Fr. Matta and the Eucharist

[minasoliman]

What's more fascinating is what the worshipers inside the altar receiving the Eucharist saw and felt. Magdy's sister was receiving communion and is quoted as having said that all she could see is light in the tray and light in the hands of Abouna whilst he gave her the body of Christ to partake of. As she partook of this light, she even felt as if she was chewing light!

I don't know about you, but some people may have problems with this.  Doesn't this echo Fr. Matta's claim of "eating the Divine nature" (not that I have an issue with it yet)?

God bless.

Mina

[EkhristosAnesti]

Doesn't this echo Fr. Matta's claim of "eating the Divine nature"?

Huh? Where did my post say anything about "the Divine Nature"?

(not that I have an issue with it yet)

I hope you're saying you don't have any issues with the witness's claim, and not Fr. Matta's claim...

You shouldn't have any issues with the witness's claim: this miracle was witnessed by hundreds if not thousands, on more than one occasion, including the Bishop of Assiut who issued a formal declaration.

You should have issues with Fr. Matta's claim: it's absolute blasphemy.

[minasoliman]

So the light is some sort of creation?

[EkhristosAnesti]

God doesn't send His miracles accompanied with a miracle pamphlet in order to explain the exact nature of His miraculous manifestations to The Church. I guess the explanation most in line with Orthodox theology would be that the light in question was the uncreated Grace of God.

[minasoliman]

God doesn't send His miracles accompanied with a miracle pamphlet in order to explain the exact nature of His miraculous manifestations to The Church. I guess the explanation most in line with Orthodox theology would be that the light in question was the uncreated Grace of God.

That's the point!  Can you eat the grace of God?  That's what I understand one of the "blasphemies" of Fr. Matta is.

Might I add that when I say "Divine nature," I thought you might understand I didn't mean "ousia."

God bless.

Mina

[Stavro]

It is indeed sad that a great miracle like the one mentioned above should be turned into a heretical teaching by the ignorance of the followers of Matta. It seems they will stop at nothing to prove that we indeed eat the Divine Nature in the Eucharist.

What was mentioned in the " The orthodox patriology basics" book in part 2 page 34 is the following:
" We drink the divinity (lahoot) as part of the mystery." How do they understand divinity, how do they use the word divinity and how is the word in arabic "lahoot" understood needs just a basic understanding of arabic, something Mina totally lacks. When you say "lahoot", then the essence of divinity is meant, the very nature of the Trinity is in mind. There can be no other meaning to the word "lahoot".

The word is used in liturgical practice in the same sense. It just has no other meaning. The confession of faith before the Eucharist administration to the congregation states clearly that "Lahootuh" (his divinity) departed not from from "nasootuh" (his humanity). This is just one liturgical example among many, and among thousands of examples generally in literature, in sermons, .... etc.

Did Matta care to clarify, and what seemed like a miserable choice of words if his intentions are indeed orthodox ? Through his followers in the USA and Canada, people like Mina Soliman, they accused the Pope right away with Nestorianism because to say that we do not partake the divinity of Christ in the Eucharist (like H.H. Pope Shenouda has explained) is to separate both natures. So, what is it that Mina Soliman understand from the writings of Matta that Matta himself did not intend to convey by his own writings? It is defense at any cost, even to the extent of risking to look ridiculus, knowing that many of the followers of Matta have no access to arabic books as they do not understand the language.

Does "partaking" in the divine nature fit into the scheme of "divinization of man" that controls the ideology of Matta and his followers ? Absolutely. I have shown in another topic that they believe that each and every man, starting from the apostles, is a small "Christ" in nature possessing the divinity (through the Holy Spirit) and their natural humanity through divine incarnations.There is still a topic open for that in which the divinization statements by Matta need to be either refuted and proven orthodox, or heresy should be acknowledged. They speak about being divine in nature, in essence, nothing else.  

EA,
I am truly sorry I posted a somewhat irrelevant post to your excellent topic, but I just fear that heretics (by that I mean Matta and everybody who follows him) will use miracles to begin to prove their point. A "mariami" (those who believe in the divinity of St. Mary) will start to take the magnificence of her apparations as a proof to her divinity. If a moderator could remove the posts to an appropriate topic so we do not pollute a miracle by the mention of heresies and heretics that would be appreciated.

 

 

[minasoliman]

Dear Stavro,

I remember a while back we talked about "partaking of the divine nature," giving support to HG Bishop Mousa.  In fact, in the sermon I sent you, he quoted the confession of the priest in the end of the liturgy "His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye."  In Arabic, the word used for "divinity" is "lahoot."  If "lahoot" only means "divine ousia," then it seems to me that HG Bishop Mousa is in "agreement" with Fr. Matta.

However, and correct me if I'm wrong, you replied and corrected me saying that it is different saying "partaking" than "eating" of the divine nature, since the divine nature, or divine grace/energy in this case does not have the same properties of the body and blood which can be eaten.  You seem to not to disagree with HG when he said that "we partake of the divinity", and I assumed you agreed with me that what I was talking about was the Divine nature in view of the energia, not the ousia. (unless you believe in partaking of the ousia, which I would proceed to call you a heretic).

Now, you seem to mention my name several times as if I'm some sort of heretic and follower of Fr. Matta.  You know that I only assume Orthodoxy into what Fr. Matta says and have no authority on what to say concerning him, but I'm only a seeker of the truth of the matter.  If Fr. Matta truly believed that the ousia is partook of, then I would agree it is blasphemy.  But did Fr. Matta clarify (and when I mean clarify, I mean make clear his position as if he was either heretic or Orthodox)?

So, is "lahoot" really only for the ousia?  In English, perhaps not in Arabic, we tend to disagree with this, since I see "divinity" as being synonymous with "divine nature."

Please keep in mind Stavro, I never looked down on you or wanted to be in enmity with you.  If you truly have these feelings against me, then I'm sorry you still have your grudges.  In fact, there are many times where I have looked up to you as a valuable asset to many problems that need answered.  While I may disagree with you on certain things, I wish not to let past disagreements and altercations continue to throw judgments, accusations, or grudges toward one another.

God bless.

Mina

[EkhristosAnesti]

Mina,

You seem to be confusing the Grace of God (which enacts the transformation of the bread into the Holy Body and the wine into the Holy Blood) with the Divine essence of God. The former is His uncreated energy, not His uncreated divinity.

In any event, I think you're reading way too much into the eye witness's claim. Light is not a physical substance with taste or texture, so clearly she did not intend her claim to be taken literally. Whatever she experienced is surely beyond words. She just picked whatever words came to her mind at that moment. The Holy Body was illuminated, and it remained illuminated during its distribution. No one can imagine what the Communicants were experiencing, and no one but God alone can comprehend what exactly it is they were experiencing, or how they were so experiencing it.

[minasoliman]

I'm just saying that when one says "divinity," the word "divinity" can mean either "divine essence" or "uncreated energy."  In this case, when one says "eat the divinity," it does not mean essence, but the energy.  

