mina

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Mina,

I appreciate that you gave me some information on Fr. Matta. I didn't read a lot from him, so I don't know as much about him as you may know. I won't debate you about him, nor try to defend him. I only am cautious when jumping the gun and calling someone a "heretic."

One issue you mentioned is the Gospel of Mark and his take on Biblical Criticism. I believe the EO Church has no problem with what Fr. Matta says on both these issues. In fact, here in the Western World, Biblical Criticism may seem necessary to battle many of the philosophical atheists, agnostics, and pluralists we have here. In fact, the Alexandrian fathers have started this form of Biblical interpretation. I think our sister churches, the Syrian Church and the Armenian Church agree to these as well, at least in the issue of the St. Mark's Chapter 16. Here are two websites discussing this:

[Link 1] (http://www.coptichymns.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=6448&highlight=)
[Link 2] (http://www.coptichymns.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=6533&highlight=god+inspire+forgeries)

I've never heard about him concerning St. Kyrillos the Sixth, the two books, the concept of dogmas and anathema, or Anwar Sadat, but I do understand that throughout many centuries, people can read things and misunderstand them.

For example, you write:


he believes in the salvation of non believers . he said : WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE CHRIST OF BUDDHISTS AND OTHER GROUPS? THE CHRIST CAN NOT BE A PRISONER OF A ONE PLACE OR A CHURCH OR A GROUP!!! BUT THE SALVATION HIS BLOOD IS FOR ALL WHO KNOW HIM OR DON'T.!!! do u think it is a level to talk about?

I don't think this proves that he believes salvation outside the Church. I read something similar here:

[Link 3] (http://www.stmacariusmonastery.org/earticle0003.htm)

All he talks about is something similar to evangelism, that we have to reach out to sinners and the lost, people of the whole world so that Christ may live in their lives. So "Christ of the Buddhists" are no different from "Christ of the sinners" in this article, considering that it would be preposterous to think Fr. Matta thinks unrepentant sinners are going to be saved.

Now, I have a question. May I get an exact quote on how he said we partake of the Divine Ousia? The quote "eat the Divinity" does not prove that he's heretical, and this quote can be, imho, interpreted in an Orthodox manner.

God bless.

Mina

[Alec Lowly]

Reader Arsenios writes:

"I have been posting with a Roman Catholic who tells me that the teaching of his Church is that we [who are Christians] are Jesus Christ Himself, because we partake IN the divine nature in the Eucharist. I was dumfounded by his statement, and queried him closely, and he affirmed it and supported it with a quotation from the [or 'a'?] Roman catechism..."

Hold the phone, Reader Arsenios. The RC you're dealing with is way off base. I checked tonight with an old friend who is an RC priest who teaches theology. Your correspondent is not articulating any RC teaching known to him. His reaction was, "You're kidding, right?"

If I were you, I would lean hard on the correspondent for independent corroboration of what he is claiming from authoritative RC sources, preferably the most recent "A Catechism of the Catholic Church" promulgated by John Paul II. And get the quote in full ...

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Arsenios]

Dear Mina -

Rdr. = Reader - I am a tonsured Reader in the Eastern Orthodox Faith...

Your English is weak, and the strength of you writing in English is that the weak English forces the lazy minds of us native English language people [like me] to come to grips with the understanding, and not just with the words, of your explanation.

Now this prosopic union, which is the actual person, in union with another person, [if I am understanding you right] most certainly does not apply to our relationship with Christ in the Orthodox Tradition. The union of God and man is NOT because they become the same person - indeed Person, but simply by participation, as members of the body of Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.

So thank you for the new term: "Prosopic Union" For a non-English speaking engineering student, you teach good English to us more native speakers!

Rdr. Arsenios}

[Mina Monir]

dear alec,
in fact , I was catholic and thanks to the catholic acceptance of chalcedon and leo's tome I became oriental orthodox.
infact, this is the problem:
we hear but we don't read , rdr Arsenios heard from a catholic friend about this issue , but as I mentioned in my previous post , catholic church and other traditional churches cannot accept mathew the poor's dogma about partaking IN divine nature. but a weak document like 'tome of leo' can make something like 'balbala' in arabic or confusion . and this makes the catholic churches have different ideas coz they do not have a rigid terminology like Alexandrian school of athanasius and cyril and dioscorus. for example : the maronite church (catholic church of lebanon) does not accept the dogma of salvation of non-believers , and I saw a big fight between a roman priest and a maronite priest because the roman gave communion to a group of muslims attended the mass. this is conflict however one pope they have.
getting back to brother Mina Soliman :
dear mina ,
when I give u a quote this does not mean that I don't know his writings or I try to attack him ... no, I cannot write here all his books , besides , we know matta not from his books only .. but we meet him and we had dialogues with him and pope shenouda (matta once said that el kneesa entakalet men 3'aby le a3'ba 'about kyrellos and shenouda')

