Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Need specific Pope Shenouda sermon

qawe
in Random Issues
Can someone PLEASE link me to/send me Pope Shenouda's sermon of April 24, 1991 entitled "Communion with God"?

Comments

  • minasolimanminasoliman
    oh...you got my attention on this one....lol!

    if you get this sermon, send it to me
  • qawe
    minasoliman said:

    oh...you got my attention on this one....lol!


    if you get this sermon, send it to me
    Sure Mina.  I'm guessing you want to analyse it for traces of theosis?
  • katanikhoroskatanikhoros
    Sign me up too lol
  • MeenaSamyMeenaSamy
    There were 3 sermons with the name "Communion with God" for Pope Shenouda III
    In years 1980, 1985, and 1991
    The one you want was in 24 April 1991 as you said exactly
    I uploaded it for you and you can download it from here
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited August 2015
    qawe said:

    minasoliman said:

    oh...you got my attention on this one....lol!


    if you get this sermon, send it to me
    Sure Mina.  I'm guessing you want to analyse it for traces of theosis?
    You read me like an open book ;)

    Thank you Meena
  • Tobit
    It is very interesting to see how people view the late Patriarch. Implying in our responses and mannerisms that he had no idea what unity with God is because of his misunderstanding with Abouna Matta el meskeen. This is quite disheartening and I hope this misconception disappears.
     
    H.H lived as an ascetic before and after his enthronement. This is theosis, theopoesis, deification, or whatever name we ascribe to it. Union with God is a mystery and we each develop within that framework individually and uniquely through the Spirit which guides us in the church, sacraments & asceticism. 

    I could live my whole life in unity with God and not know about the word "theosis". I could preach unity with God and not know about the word. Terms are important but the life lived and value placed through the definition of that "word" is even more so.

    Theosis itself is a word that was "Orthodoxified" or "Christianized" by the Cappadocian fathers which was originally used by Plato then Aristotle. It matters not if I use the word "deification", "theosis", "unity" or "Divine grace" as long as they're all lived and understood as experiences apart from just words. 

    I remember Fr Tadros Malaty in one of his books started out with a wonderful phrase. To paraphrase it he stated "the purpose of the Christian life is unity with Christ through the Holy Spirit". 
    That is theosis but without mentioning the word. Clearly Fr Tadros as theologian & historian knows about the word and its application but chose to provide a working example instead of using the actual term (which is of course fine too). 

    But if we are going to look at fathers and measure their caliber of orthodoxy simply by seeing their use of certain words or terms then we ourselves have fallen victim to a different kind of delusion. Let us remember this when listening to the sermon and critiquing the theology of the late patriarch. Think of the consensus patrum and summation of all the lives of the desert fathers, theologians and martyrs who lived this "theosis", "deification" or "unity". It's how they understood & lived it, not just applied the word & fished for it in literature and sermons as a thermometer of the speaker's orthodoxy. 

    (I'm not presumming you guys are doing that, but just a cautious reminder to all of us, especially to myself)




  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Tobit,

    You make excellent points. There is however a growing concern and when I get the chance I'll explain more.
  • qawe
    MeenaSamy said:

    There were 3 sermons with the name "Communion with God" for Pope Shenouda III

    In years 1980, 1985, and 1991
    The one you want was in 24 April 1991 as you said exactly
    I uploaded it for you and you can download it from here
    Thank you Meena.

    Do you/anyone know where I can find the video?  Preferably with English subtitles?  I know it exists, because it used to be on youtube but was pulled down.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited August 2015
    Dear Tobit,

    There was a point in time when a humble Christian in the ancient Church did not know how to best articulate beliefs in the Logos and the Holy Spirit.  One can say just because they were not as perfect in their knowledge does not remove the reality that Christ and the Holy Spirit worked in these Christians' lives.  However, other Christians started to articulate a theology that puts the gospel in danger.  Many have said there was a time when Christ was not, and some would say the same for the Holy Spirit.  Others also started to articulate that Jesus was not really fully human, but partially human.