At the same time, I only want to clear things up, since I thought there were some, like Stavro, who had problems with "eating the energy" so to speak.

That's all what I'm trying to say.  Forgive me for making a big deal out of it, but I only make a big deal because I thought it was a big deal to begin with.

God bless.

Mina

[minasoliman]

By the way, don't get me wrong.  I love the miracle.  I think it is amazing and a great witness to our faith and affirms correct dogma.  It's just that when the issue of "chewing the Light" was brought up, it reminds me of the debate I had with Stavro:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8252.msg109239#msg109239

God bless.

Mina

[Stavro]

Dear Mina,

do not turn it into a personal issue, for it is not. Stick to the facts.

++ Regarding our discussion

+ I have supplied you in three different topics with references and clear quotations from Matta's books. I have proven his heresies from the books published under his name. You did not provide any single argument except your own interpretation for a text written in a language you totally lack the knowledge to read, write and speak. I am afraid it is a weak defense on your behalf.  

+ Matta never retracted. Matta’s only actions in the wake of the Pope’s defense of the faith that is entrusted into him was to unleash his dogs to attack the Pope in every way possible, starting with publishing books and articles to attack the Pope, sermons copied and delivered through his followers and injecting some of them in the Coptic forums.

+ How you assume Matta's Orthodoxy is beyond explanation. Do you actually assume the orthodoxy of a person whose writings and actions have come under so much criticism before actually reading them? Had you refrained from commenting, it would have been understood considering your lack of knowledge of Arabic, but to comment and insist on your opinion when you have nothing to back it up with and cannot even read the books in question is a sad display of dishonesty that is characteristic of Matta's followers. If you are not one of his, and I hope you are not, then stop acting like one.    

++Matta’s heresies concerning the Eucharist:

+ You asked about the Arabic theological expression "Lahoot", and it is clear for anybody who ever attended any kind of service in Arabic and is familiar with the abc of theology in the Arabic language that "lahoot" means the essence of divinity that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share together. Ask your bishop or priest.

+ Having explained to you what "Lahoot" means and how it is understood and used by our Church, I might add that in the context of the writings of Matta, he is definitely talking about the divinity of Christ when he writes that we partake in the divinity through the Eucharist. Is the divinity of Christ a divinity by grace, by elevation, or is it the very essence that he and the Father share together with the Holy Spirit? If he maintains the latter, then he is guilty of his heresy regarding the Eucharist. If he denies it, and I can see this denial coming, he falls into Arianism and a string of heresies. Both ways he is guilty of blasphemy.

+ Speaking about Arianism, the above heresies fit the scheme of divinization of Men that Matta is obsessed with. In this, he follows Arius in the fact that he is indeed confused about the nature of Christ and considers Christ, in a way or another, as the example for a man who became divine. He follows this way of thinking in asserting that the Apostles also experienced a state of incarnation in the Pentecost. As I have shown in another topic, Matta regards the Pentecost as a state of Hypostatic union between the Holy Spirit and the humanity of the Apostles. In Arabic, matta uses the expression "7ululan eknomian" to describe the Holy Spirit type of work in the Apostles and union with them, which indicates the Apostles became one and the same in one nature with the Holy Spirit. This is used to describe the incarnation of the Lord.

+ While to assume unity with the divine nature for the Apostles is a grave heresy, the fact that he draws a comparison with the incarnation of the Logos makes him fall in another heresy. To draw such comparison is a blasphemy which Matta holds the copyrights for. We know that the Apostles are not divine by nature, and the logical extension is that Christ is not divine in essence.

++Heresies of Matta concerning Christ:

+ In fact, and giving you another lead on your research about Matta, what Christ "is" cannot be easily understood from his writings. What is sure about Matta's theology is assertions that the Father separated in essence from the Son during the time of the Cross.

In his commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, page 821, Matta writes:
" ...........the Son has to suffer and die in the body. Here the impossibility and difficulty of death is evident from the fact that the life of the Son depends totally on the life of the father and the connection to his essence. For the Son to die he must be separated from the Father. "

+Matta also believes that the passions of the Son are suffered by the Father as well, reviving a long burried heresy of the early christian centuries.

In his commentary on the Gospel of St. Mark, page 67, Matta writes:
" .............. The curse that Christ carried (became) is also attached to the Father. The shame of the Son on the Cross , the shame of sin, comes also upon the Father without any doubt."

Yet, he goes back and confirms his idea about the separation in essence between the Father and the Son on the same page in his treatment of the verse (Mark 15:34).

+ I tried to drop the subject for various reasons, but as you continue, maybe unknowingly, to revive the topic to undermine the position and faith of the Church by your defense of the heresies of Matta, I will continue on exposing him and show where his theology is corrupt whenever I have the chance.  

++ Bishop Moussa:

+ You appealed to a recording of Bishop Moussa, and you did so before. I explained to you that in saying that we partake in the Divinity of Christ is to attribute the human materialistic characteristics of Christ to His Divine Nature (so to speak), and mixing the attributes of the two natures together. You did not offer any explanation.

+ I find your appeal to Bishop Moussa exposing a contradiction in your position. You have clearly stated in another topic that you do not follow Bishop blindly, and indeed you are right. How come you pick and choose now? If you truly believe that the essence of divinity is part of the Eucharist, and therefore have picked him for his "sound" argument, you might care to explain how you reconcile that with orthodox belief.

+ If you are appealing to Bishop Moussa as an authority, he is not, at least not when he strays into unorthodox territory and not on his individual personal authority. A bishop is an authority as long as he confirms the orthodox faith, if you actually know what Orthodoxy means. I am appealing to H.H. Pope, HEM Bishoy and ALL the Bishops of the Holy Synod, who have geographical Episcopates and dioceses, who without exception have put a ban on the books of Matta El-Meskeen.

+ If you are appealing to abilities of Bishop Moussa as a theologian, I must clarify that he was never known for any abilities in theology or soteriology. He does a good job in motivating the youth and having plans to employ their energy and abilities in the Church and elevate their spiritual status, which is all good, but he has been making grave mistakes when talking without discernment. I recommend HG focuses his energy on what he does best. On the other hand, the ones known for their exceptional theological abilities and brilliant minds are HEM Bishoy, and H.H. the Pope. Both have openly launched an attack on the heretical monk and have refuted all his heresies.

We have been talking about Matta's heresies; we did not talk about his conspiracy against the Church. It needs a book to mention them.    

++ Conclusion:

As shown above, the heresies of Matta and his followers fit a certain scheme of thought. Such heretics have to break Tradition and contradict it at every step of forming their corrupt teachings. Innovations in theology has been a very effective method in gaining popularity, specially among a certain caliper of people who embrace every liberal thought under empty expressions and slogans such as "theological development" or " theology and history influence each other". They have the need to be recognized, and will stand against the Church and conspire against the Church if the Church refutes their heresies.