dear brother, it is a complete system .. a collection of people who refused to obey the church because their father was not ellected to be pope of alexandria twice.
we did not misunderstand him , when u see him defending for these concepts in his writings without mentioning anything about misunderstanding , u will know.
all his resources is from the Jesuite and vatican references , and the group russian monks who share him such ideas. do u think someone says that about anwar el sadat is a normal person?
when we see his sons like athanasius el Makaary in face of THE HERO metropolitan Bishoy who spent in athos a complete week answering the monks there in 1994 and after he persuaded them with our christology they printed a book of his answers in greek , when u see this hero and athanasius el makaary facing each other u will see how is the gap between such a hero and this group ... matta did not say that pope shenouda misunderstood him when he wrote the great series of comperative theology -answering him-which romania and ukrain and spanish monks translated it .infact he said very strange things , he said THE CHRIST DID NOT PUT A DOGMA AND HE CANNOT MAKE SUCH A FANATIC THING!! , and said : IT IS WRONG TO GIVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST TO ONLY OUR ORTHODOX PEOPLE , THIS IS AGAINST EVANGELISM!! this idea he took it from a catholic idea called : EL DEYAAFA EL EFKHARESTIA (in english : eucharistic guesting or housing) ... and when the orthodox theologists answered him , he did not say : u misunderstood me .
about a quote supports his idea in taking divine essence: U can take all the quotes of his famous book (EL OSOOL EL ABAA'EYYA EL ORTHODOXIA)
u will find a harmony of talking about hypostatic union between us and the holy ghost.
I did not see him talking about misunderstanding.
do u accept the following : once HH went to St.Makarius monastery , he refused to open the gates of the monastery!! HH entered and after alot of time and prayed the mass.
this makes me feeling sick.
catholic church supports him and translates his writings too.
about the story of mathew 16 , I don't care if EO accepts the idea of attacking the holy scriptures or not . but I believe that no christian can say that.
biblical criticism must be studied as u said , and u know that coptic church is the most church studied it because we face islam everyday. but studying it is to support the bible not to attack it. MATTA does not believe in the 16th chapter and ALOT OF PARTS OF THE BIBLE le'enno mo7des ne3ma we beye2ra kotob el 7'awagaat we yetargemha zayy elly 3ando 3o2det el 7'awaaga.
I remember that catholics themselves refused his ideas ... it is not even academic.
and when u read the comperative theology books u will find TAFAAHET AFKAARO (english : how trivial is his ideas)
what do u think of one believes that : WE WERE CRUCIFIED WITH CRIST AND MADE OUR SALVATION THROUGH HIM .
some russian monks believe in that!
when HE metrp. Bishoy and DR.Joseph faltas wrote a book called : how did salvation happen (kayfa tamma al fedaa2) answering him , he wrote a book attacking us personally and defending for the idea ... without saying U MISUNDERSTOOD ME.
he is proud of these ideas.
if u can reach the last book of the series of comperative theology of HH shenouda , u can read a very academic answer kills his lies about mark's chapter.
balaash el 3elm elly beyonfo7'.
I remember he wrote a book using a reference supports the idea that jesus has a relation with buddha.
this is the funny criticism.
in christ,
Mina

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Mina,

Biblical Criticism does not attack the Bible. It affirms its spiritual infallibility. When one says that the last chapter of St. Mark was not written by St. Mark itself, that does not mean he is attacking the gospel. The last chapter is spiritually infallible whether or not St. Mark wrote it. For example, scholars today agree that Genesis ALONE may have been written by many different authors and not necessarily Moses (or just Moses). One can see that Chapters 1 and 2 contradict one another in some way. But we must take these stories spiritually, and allegorically. Even Philo of Alexandria took the Creation story allegorically, and refused to take it literally. Our Alexandrian fathers have taken this same system, and this system is needed today in the Western world. In Egypt it is different, for you are dealing with Islam, which is why it may be misconstrued as an "attack" against the Bible, when in actuality it is not.

Concerning Fr. Matta, I will only stick with the subject matter in Christology and theosis. On the other things, I have limited knowledge. I've also heard, on a positive note, that Fr. Matta used to be the spiritual father of confession of the Pope himself, and in the monastery website, it shows that the Pope went in (not indicating whether he was left out for a while or not), and Fr. Matta was the first to prostrate and kiss his hand. Perhaps, one day, I can verify the accusations made against Fr. Matta.

Concerning Christology/theosis, you write:


partaking IN divine nature

I personally find no difference in saying "IN" or "OF." Fr. Tadros Malaty himself in his book on "Grace" used "in" several times. Saying "IN" or "OF" does not prove one is partaking of the "ousia."


u will find a harmony of talking about hypostatic union between us and the holy ghost

Can you give me the exact quote translated in english and the name of the book in english?


