Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 369
- Technical Topics 369
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III on the Topic of Man's Deification
Does anyone know where I can get this book in English? Been discussing Theosis will some friends and would like HH's book on the subject, particularly his dispute with Fr Matta El Maskeem. Please pray for me
Comments
http://www.orthodoxbookstore.org/mansdeificationpart1.aspx
The second part is called "Partakers of the Divine Nature" and I do not believe it has come out yet.
But I understand your dilemma; You want to be prepared for your discussions as soon as possible.
Have you considered perhaps speaking with your Father of Confession about this discussion? He might be able to help you quickly.
whats wrong with deification or theosis? Both terms mean becoming like God...and even when St. Athanasius says "God became man so that mad can become gods" it didn't mean we become God but become sanctified through grace, what God is by nature. How is this a hard concept to understand?
I wish to read His Holiness Pope Shenouda's Thoughts on the subject, as I have already read the eastern Orthodox thoughts.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12913.msg152083#msg152083 date=1329460397]
whats wrong with deification or theosis? Both terms mean becoming like God...and even when St. Athanasius says "God became man so that mad can become gods" it didn't mean we become God but become sanctified through grace, what God is by nature. How is this a hard concept to understand?
I wish to read His Holiness Pope Shenouda's Thoughts on the subject, as I have already read the eastern Orthodox thoughts.
That is a well rounded approach lankyknight, but please be advised that HH's book is not necessarily the most widely accepted view on the subject (even from an Oriental position). Our own church fathers undeniably spoke about theosis, not knock it down. No disrespect to HH at all.
[quote author=lankyknight1990 link=topic=12913.msg152084#msg152084 date=1329463345]
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12913.msg152083#msg152083 date=1329460397]
whats wrong with deification or theosis? Both terms mean becoming like God...and even when St. Athanasius says "God became man so that mad can become gods" it didn't mean we become God but become sanctified through grace, what God is by nature. How is this a hard concept to understand?
From my reading it was Maximus the Confessor who first defined the process as "theosis". Im not against becoming Holier and being in Communion with God, and Being in Relationship with him, what I am a bit uneasy with it is the systematic Defining of the THeosis process, Hence why I am looking into it from an Oriental Perspective. Up until Very recently no Oriental Father used the term Theosis, as this is the terminology of the Eastern Orthodox, not the Oriental Orthodox. THat doesn't make it wrong nessessarily
I wish to read His Holiness Pope Shenouda's Thoughts on the subject, as I have already read the eastern Orthodox thoughts.
That is a well rounded approach lankyknight, but please be advised that HH's book is not necessarily the most widely accepted view on the subject (even from an Oriental position). Our own church fathers undeniably spoke about theosis, not knock it down. No disrespect to HH at all.
I am not sure as to HH stance on theosis,
HH seems to be directing his arguments towards someone, whom he has not named directly in the book but refers to his writings throughout. He makes some solid arguments, namely that we do not become God, but the term god is more akin to likeness. Apparently this author, whom HH does not name, states that our nature becomes that OF the Godhead. So essentially the author is stating that we become God here in the present, which is not theosis. Still, I am going to refrain from using the word deification and theosis, because of what both words imply, that we become God.
I am not sure as to HH stance on theosis,
You can assume he's directing his arguments at Fr Matta El Meskeen
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=12913.msg152684#msg152684 date=1330645827]
HH seems to be directing his arguments towards someone, whom he has not named directly in the book but refers to his writings throughout. He makes some solid arguments, namely that we do not become God, but the term god is more akin to likeness. Apparently this author, whom HH does not name, states that our nature becomes that OF the Godhead. So essentially the author is stating that we become God here in the present, which is not theosis. Still, I am going to refrain from using the word deification and theosis, because of what both words imply, that we become God.
I am not sure as to HH stance on theosis,
You can assume he's directing his arguments at Fr Matta El Meskeen
Ahhh, that is why I cannot find any of the books. Matta El Meskeen only has two books in english.
In that case, I have to side with HH for sure. He makes some spectacular arguments in this book.
whats wrong with deification or theosis? Both terms mean becoming like God...and even when St. Athanasius says "God became man so that mad can become gods" it didn't mean we become God but become sanctified through grace, what God is by nature. How is this a hard concept to understand?
That is a well rounded approach lankyknight, but please be advised that HH's book is not necessarily the most widely accepted view on the subject (even from an Oriental position). Our own church fathers undeniably spoke about theosis, not knock it down. No disrespect to HH at all.
Timothy, I think you are confused. Please read the article I provided above and you will understand more correctly the doctrine of theosis. By the way there is nothing controversial with HH's view on the matter whatsoever.
i am not well read on this subject, although i have read a little from both EO and OO writers, and it seems the EO writers love to use the term theosis, and the OO generally don't.
the EO make a distinction between the 'essence' and 'energies' of God, the OO don't, as far as i have read. i think this maybe because there is not a clear and simple distinction between these things, and once you start trying to separate them out, it is easy to confuse people.
i think it is good pope shenouda is not naming someone in his responses.
from what i have read, the viewpoint that needs correcting is some people's understanding of father matta's books, not father matta himself, as the quotes i have read from him have nothing to do with us becoming God or gods, but rather 'partakers of the divine nature' as saint peter said.
i think it is very easy once you become a famous author to be misunderstood! everyone thinks they understand you, and then they put forward their viewpoint as if it was yours.
;)
good points.
i am not well read on this subject, although i have read a little from both EO and OO writers, and it seems the EO writers love to use the term theosis, and the OO generally don't.
the EO make a distinction between the 'essence' and 'energies' of God, the OO don't, as far as i have read. i think this maybe because there is not a clear and simple distinction between these things, and once you start trying to separate them out, it is easy to confuse people.
i think it is good pope shenouda is not naming someone in his responses.
from what i have read, the viewpoint that needs correcting is some people's understanding of father matta's books, not father matta himself, as the quotes i have read from him have nothing to do with us becoming God or gods, but rather 'partakers of the divine nature' as saint peter said.
i think it is very easy once you become a famous author to be misunderstood! everyone thinks they understand you, and then they put forward their viewpoint as if it was yours.
;)
Agreed.