Matta, a person who wanted the Papacy more than anything else in his life, and applied twice for the position, had to conspire with the most hated of Copts, President Saddat, to be able to get this position.
In Time Magazine issue of September 28th, 1981, he gives the full support for Saddat's imprisonment of H.H. Shenouda together with 125 bishops and clerics. It is by the inistigation of Matta that HEM Bishoy was almost killed by the secret service, as the young Bishop at the time has taken actions to cut Matta's followers from any service in his dioscese. Here is what is printed in Time Magazine in the interview with Matta:

"Sadat's actions protect the church and the Copts. They are from God."

Defend that if you can, Mina, or let anybody who you voice their opinions actually come forward an explain to us what this is except conspiracy. I challenge you to come forward and say anything.

Matta soon got his 30 piece of silver. Saddat, who was a member of the islamic brotherhood in his youth and as part of the 1952 revolution, and the man who has planned systematic effort to kill the Copts and alienate them from their own country, the man who during his presidency an average of 4 major massacres happened each year by the planning of the police, have given Matta twenty thousand acres of land and installed a new printer and a milk factory in his monastery. This money Matta has used wisely for his marketing purposes and publishing efforts.

The ultimate price was the Papacy. Saddat and Matta worked together to oust the legitimate Pope and replace him by Matta, but the whole Coptic Nation led by faithful bishops have refused to recognize Matta. Only divine intervention and the assassination of Saddat in the most unusual circumstances, as an answer to the prayers of the Copts, has freezed the plans of Saddat and matta.

In the Time magazine, the same issue, Matta blames the Pope for the massacres of the Copts. He goes on further and actually accuses the Pope of conspiracy against the State, and therefore he deserves the punishment.

Mina,
all the above are facts. You have spoken out of ignorance, and I advise you not to do so again because it puts you in a position where you look bad and undermines anything you will say in the future. You do not have to be your master's voice all the time on forums you moderate or participate in.

If you truly have these feelings against me, then I'm sorry you still have your grudges.

Rest assured there are no grudges. From my side, as I told you before, you came under the influence of bad people in a bad time and you are still young to have discernment. I do not make enmities with kids, I pray for them.

 I also do not recommend you use public forums to discuss our personal issues. It interests nobody on this forum, what happened on other forums is not the result of oc.net policy, simply irrelevant to them. Just stick to the facts.  

I am not finished with Matta yet.


 

[Salpy]

Stavro,

Your zeal for protecting the Orthodox faith is admirable. ÂÂ However, I want to remind you and everyone else that it is easy to cross the line and engage in personal attacks. ÂÂ When you make your arguments, please try to attack the beliefs or language which you find offensive or heretical, not the person holding them. ÂÂ I know this is not easy, as I have crossed that line myself on many occasions. ÂÂ However, as Christians, we must try as much as we can to be charitable towards those with whom we disagree. ÂÂ I think we all know Mina well enough to know that he is neither dishonest nor a heretic. ÂÂ Your post, however, could be construed by some to be making those allegations. ÂÂ Forgive me if I misread or misunderstood what you wrote, but that was my impression. ÂÂ I know this is an emotional and controversial topic, but let's please try to keep it cool. ÂÂ Thanks. ÂÂ  

[EkhristosAnesti]

Mina,

Like I said, you're reading way too much into the eye-witness's claim. Think about it; do you think she sat down with a pen and pad, critically analysing the best and most accurate way to describe such a spiritual and mystical phenomena in concordance with correct Orthodox Eucharistic theology? She is probably a very simple Coptic lady who simply burst out in excitement and amazement with the first words that came to her mind in an attempt to describe an experience that is itself beyond words.

Grace is not a physical substance, so it would be ridiculous to speak of it being literally consumed. Nonetheless, as the Holy Bread was being placed into her mouth, it remained illuminated, such that it was as if she was consuming the light, though not in actuality.

Furthermore, i've never heard of the term for "Divinity" in arabic relating to the Grace that so enacts the transformation of the bread into the Holy body and the wine into the Precious Blood. Do you have any precedents for this suggestion? I can see that you've appealed to H.G. Bishop Moussa, but it seems that you're assuming His Grace's intended implication in his employment of that word. It may simply be the case, as Stavro has suggested, that His Grace is simply speaking from ignorance.

[Stavro]

Dear Salpy,

thank you for your advice. It is always appreciated and valued. I will definitely take it into consideration.

There is nothing emotional or personal about the topic. It is pure business (courtesy Al Pacino in Godfather I   ) .

I have brought facts to support my claims, both in reference to Matta's theology or actions against the Church. I believe nobody actually addressed them. To try to divert the attention to a personal feud or a perceived insult that does not exist, as Mina Soliman did, is a bankrupt attempt to discredit the clear and compelling evidence. It is a technique that is old but usually works because people are overly concerned with political correctness than the truth. I am not referring to you, Salpy. The fact is: I have shown the heresies of Matta from his own books and have shown his dispicable character from his actions and nobody actually addressed that. We are instead concerned with whether Mina is dishonest or not, a heretic or not, which is not really my concern.

The problem should not be reduced to a mere disagreement, not between the Church and the dogs of Matta. This exactly the view that the dogs of Matta want to impose on everybody, to overshadow his heresies and his treason. Matta has a small but vocal group that does not lack the money nor the connections to push their agenda. Like any heretical group, and I appeal to the Arians for example, they know their way into the political circles and use it to their advantage. They have the Church at a disadvantage because they are able to compromise at any point and cut deals. There are simply no standards they adhere to and are politician in nature.
 
Since the omission of Matta for Papacy in 1959, he came about ninth in the vote, he became bitter and began his counter Church efforts. His books undermine the Coptic Church position with the clearest terms, has conspired against the Church with Saddat to win the Papacy, and has stopped the release of H.H. The Pope for three years and has led an effort to depose him. The Coptic Pope is important to the Coptic Church more than any other Patriarch because of the nature and structure of the Church, and the Church was sent into an era of fighting against of the efforts of Matta and his jealousy against the Pope. From 1981 -1986 they actually began a systematic effort to control Cairo and Alexandria, which are the biggest and most influential dioceses that were without their local bishop (the Pope). Was it not because of the faithful priests and other bishops, these two dioceses would have been "mattaian" in nature by now. Do not ask for sympathy with the serpents of the egyptian deserts.

His books and the monks of his monastery are clear opponents against the Pope and the Holy Synod, and it is crucial to eliminate them by constant teaching and by exposing their vicious nature and their theological errors in the life of this Pope, H.H. Pope Shenouda.

So, while I do not ask you to take sides on the issue, or expect that you would know about the internal affairs of the Church of Alexandria, I expect at least to understand that it is important to give a fair chance to expose Matta. Note, that Mina has described him as a gem in the Church and a great theologian, and no real Copt who is faithful to his Pope would ever make such description regarding a heretic who undermines the Pope's and Church's position. If there is anything incorrect about my references, I will be more than happy to be corrected. How would you feel about an Armenian cleric who conspires with the Turks in 1916 in order to get the Patriarch position ? It is the same with Matta here. Add to it his heresies, and I am not sure what is there to defend anymore. I am sorry I have to bring up a sad memory to illustrate my point, but I note the difference, but I needed to make such a strong comparison to get the point across.