WE WERE CRUCIFIED WITH CRIST AND MADE OUR SALVATION THROUGH HIM

What is wrong with that? Isn't our whole life a suffering and sharing in the suffering of Christ to achieve our salvation after being made part of His body?

God bless.

Mina

[Arsenios]

Alec writes:
>>>Hold the phone, Reader Arsenios. The RC you're dealing with is way off base. I checked tonight with an old friend who is an RC priest who teaches theology. Your correspondent is not articulating any RC teaching known to him. His reaction was, "You're kidding, right?"<<<

That was my reaction precisely. First, I said "Perhaps in your hieuristic zeal you mis-spoke..." But no, "We who are Christians, and the poor, become Christ Himself." So I rejoined him and said "Then this is your personal interpretation, and not the belief of the Roman Catholic Church, yes?" And he came up with the quote, which I shall supply. And then I threw out the question to other Roman Catholic posters on that forum, and they either did not reply, or said his 'position' is not all that unusual, and even kind of got on me a little for over-reacting. And I explained that if you were to proclaim that doctrine within hearing of any Orthodox Christian, you would scandalize whoever heard it. That such a belief is anathema...

So I went to the poster, and required of him to corroborate his view with a priest and have his priest post either the confirmation or denial of the doctrine as Catholic teaching. And he withdrew from the exchange, for it was getting heated, and he was pushing hard for the imposition of the authority of Rome over all Christian Churches...

It was a strange exchange, and I doubtless went overboard...

>>>If I were you, I would lean hard on the correspondent for independent corroboration of what he is claiming from authoritative RC sources, preferably the most recent "A Catechism of the Catholic Church" promulgated by John Paul II. And get the quote in full ...<<<

Thank-you, Alec - I leaned on him as hard as I could for independent corroboration, and he backed off - But there are other Roman Catholics on that board, and none came to admonish him. One or two admonished me that this is a fairly mainstream Catholic "position" and why am I so outraged with it, and no need to push it. [I have this feeling that he was but promulgating what may be their perhaps somewhat new understanding of the Roman version of the Orthodox teaching on divinization (theosis)...]

This [the word theosis] does seem to be a hot new theological item, very dressy and exotic, and the west does seem to be trying to wrap its theoretical mind around it, and perhaps in that effort are making some cognitive leaps that would be understandable as products of a desire to try to understand, and to say that they also teach it, only in different terms... [Nobody seems to want to be wrong!] And maybe he was just doing that... I don't know...

The thread was titled "Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium" and the quote is from the Catechism [I don't know which]:
<font color="0000ff">795 <u>Christ and his Church thus together make up the &#34;whole Christ&#34; &#40;Christus totus&#41;</u>. The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity:

Let us rejoice then and give thanks that <u>we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself</u>. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God&#39;s grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: <u>we have become Christ</u>. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does &#34;head and members&#34; mean? Christ and the Church.230 Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself.231

Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person.232

A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: &#34;About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they&#39;re just one thing, and we shouldn&#39;t complicate the matter.&#34;233[/box]</font>

This may be off topic here - But I was just as dumb-founded as your priest friend was... Thank-you for doing the follow-up.

Rdr. Arsenios

[Moses Anthony]

Reader Arsenios If and when you do as you&#39;ve indicated, please do e-mail me a copy, as I also think Mina offered an awsome reply. a sinful and unworthy servant

[Mina Monir]

Dear Soliman u said :
&#34;Biblical Criticism does not attack the Bible. It affirms its spiritual infallibility. When one says that the last chapter of St. Mark was not written by St. Mark itself, that does not mean he is attacking the gospel. The last chapter is spiritually infallible whether or not St. Mark wrote it. For example, scholars today agree that Genesis ALONE may have been written by many different authors and not necessarily Moses &#40;or just Moses&#41;. &#34;
excuse me mina soliman .. u r totally wrong
St.Athanasius was asked if they had to add the revelation book of Hermas the shepherd to the canonical books ... he said clearly : it is infallible , but the apostles did not write it ... so, it is not canonical .
u can revise the acts of nicene council and compare it with your opinion. secondly,I DID NOT SAY BIBLICAL CRITICISM IS DANGEROUS ON THE BIBLE, but using a very wrong data collected in a very NON academic way to doubt in a part the bible itself said that all the book is inspired. and the nicene council said that. PLEASE READ THE APOLOGETIC ANSWER OF THE 6TH BOOK OF HH POPE SHENOUDA.
matta uses a very low level of references.
the concept of accepting anything since no bad teaching in it is a very very wrong concept. the church did not accept it. when I say partaking IN divine nature , I mean matta&#39;s idea in having divine ousia through eucharist . I think u jump on tens of points I mentioned like salvation of non believers and many other things.
u accept the sentence of we crucified with christ and made salvation through from the view of Paul the apostle in galatians 2:20 ... which means suffering .
but matta wrote a book stating that we were on the CROSS OF GULGOTHA AND WE ACHIEVED REDEMPTION please read my answer and the verses I gave in my previous posts. HE SAYS THAT IT IS WRONG TO SAY &#40;EL MASEE7 SOLEBA 3ANNA ... WE MUST SAY AL MASEE7 SOLEBA BENA &#41; do u think u can be a KAFFAARA for yourself mina ?
matta does not accept this part in the nicene faith.
when u talk about him please stop on every point I mention and read them well .
I can&#39;t give u a quote because u will justify it and say we misunderstand him HOWEVER HE DID NOT SAY WE MISUNDERSTOOD HIM !!! DAH BEBAGAA7A BEY2OOL ENN KAANOON EL EEMAN 3&#39;ALAT WE HOWWA SA77.
in his book &#40;saint athanasius&#41; when metropolitan bishoy embarrased him in the point of redemption , he wrote that athanasius and his writings became part of history and we should not care so much for them .
in christ
Mina