    One can argue the very simple Christian at the time only just believed in Jesus, lived an ascetic life and may have even attained a grace above any other grace, the gift of martyrdom.  However, when you find that some of these people started to teach something that is at odds with the gospel, it worries you.  What's even worse is that many of those who were disciples of this erroneous thinker would teach the same doctrines and would make the Church subject to a danger that we might lead the people to believe in the wrong gospel.

    Two examples in the Church are St. Augustine of Hippo and Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Poor St. Augustine was not able to articulate fully a good theology on grace.  In combatting the heresy of Pelagius, St. Augustine gave us ideas that may have compromised the free will of man as well as an understanding of the Holy Spirit.  I do not say St. Augustine is a heretic.  I revere him as a saint.  But he began a discussion that seemed to have been taken the wrong way by some successors of his, and this is a problem.

    Theodore of Mopsuestia was even worse.  He was also a pious man, a pious follower of Diodore of Tarsus, who was also an ascetic and was praised in a letter we have by St. Athanasius for his asceticism.  Diodore however taught his spiritual son Theodore the idea that in Christ, there is the working and communion of two natures side-by-side, two persons with one sonship and honor.  They were the forerunners of Nestorius.  Already Theodore and Diodore already passed away, and while they were respected and revered as saintly men by their part of the Church, St. Cyril did not hesitate to refute their heretical writings.  He did not intend for the Church to unanimously condemn them in person, but that Orthodoxy was enough.  If the bishops who revere Diodore and Theodore believe Christ was one hypostasis and that the Holy Virgin was "Theotokos", then did it not matter if they commemorated these two men as saints.  However, after St. Cyril passed away, things got worse, and the theology of the Church became very confused because bishops could not separate the reverence they had for them from the heresies they taught.  Therefore, it seemed necessary later to condemn them also in person.

    The problem therefore is those who teach that "deification is heresy" or that "deification merely means an imitation" and "God cannot dwell in man since God is infinite".  These all contradict the gospel, that is they all contradict Fr. Tadros' beautiful summation you quoted, and if people cannot separate reverence from erroneous teaching, that puts the legacy of HH Pope Shenouda in jeopardy, either that or the Church will be in jeopardy.  "Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy" said His Holiness.  Let us at least respect the fact that we continue to uphold the teachings of the Church fathers as His Holiness taught us.  We must uphold the teachings of theosis.
  • Tobit
    edited August 2015
    Dear Minasoliman,

    I agree with most of your analysis which could've been said in less words. Throwing strawmen and then arguing against them isn't helpful. 
    I understand your point in what happened with st.Augustine & others & you present it well.
    The point I'm trying to make is, will we approach the matter with respect to the late Patriarch's legacy?
    Will we approach the matter fully knowing what he said in Arabic and not just relying on the sub-par English translation? if so, great

    While it can be very easy to become an internet theologian, it is much harder being honest & hopping off the bandwagon for just enough time to see things differently. There are questionable statements that have been made by the Late Patriarch just as with other fathers, but taken in context, does he deny the essence of the said spiritual teaching? Do we understand what he was arguing against?
    All these are questions that can only be answered by reading what he said in his language and why he was cautioning about certain things.

    We have to shed our presupposed biases and what we've read to see if the Late Patriarch's teaching nullify any teachings from the fathers. Is the Arabic word Ta2leeh used in the Islamic theological verbatim or paralleled with the Christian one?

    This is not directed at you, but internet forums have started feeding themselves with the same recyclable ideas and circular pomp. 
    We need to step outside cyber space and read what was actually said in the spirit it was intended and not just about him from different forums.

    I'm reminded of C.S lewis' cautious reminder of reading Plato himself rather than reading a book about Plato. 
    And I've noticed the same trends on orthodox internet forums. 


    May we all live theosis and not just preach without living it, because that's when we fall in delusions, myself first.
    As St Athanasius cautioned and rightly so that we must truly live the lives of the saints in order to understand their teachings. We all have to approach this great mystery humbly

    I'm looking forward to the discussion about the sermon
  • Tobit
    Tobit said:

    Dear Minasoliman,


    I agree with most of your analysis which could've been said in less words. Throwing strawmen and then arguing against them isn't helpful. 
    I understand your point in what happened with st.Augustine & others & you present it well.
    The point I'm trying to make is, will we approach the matter with respect to the late Patriarch's legacy?
    Will we approach the matter fully knowing what he said in Arabic and not just relying on the sub-par English translation? if so, great

    While it can be very easy to become an internet theologian, it is much harder being honest & hopping off the bandwagon for just enough time to see things differently. There are questionable statements that have been made by the Late Patriarch just as with other fathers, but taken in context, does he deny the essence of the said spiritual teaching? Do we understand what he was arguing against?
    All these are questions that can only be answered by reading what he said in his language and why he was cautioning about certain things.