You are concerned about Protestant infiltration in our Church, and indeed it reflects a genuine orthodox belief as we have discussed before. Matta is also a supporter of Universalism, a supporter of "salvation in a moment" heresy, and an advocate of the heresy of " salvation by grace without any righteous works", many of which are Protestant teachings. I will continue with the topic and expose him more.

As for the strong language, I am not sure whether it was in reference to Mina or Matta, or both. You might clarify, although I regret not using the adequate words to describe Matta. I was way too easy.

In my defense, I would appeal right away to the Fathers who have used the strongest language in reference to heretics. In that, they are not the product of their age and time, or because of their personality, it is a biblical command and they followed the footsteps of Christ. Heretics are not the same like sinners. There is no compassion for heretics nor sympathy, and when they split the Church and take actions to tear the Church apart, then they cannot ask for mercy. If Mina is insulted because I exposed Matta, with clear references and solid facts, and does not care for the Church that he is part of by name, then let him be insulted. I take nothing back.  

As for insulting Mina himself, I do not find any reference to that. I pass over his insult towards me in his last post to myself, because I would be more concerned with facts about Matta rather than personal problems that he tries to revive.

[Salpy]

Dear Stavro,

Don't worry--I'm not sympathizing with Fr. Matta.  In fact, I was turned off from him when I learned how he sided with Saddat against His Holiness Pope Shenouda.  

My post was merely intended to be a reminder to you--and to everyone else--on how it is better to address issues without making comments about other posters with opposing views.  This thread is about whether Fr. Matta's description of the Eucharist is orthodox or not.  I have read enough of your writing on this forum to know that you are skilled enough to address that issue without characterizing  others who disagree with you, like Mina.  Again, forgive me if I misread your earlier post, but you seemed to accuse him of "a sad display of dishonesty" and of "acting like one" of Fr. Matta's followers.  I'm sure it was not your intention to be harsh toward him, but sometimes we come off as being harsh even when that is not our intention.  

I think this can be an interesting thread.  To tell you the truth, I have never understood the Eucharist.  I know we are somehow partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, but that has always been way beyond my comprehension.  The Armenian Church has always held the view that it is best to use as little language as possible to describe God and His mysteries.  In fact, I think that is one of our arguments against Chalcedon, that the Three Councils had enough language and by adding more language, Chalcedon was asking for trouble.  Perhaps that is the problem here.  Perhaps it is best to just accept that we are partaking of Christ's Body and Blood, and Fr. Matta was asking for trouble when he tried to over-define what that meant.  I don't know.  I can't understand it, so I'll leave it to greater minds than my own (like yours) to figure out.  

Anyway, I meant no offense.  Again, forgive me if I misunderstood your earlier post.  I'm just trying to keep the peace.

[Stavro]

Dear Salpy,

I understand your point of view totally. I was not challenging your authority or your views, I was trying to emphasize the importance of exposing Matta, specially in the West where he has his majority of followers.
But I learnt from what you said a great deal. Thank you.  

About the Eucharist, I believe like any other sacrament, it is a mystery and I believe if taken with faith, which is really all what is needed in the Eucharist, it is sufficient. Therefore, the Armenian Church approach is indeed the best one to take when it comes to matters that are above human understanding or not revealed to the Apostles. It is the humility and submission that is fitting for the Church. The Church is the woman that submits to her husband and Head, Christ. The Church does not invent new dogmas. Nothing wrong with the attempt to draw spiritual lessons from the Eucharist, and stress on its necessity for salvation, as longas it is done with prayers and with the supervision of the Church. The problem with Matta is that it cannot be considered an honest mistake, for it is part of a bigger frame of thought and of actions. He is by no means a stupid person, he is very shreud and intelligent just like Theodore and Diodore were, towards corrupt ends.  

Even when somebody errs, which is possible considering our human nature, his mistakes can be corrected and by a source of edification for him and for the Church if he submits to the Church. There is no instant in the Church history where all the Church went wrong on a dogmatic issue. It is not only about education and intelligence, it is about a Christ led Church that can never go wrong as long as its Head is Christ Himself. St. Antony was illiterate, but his mere appearance to defend the faith against the Arians and submit to a very young disciple of his and the Pope at the time, Athanasius, made miracles. Athanasius considered himself actualy fortunate to pour water on the hands of the Great Antony, but when it comes to the Church and submission to its authority, even the Great Antony is no exception.  

The common feature of all heretics is pride and "vanity" ( Vanity, is definitely my favorite sin - courtesy Al Pacino in the Devil's advocate   ).  Better: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" ( Proverbs 16:18).

Thank you again.
 

[minasoliman]

Dearest Stavro,

This is what I believe.  If Fr. Matta truly meant to eat the essence, then I have no problem calling him a heretic.  And I am not assuming anything into Fr. Matta.  Neither do I want to take this debate further.  I am only asking questions and wishing you may perhaps correct my assumptions without thinking I'm some sort of "pick and choosery" type of person or a "devoted internet disciple" to Fr. Matta.  In fact, I feel rather insulted when you like to put assumptions into who I am or what I do, and I am only intending this discussion to be based on what is said, not on my own characteristics.  I felt that when you continually insult me like this, I thought you have some grudge on me, which is why I feel you are insisting on repeating my name as some sort of heretic disciple of Fr. Matta.

Therefore, certain things that I would like to say.  I've read certain writings in English by Fr. Matta, very deep, spiritual writings that have nothing wrong with them, and I actually admire them.  The bad ones aren't translated, so when I read the good ones, I see in Fr. Matta a totally different person than the one who conspired against the church.  Now, while I don't know whether Fr. Matta is a "Judas" so to speak, he certainly was stupid to make these comments against HH the Pope, and it turns me off as well.  But here, we are discussing Fr. Matta's issues on the Eucharist, and just because he opposed the Pope to such a degree in supporting Sadat (I actually thank God he was not Pope and I believe that him not being Pope twice was a divine intervention; I believe and I do not contest against the authorities of both blessed Popes, their Holinesses the Saint Abba Kyrillos and the Holy Abba Shenouda) doesn't mean he is automatically doctrinally deficient.  St. Pope Theophilus' actions against St. John Chrysostom was considered wrong, and an apology was made according to the traditions of the Coptic church, but that doesn't mean St. Pope Theophilus was a heretic.

So I am in no way a disciple to Fr. Matta, but simply seeking out the objective truth.  If anyone can read Arabic and does not seem so opposed against Fr. Matta, and read his writings, I would also wish to read his/her arguments compared to yours.  Unless, dear Stavro, you have already heard all the arguments, to which I am open to read your experiences, an "offer you can't refuse" (the Godfather himself, as well as others).

Neither do I pick and choose bishops.  The reason why I appealed to HG Bishop Moussa was not to make myself look good, but to understand the heart of the debate.  Maybe you're right.  HG Bishop Mousa must have said it out of ignorance, and I am also ignorant of the Arabic language.  So according to you and EA, when the word "lahoot" is used, it is only the essence.  Okay, no further debate on this issue.