[Alec Lowly]

Mina Monir writes:

&#34; ... I saw a big fight between a roman priest and a maronite priest because the roman gave communion to a group of muslims attended the mass. this is conflict however one pope they have.&#34;

What the Roman priest did is contrary to Rome&#39;s canons. I saw this recently here in the United States when I attended a funeral Mass for a RC friend. Before distributing Holy Communion, the Roman priest addressed the congregation, stating that only Roman Catholics who are properly prepared may come to the altar for Holy Communion.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Mina,

Forgive me dear brother. I will respectfully going to have to disagree with you.


St.Athanasius was asked if they had to add the revelation book of Hermas the shepherd to the canonical books ... he said clearly : it is infallible , but the apostles did not write it ... so, it is not canonical .

I cannot find where St. Athanasius allegedly said this. But according to the 39th Paschal letter, even the book of Esther and the Dueterocanonical books were considered equal to the Shepherd of Hermas as merely things to be read and recommended by Holy Fathers. Surely, however, we know that the book of Esther and the Dueterocanonical books are canon whether or not St. Athanasius says they're not canon. Thus, canonicity does not imply St. Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, but that the Church ecumenically decided to add that to its canon, hence the word "canonical" (besides not all Psalms were written by St. David and not all Proverbs were written by St. Solomon.) By law, these are what are to be read in the Bible. Since St. Athanasius did not include Esther in the canon, he is just one who disagrees with the rest of the Church.

As for the Council of Nicea, I cannot find any record that the Council of Nicea developed the Bible canon. While I heard of it, I cannot find it in the canons of Nicea itself. It would do me a great service to lead me to the Bible canon of the Council of Nicea.


PLEASE READ THE APOLOGETIC ANSWER OF THE 6TH BOOK OF HH POPE SHENOUDA.

Where may I obtain this?


the concept of accepting anything since no bad teaching in it is a very very wrong concept. the church did not accept it.

Maybe some Church heirarchs don't accept it, but the Church AS A WHOLE does not agree.


when I say partaking IN divine nature , I mean matta's idea in having divine ousia through eucharist . I think u jump on tens of points I mentioned like salvation of non believers and many other things.

You still did not prove to me that he believed in partaking of the ousia. Please, I ask for a quote and reference. Just because he may believe in one erroneous dogma does not mean he is heretical in everything he says. Let us stick to Fr. Matta's issue in Christology/theosis and not digress to his other issues.


u accept the sentence of we crucified with christ and made salvation through from the view of Paul the apostle in galatians 2:20 ... which means suffering .
but matta wrote a book stating that we were on the CROSS OF GULGOTHA AND WE ACHIEVED REDEMPTION please read my answer and the verses I gave in my previous posts. HE SAYS THAT IT IS WRONG TO SAY (EL MASEE7 SOLEBA 3ANNA ... WE MUST SAY AL MASEE7 SOLEBA BENA ) do u think u can be a KAFFAARA for yourself mina?

I'm not sure I understand what you're accusing Fr. Matta of. I'm actually quite confused in this one, but in reading his article "Day of the Cross," (http://www.stmacariusmonastery.org/stmark.htm) his view of redemption seems to be within the bounds of Orthodoxy in a contemplative manner.


when u talk about him please stop on every point I mention and read them well .

I'm trying my best to do that. :-) Please forgive me if I misunderstand you.


I can't give u a quote because u will justify it and say we misunderstand him

Well, if you give me the quote in its context (i.e. a few sentences before and a few sentences after) with a reference to where it is from without quoting things out of memory, I may see more credibility in your accusations.

God bless.

Mina