    We have to shed our presupposed biases and what we've read to see if the Late Patriarch's teaching nullify any teachings from the fathers. Is the Arabic word Ta2leeh used in the Islamic theological verbatim or paralleled with the Christian one?

    This is not directed at you, but internet forums have started feeding themselves with the same recyclable ideas and circular pomp. 
    We need to step outside cyber space and read what was actually said in the spirit it was intended and not just about him from different forums.

    I'm reminded of C.S lewis' cautious reminder of reading Plato himself rather than reading a book about Plato. 
    And I've noticed the same trends on orthodox internet forums. 


    May we all live theosis and not just preach without living it, because that's when we fall in delusions, myself first.
    As St Athanasius cautioned and rightly so that we must truly live the lives of the saints in order to understand their teachings. We all have to approach this great mystery humbly

    I'm looking forward to the discussion about the sermon

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Tobit,
    Thank you for your comments. I agree that we often forget our loyalties to our fathers and jump on a popularity bandwagon when it becomes convenient. This is human nature. However, comments made against HH Pope Shenouda's theology of theosis are not merely issues of translation. Both volumes of the English work were done in 2005 and 2008, respectively. If there had been translation mistakes, HH himself would have addressed them with a new edition or through El-Keraza or some other means. But he never did. We can not say that arguments against HH position of theosis are clouded in translation problems. Without any additional contrary evidence, these are HH words themselves, not a secondary source (as you described in your reference of CS Lewis' comments on Plato).

    In addition, I do not see any source online of HH writing about deification in Arabic. He may have mentioned some concepts in other books, but as far as I know, there isn't any Arabic treatise dealing with theosis as the main topic. If I am wrong, I hope someone can clarify.

    I will certainly agree with you that HH Pope Shenouda lived theosis more than he wrote about it. But when he did come to write about theosis, he clearly wrote something that is contrary to patristics and scripture (and likely contrary to what he claimed his opponents said). The question becomes whether he simply practiced theosis but refused to define theosis as the fathers have, or if he believed deification is something entirely different than what he experienced. 

    One more thing, you wrote "We have to shed our presupposed biases and what we've read to see if the Late Patriarch's teaching nullify any teachings from the fathers. Is the Arabic word Ta2leeh used in the Islamic theological verbatim or paralleled with the Christian one?"
    The reality is HH wrote about deification and theosis in English. If his understanding of deification is based on the Arabic influences of Islamic theology, then it was necessary for him to clarify that when he established his argument in English. What you are now asking us to do is go beyond the words he actually used and read his mind to understand his Arabic theology. We may very well have preconceived biases of theosis and deification. But the discussion now is not how English definitions of theosis differ from Arabic definitions in the mind of HH, it is about how HH described theosis in English. Later, we can evaluate how HH described theosis in Arabic (as Minasoliman stated) and then compare the differences in Arabic and English. 

    Believe me when I tell you that all of us would love to find some sermon, book or treatise by HH Pope Shenouda that does conform to the fathers. We would easily adjudicate his words in Man's deification Vol I and II as an aberration because we know his legacy. These discussions here and in other internet forums (and now in some churches and theological articles) are really not anti-HH Pope Shenouda polemic. We are all trying to sort through contradictory writings. 

     
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    And to add, this is not merely an Internet controversy. Now we have EOs who got a hold of HH's anti-theosis writings and attack our church as heretical because it denies this tenet of Orthodoxy, despite the fact that the Coptic Church, even anti-Chalcedonians, have always upheld it. It really makes us look bad in the world and we need to be clear about our teachings so that this is not used as an excuse to jeer at the Coptic Church.
Sign In or Register to comment.