The other quotes are interesting and I thank you for that, and I really have nothing to say about them.  They do look heretical, but I do not know what the context is or what the other side's arguments may be.

As for any insults I have given you, I also see no reference to that.  So perhaps you and I are simply thinking we are insulting one another.

Now, concerning my views about the miracle and the Divine energia.  I believe that the woman's simplicity in her mind trying to describe her experiences make a strong case in "chewing the Light".  In addition to that, there is yet another thing that is attributed to materialism that one may not realize.  It is the fact that you can actually see the Light.  To St. Augustine, he believed that anything that has to do with the five senses were created energies by God, to which they later on vanished.  He truly believed, according to Fr. John Romanides (who had the biggest grudge with St. Augustine, along with other EO's) that we can never in any way "partake of the divine nature," as if God is only essence, where there is no such thing as the "uncreated energies of God."

I think St. Augustine erred in that not understanding God's infinite powers and love to allow us partake of His glories, and His glories can be seen, touched, etc.  So if one can see the "uncreated energies," it is possible that one can also "chew" or simply feel that light to which it seems to be he/she is "chewing on."  Now, it is a big mystery indeed into how something can be seen and yet uncreated, but that is why it is called a mystery.

So I truly believe that we do not eat mere body and blood of Christ, but the Divine Body and Divine Blood of Christ, truly partaking of the Divine nature, as St. Peter says.  I know I can never partake of the Divine essence, but the nature also includes the energia.  Thus, when Christ is of two natures, divinity and humanity, the divinity is not energy alone, or else we would be Arians, or essence alone, or else we would be Nestorians, but the essence with will, energy, and properties united in one nature with the humanity without confusion, mixing, division, or separation.

Taking St. Cyril's analogy of the heated metal.  The heat comes from the fire, but the metal is changed into the glory of the fire by the glow without changing its own essence.  Thus, when we partake of the metal, it is impossible not to partake of the glow, but it is equally impossible to partake of the fire.  The fire doesn't bend when you strike the metal, but the glow bends with the metal.

This is what I believe.  His Body and Blood is not mere Body and Blood, but they are Living-Giving, and thus, I am partaking of the Life-Giving Body and Blood of Christ; I am chewing the Lighted Body and Blood of Christ.

If Fr. Matta believes more than this, then I am in disagreement with him.

God bless.

Mina

[EkhristosAnesti]

Taking St. Cyril's analogy of the heated metal.  The heat comes from the fire, but the metal is changed into the glory of the fire by the glow without changing its own essence.  Thus, when we partake of the metal, it is impossible not to partake of the glow, but it is equally impossible to partake of the fire.  The fire doesn't bend when you strike the metal, but the glow bends with the metal.

This is what I believe.  His Body and Blood is not mere Body and Blood, but they are Living-Giving, and thus, I am partaking of the Life-Giving Body and Blood of Christ; I am chewing the Lighted Body and Blood of Christ.

Mina,

I think this is a sound and Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist. A while ago on the OO yahoo forum that I was banned from, I presented an excellent quote from St Cyril who directly addresses this subject. Since I do not have access to the forum, and since I cannot recall the source of the quotation in question, it would be good if you could try and locate it for us. I think, if I remember correctly, that St Cyril used the term "deified flesh" to describe the Holy Body that we partake of during Communion. This expression may be rendered synonymous with the term "life-giving" as employed in the Priest's Final Confession: "This is the Life-giving Flesh that Thine Only-Begotten Son, Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, took from our Lady ...".

On a sidenote, today (24th of Bashans) we commemorate the departure of His Holiness St John V, the 72nd Patriarch of Alexandria. According to the Synaxarium, the qualification "Life-Giving" was inserted during his reign.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Mina,

It seems that I merely made passing reference to the Cyrillian quotation in question on that forum (as you showed me in PM), but I managed to find the original source in any event:

"When we eat, we are not consuming the Godhead—perish the awful thought—but the Word's own flesh, which has been made life-giving because it is the flesh of him who lives because of the Father." [Contra Nestorium 4. 5 (ACO 1. 1. 6. 85)]

[Stavro]

Dearest Mina

If Fr. Matta truly meant to eat the essence, then I have no problem calling him a heretic.  And I am not assuming anything into Fr. Matta.

It is always a good strategy to try to blame the heresies on difficulty of expression, lack of understanding and the misunderstanding of the “true” meaning of the heretics words, but never on the person himself. We call such “IF” the hypocritical “if”. 

Here are the facts:

+ Matta writes his books since the 50's and has included his heresies in many books under many titles, in many phrases a fact that leaves no doubt about his true intentions and what he really meant.

+ Matta has republished his books in many editions and in each edition, he never changed his wording to convey any other meaning except what he intended, which is heresy.

+ Matta has been called upon many times to explain his writings, and he did explain them the same way he intended them to be understood in the first time. He has done so via voice recordings and newer additions of his heretical books.

+ Matta's ideas and heresies fit a line of thought that contains many heresies. His Eucharist heresy has to be viewed in conjunction with his "divinization" heresy and his denial of the Lord's divinity in essence, his weird theory about the hypostatical union of divinity with the Apostles, his denial of sanctification and justification, his denial of atonement for intended sins, and many other heresies. One cannot excuse the man based on our own lack of understanding from heresy if he confirms it through his related writings to the subject all the time, all the way.

+ Matta is judged by his contemporaries, who speak and write and read the language of his writings, and who are by far superior to Matta spiritually, in theology and in linguistic ability. H.H. The Pope is considered a prominent poet and writer in Arabic language, and he will never be confused about wording. In fact, it does not need an Arabic language teacher to understand Matta. The cover that Matta and his followers hide against, difficulty of talking about theology exposes them more. A wise man writes what he means and means what he writes, or refrains altogether from writing. 

+ Matta's actions against the Church are not irrelevant, dearest to Christ Mina. Heretics, throughout the whole history of the Church, because of their lack of adherence to the Church, and in many times thirst for power, have no problem in committing treason. There are no standards they go by and their followers do the same in their own capacity. In this category fall the people who defend Matta on forums and deceive simple people by proclaiming Matta as a "gem" and "the best theologian we ever had" and all this superfluous descriptions.

You cannot excuse every heresy and every heretic in the history of our Church based on a misunderstanding. Where exactly is Matta misunderstood and may you please indicate from which sources we might understand Mata correctly, if we omit his own books and articles?

In fact, I feel rather insulted when you like to put assumptions into who I am or what I do, and I am only intending this discussion to be based on what is said, not on my own characteristics

 

I never assumed anything about you, nor is your person of any concern to me. For your own good, start dealing with the issues without reading anything personal in the arguments. Unless you want to conceal your ignorance by making it a personal debate, I find no reason for you to inject your insults and whine about non-existing insults in every turn of argument.

I felt that when you continually insult me like this, I thought you have some grudge on me, which is why I feel you are insisting on repeating my name as some sort of heretic disciple of Fr. Matta.

Truth will insult certain people, and I intend to expose the followers of Matta and Matta himself even if they feel insulted. I love the Church more than coming across as politically correct and pay attention to the feelings of heretics. They did not consider my feelings and my own salvation and the salvation of many when they sent the Church in disarray and tried to tear the Body of Christ in their pursuit of the Papacy. They did not consider anything when they devoured the congregations of the Church by their heresies and by openly undermining the position of the hierarchs and accuse them of "massacres" of the Copts and of "heresy". 

If you are one of them, then I am happy you feel insulted. If you are not, and I believe you denied this in the previous post, then why do you feel insulted?

Do you come across as one of the followers of Matta ? Yes.

You proclaim Matta as a "gem" and "true theologian". To make such a statement, people would assume you have actually read Matta's works. If you did, and you did not find any heresy in his works, then you either lack the simplest understanding of the faith or you are willing to compromise the faith. In the first case your ignorance will be exposed and you will feel insulted in the process, in the second case your character will be exposed and you will feel insulted. If you did not read the books of Matta, then you have no basis to make such claim and you will definitely come across as a dishonest person.

Once I began explaining the heresies of Matta, you became defensive and you tried to excuse Matta based on "our" misunderstanding and in fact alleged inferiority in thinking and understanding, which is an insult in itself to us Orthodox, especially as the groups of people who oppose the heresies of Matta are almost every single hierarch in the Church. Such arrogance is characteristic of Matta's followers.

The issue and the heresies of Matta are not new to you. You have participated on various forums in this particular topic and the actions and teachings of Matta are not alien to you. You have defended him consistently and you have dismissed his actions as fabrications to assassinate the character of Matta. You either have no idea about what you were defending here and there, which is interesting in itself, or you are acting based on a certain agenda.

If you still maintain you are not one of Matta's followers, stop acting like one.

Now, while I don't know whether Fr. Matta is a "Judas" so to speak, he certainly was stupid to make these comments against HH the Pope, and it turns me off as well.  But here, we are discussing Fr. Matta's issues on the Eucharist, and just because he opposed the Pope to such a degree in supporting Sadat

No, he is actually very clever and a very gifted politician. Matta can never be described as stupid. His actions since he was a certain Youssef Iskander are calculated and the product of a brilliant evil mind. His actions are assisted by his lack of standards, and fueled by his desire to get the Papacy. Nice try, Mina, but his actions cannot be portrayed as an honest mistake or the product of misjudgment. I am happy though you moved from defending these very same actions to actually acknowledging that they are wrong.

Saddat had the West on his side, and the US and Europe do not particularly care about the Copts or any Christian minority as long as they do not help their interests in any way. After the peace deal with Israel in 1978, Saddat became the darling of the American media. As such, the crimes of 1980-81 in which the Copts were slaughtered in Imbabah, Zaweyah EL-Hamrah, Wayli, Masr El-Adimah went unnoticed by the West. So, there was nothing that Saddat would fear from the West. He felt he can begin his plan to totally destroy the Copts once and forever. Saddat was not only a shrewd politician, he was also an ideologist at times and he was a fanatic when it came to Islam.

The past of Saddat is not a secret. He was a member of the Islamic Brotherhood in the 30's and 40's and was part of the assassination of EL-Khazendar, Putrus Ghali and Nukrashi Basha as well as Amin Osman, prominent anti-Islamic fundamentalism politicians. You can read his own biography "Searching for oneself (EL-Ba7s 3an El-saat)" by Saddat himself. He acted based on ideological convictions. When he was the Parliament head in 1956 and was chosen to head the Islamic conference in 1956, he declared OPENLY and as documented by Muhamed Hasan Muneer in his famous book " Discussion through murder" that should he (Saddat) come to power, he will wipe out the Copts completely or make them "shoe boys" (Mathe7ee a7zeiya). This is not a secret.

When he became President by the support of the US, he returned to his first love (Islamic brotherhood) and released them from prisons, made them the heads of almost every single institution in Egypt, and began a systematic effort to alienate the Copts completely. The massacres are not really what hurt the Copts, we are used to that, it is the fact that Copts have been set under a certain bar they cannot rise above.

The only voice proclaiming the truth was the voice of the Church through H.H. Pope Shenouda, who protested the massacres that happened with the support of the police men, and who opposed the plan to implement the Islamic sharia laws in 1979-1981 and openly called for a fasting period. Saddat feared that his image in the Western media will be hurt and began taking actions to split the Church and send it into disarray.

He imprisoned the Pope and began active plans to replace him, and in that he showed great intelligence as he figured out the way to destroy the Church. During the period when he imprisoned the Pope, Saddat was boycotted by the whole Church and the Church declared to recognize any other Pope other than H.H. Pope Shenouda.

The only group who would support Saddat is the group of monks of St. Macarious monastery led by Matta. Matta, as I have proven, gave his full support to Saddat, waiting for a bone to be thrown to him. He has been cooperating with Saddat since the early 70's. The plans to make Matta a Pope were cut short by the assassination of Saddat.

While Saddat never issued one single edict to build any church in his reign, he gave Matta a huge land and all the possible resources to begin build his empire in St. Macarius monatsery, a place that is not worthy now for the name of such great saint to be called upon it. While the monasteries are continually harassed and have their lands stripped from them, St. Macarius monastery has been getting favors from the State left and right as a price for their treason.

So, I believe to see treason in the character, sayings and actions of Matta is a very logical conclusion, unless you can explain to us the above as being Church loving actions. It is not a secret that Saddat was pushing forward Islamic agenda, and it is not a secret that Matta conspired with him. There was not mistake about Saddat’s policy towards the Church, and there is no mistake that Matta supported it without reservations. This is from Matta’s own mouth. Or is it a misunderstanding? 

I believe and I do not contest against the authorities of both blessed Popes, their Holinesses the Saint Abba Kyrillos and the Holy Abba Shenouda) doesn't mean he is automatically doctrinally deficient.

   
If you seek the truth, then stop this nonsense and begin dealing with the facts. I have quoted Matta on various occasions from his own books and have shown that he is a heretic from his own sayings and ideas. Deal with that.
It is not because Matta has betrayed the Church throughout his sorry career that he is regarded as a heretic, it is in addition to his heretical writings (above) that he has proven himself to be a despicable person.

Deal with the above mentioned heresies, Mina. Comment on them, challenge them, bring forth an orthodox explanation, or admit their heretical nature, but stop the cop-out b]

their Holinesses the Saint Abba Kyrillos

When Matta never made the cut to the final elections of the Papacy in 1959, for the favor of three other monks, among whom Pope Kyrillos who came third in vote, Matta expected at least an Episcopal position like the front runners of the vote who were not selected by God in the altar draw. When Pope Kyrillos never agreed to such appointment of Matta, Matta started an attack on the Pope alluding to his lack of university degree and started the famous derogatory remark: "ignorant monk" in reference to Pope Kyrillos. The main troubles in the Papacy of Pope Kyrillos came from Matta's group. Matta, himself, is one of the first graduates of the school of Pharmacy and does not lack education himself, and as such has always looked down to other monks as inferior.

Things got more complicated when the younger monks (this time educated) Anba Samuel, Anba Gregorius and Anba Shenouda got appointed bishops. Matta feared their growing influence and the fact that they would be front-runners for the Papacy next time as Pope Kyrillos was old. Matta issued a book called "The Church and the State" in 1962 in which he attacked the Church in a very strong language and it became the reference for Islamics to attack the Church as well. He accused the Church of treason and conspiracy with the West, and he managed to get Anba Samuel who was regarded as the potential next Pope into trouble with the State. He accused the Church of instituting the service for the poor and needy, under the Episcopate of Social services (Bishop Samuel), to get money from the West. Conspiracy with the West is high treason in the age of Nasser. Anba Samuel spent some time under investigation in prison and was released only through a miracle by Pope Kyrillos. The result was that the money coming from the Copts for the services of this Episcopate was put under severe scrutiny and then confiscated. Matta achieved his goal in destroying the service of Anba Samuel. Note that Matta himself is a very rich monk and his monastery is one of the richest industrial institutions in Egypt. They have no service for the poor, in fact they are totally opposed to it, and one might wonder where all this money goes.

Just to illustrate the difference between the despicable character of Matta and an honorable person like Anba Samuel, in the 1971 election for the Pope, Anba Samuel was the first in votes followed by Anba Shenouda. When Anba Samuel lost in the altar draw, he insisted to give the Rod of the shepherd that belongs to the Pope in the Pope's Consecration ceremony by himself to show his submission to his new Pope.

St. Pope Theophilus' actions against St. John Chrysostom was considered wrong, and an apology was made according to the traditions of the Coptic church, but that doesn't mean St. Pope Theophilus was a heretic.

You try to insert this incident in all discussions by presenting an amputated version of history and failing to show how such an analogy holds. I suggest a better analogy: Pope St. Alexandros/Athanasius and the heretical priest Arius. In such an analogy, a rebellious priest with hierarchal ambitions is attacking his own Bishop, is a heretic whose heresies resemble those of Matta, conspires with the State against his own Church and tries to oust the legitimate Pope by all means and is relentless in his pursuit. On the other hand, we have confessors of faith, defenders of faith, very popular Popes and great teachers who defend the faith with all possible means and suffer by the hands of heretics and pagans.
You see how analogies are done? I hope you learnt something today.

 

Unless, dear Stavro, you have already heard all the arguments, to which I am open to read your experiences, an "offer you can't refuse" (the Godfather himself, as well as others).

Dear Mina, you cannot expect me to possibly give you advice on who to listen to and who to play with. I pass on the offer, but thanks anyways.

I believe that the woman's simplicity in her mind trying to describe her experiences make a strong case in "chewing the Light".   

Our Church never takes miracles and apparitions as a basis for newly developed dogmas or takes the testimony of people as a guideline for the faith. Never has the Church in any instance done such heretical thing. So, this miracle either confirms an existing element of the faith or people should not to try to think too much about the miracle other than the fact that it is a blessing from God for the afflicted people in Assiut, the stronghold of Islamic brotherhood. St. Paul has proclaimed an anathema against any innovation in the faith, even if it is proclaimed Paul himself or even Michael, the pure and majestic Archangel. Unless you prove that such teaching actually exists since the apostolic times, and that will be a great service you so to us, you find yourself under a very bad anathema. To start, define grace, and how it is used in the Bible and in Tradition, and then its relation to the Divine energia and what you understand under the latter, and how this light relates to it.

In addition to that, there is yet another thing that is attributed to materialism that one may not realize.  It is the fact that you can actually see the Light.

But let us get back to the issue of chewing the light, because it is an amusing one:

Based on science, or based on faith? Or both? After you chew the light, do you digest it? Where does it come out from and in what form? Does the light remain in this materialistic form through the whole process or does it stop at one point of time and “becomes” something spiritual that cannot be explained by words?

Are you adopting the classical electromagnetic theory, that represents light as waves, or the quantum theory that represents light as photons, or the wave-matter theory? This is pure crap scientifically to chew the light, for it is absurd to chew photons or waves.     

Or is it the faith of the Church that you appeal to? For as far back as the 3rd century, Origen clearly teaches against trying to think about God’s attributes in a materialistic manner. The term deification in the apostolic teachings, expressed in the Bible and expounded by the Alexandrian Fathers refers to nothing other but to be in the image of God, in actions and virtues and washed by sins through the grace of God, but never dogmatizes it or tries to go beyond the limits of human expression and human capabilities. Even the great monks and Fathers, who were living a true communion with God, do not talk about their experiences because they are beyond human expression. In their humility, they understood the gravity of doing such thing when St. Paul himself could not describe what he saw in heaven. If St. Antonious did not talk much about it, would anybody dare to claim otherwise?

In another topic, you appealed to Archbishop Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica (and attached the title saint to him in disrespect to the Church Tradition). It seems that you are fond of his hesychasm and base your position on that. Your appeal to Fr. Romanides is then justified, because he is one who believes in the nine councils among EO and the last council would be the 14th century string of councils that upheld hesychasm as orthodox (exclsuing the council in which Gregory Palamas of  Thessalonica “reformulated” his ideas when a change in imperial power was in favor of Barlaam). I am not surprised you would actually take them as an authority over Augustine, who was viewed in negative light by these councils.

In any case, I am not interested in the topic of “chewing the light” anymore. If you want to believe in chewing the light, I wish you the best.

They do look heretical, but I do not know what the context is or what the other side's arguments may be

Put them in any context you want, Mina, and try to find out whether you can actually make them say anything orthodox. Try it. If you cannot read Arabic and therefore will find it difficult to put it in its original context, then I challenge to make a context of your own and put the heretical phrases of Matta in any orthodox frame. While you do so, and good luck in your endeavor dear brother, I will continue writing about Matta and expose him more and more through his own writings.

Peace.

[SaintShenouti]

I see no reason to question Fr. Matthew's orthodoxy.  From the original quote, and in what I have read, he has never denied the humanity of Christ.  As H.H. the Pope of Alexandria reminds us, we should not refer to two separate natures after the Incarnation.  He takes from St. Cyril's formula, which is "from two natures" and not "of two natures."

Khristos aftonf!

[arbible]

Dear All,

Please check out

HH Pope Shenouda III's reply concerning the theological and dogmatic opinions of the late Fr. Matta El-Meskeen
http://www.zeitun-eg.net/PopeShenoudaIIIs_reply_concerning_the_opinions_of_FrMattaElMeskeen_1991.zip

God Bless+

[arbible]

See also:
Medina, Sara. "Egypt's Copts in Crisis." TIME Magazine Archive Article 28 Sep. 1981. 27 Jun. 2006. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,953135,00.html - Article containing segments attributed to Fr Matta in which he attacks the Coptic Orthodox Church and HH Pope Shenouda III.

[arbible]

Comment on above:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arbible/message/31593?l=1

[arbible]

http://www.rezgar.com/debat/show.art.asp?aid=68761

[arbible]

New Links added to Father Matta's Web site
English site launch: http://www.fathermatta.com/english/index.php

Audio:
http://www.fathermatta.com/arabic/audio_parts/73-03-01.mp3
http://www.fathermatta.com/arabic/audio_parts/90_13_2_jss-0002.mp3

[Macarius]

Dear Stavro,

Don't worry--I'm not sympathizing with Fr. Matta.  In fact, I was turned off from him when I learned how he sided with Saddat against His Holiness Pope Shenouda. ÂÂ

That is not true my brother , Fr Matta is a great and a real Monk , you should listen to his welcoming preach when the Pope Shenouda visited St. Macarius monastery , also the monastery became very great after Fr. Matta became the spirtual father of it

[Stavro]

You are being deceived, my brother.

I have proven throughout many posts that Matta is a heretic and that his heresies are present in almost every single book he wrote, covering a spectrum of Arianism, Nestorianism, and moving towards Eutychianism and divinization of essence of mankind, denial of effectiveness of sacraments througbrpiesthood, among many other heresies. I could have continued, yet the moderators and admins have opted to protect Matta and a follower of his, for vague reasons. What is clear is that Matta conspired against the Church and has taught heresy. 

In any case, whether you like Matta or not, you might explain to us, in case you happen to know arabic, the many heresies that appeared in his books. The burden lies on you to prove this alleged greatness of a heretic and a schismatic and a traitor like Matta. If you cannot, then think twice before you make such statement for you actively support a heretic and a traitor who has been excommunicated twice by Pope Youssab and Pope Kyrillos, for heresy and "behavior" errors, and who was saved from anathema late in his sorry life by a misplaced merciful act of H.H. Pope Shenouda, the very man Matta attacked and conspired against before the divine hand of God saved the Church and tore Saddat in pieces and shattered the plans of Matta to claim the Papacy.

Go through the topics that dealt with Matta, read the facts about him, and you might get an idea about who this heretic is. You might also be interested to explain how the support of Saddat's actions by Matta in 1981, as explained by Matta in the Times Magazine edition of Sep/28th, 1981, and his active role in imprisonment of his own Pope and 125 clergy member and 500 prominent laymen, can be explained.

St.Macarius monastery is a mess since Matta took hold of it, and it has become a financial institution, a business interprise, lacking any spiritual aspect. They produced many heresies following the foot steps of their teacher, Matta. Ever read the phrase " We (church congregation) are a divine nature united with human nature through incarnation" (which in arabic is the same as any reference made to the incarnation of the Lord himself).  ..... A great monastery indeed full of heretics and traitors .... 
 
Let me know if you need the references to the heresies of Matta or could not find the topics that dealt with this heretic, and I will be more than happy to supply them to you again.

[Macarius]

You are being deceived, my brother.

I have proven throughout many posts that Matta is a heretic and that his heresies are present in almost every single book he wrote, covering a spectrum of Arianism, Nestorianism, and moving towards Eutychianism and divinization of essence of mankind, denial of effectiveness of sacraments througbrpiesthood, among many other heresies.

most people explain his books as they want !!

St.Macarius monastery is a mess since Matta took hold of it, and it has become a financial institution, a business interprise, lacking any spiritual aspect. They produced many heresies following the foot steps of their teacher, Matta. Ever read the phrase " We (church congregation) are a divine nature united with human nature through incarnation" (which in arabic is the same as any reference made to the incarnation of the Lord himself).  ..... A great monastery indeed full of heretics and traitors .... 
.

you should visit this monastery to know the truth ... it is very spirtual place . the monks there work and pray , they don't go out as others .. they are real monks ... Go there and see and compare this monastery with any one ,,,, it is quite and wonderful place for worship .... before Fr. Matta it was a falling monastery with just 5 old monks ... see it now

[Stavro]

most people explain his books as they want !!

Because it makes only sense to interpret them as heresies, and "most people", who happen to read arabic, include the whole Holy Synod, Pope Shenouda, and Pope St. Kyrillos the 6th, Pope Youssab, and many others, who banned his books throughout Egypt and most dioceses outside Egypt. If there is any other interpretation to his heresies and writings or if they can be reconciled with any orthodox belief, please enlighten us. Start with this:

Book "El-Fediah and Kafarah" (the Ransom and the Atonement):

Matta denies in page 3 of the book that Christ is the Savior, but "He" is just a ransom paid by Father to satisfy the Father, and as such only the Father can be called the Savior. Can be overlooked as an unfortunate attempt at theology and dismissed together with subsequent crazy ideas as jokes, but what cannot be overlooked is what appeared in page 20 :

" Because the Father completed the salvation since the beginning before all ages (menz el-azal) (  ) it is wrong to call the Son the Savior, for only the Father completed the salvation in this age when He existed and as such He is the only Savior. "

This is early forth century all over again, Arianism mind you. The Son did not exist apparently according to Matta.

I find it more entertaining when Matta speaks about the Eucharist. Consider this crap here in his book " The orthodox patriology basics" book in part 2 page 34 is the following:

" We drink the essence of divinity (lahoot) as part of the mystery" .

And you might consider another heresy of another sort. In his book "The Pentecost", published in 1990, Matthew the Poor says the following about the descension of the Holy Spirit on the apostles:

" We are in front of a burning bush, in front of a one nature out of divinity and humanity, exactly like the unity between humanity and divinity in the person of Christ in the incarnation from the Virgin. "

you should visit this monastery to know the truth

I visisted the monastery and spent there more time than you think, weeks at a time, because I used to live in Egypt and had accesss to the monastery when it used to be closed to the public and to clergy. I know the monks there personally and know their teachings and how they conduct their life, and they are nothing but business men who hate the church to an alarming degree and commit an offence to the visitors by openly voicing their hate to all the church. I was one of the regulars there from the age of 16 to 23. But let us leave the personal stuff aside and review the facts:

+ All churches, monasteries and Coptic church organizations are harassed  and get their property confiscated for no reason by the government all the time, except for the monastery of Matta, which was getting a favor after the other as a result of Matta's treason and cooperation with the government in the face of The real Church leaders. Matta is a traitor and has been always like that, and the monastery is enjoying this government support, hoping to have one of them one day sitting in place of St.Mark, God forbid.

+ This monastery is a business enterprise that is the top producer of milk in Egypt, and ranks among the meat supplier to the famous meat factories and it consumes all the time of the monks. In addition to the 20000 Fedan of land bestowed on Matta by his friend President Saddat, which produces with the aid of heavy machinery a year long harvest, and considering the machine shop they have, operated by monks, for maintenance of their really advanced machinery, the monks have no time for prayer and I do not think they care so much about it.

+ You know them by their fruits. Matta's heresies alone put him in the same place among an elite group of heretics like Arius and Nestorius, and his treason and continued excommunication puts him above those sorry figures. Yet the fruits of his disciples are even worse. As an example, read the book titled the " Churches of the East" published by the monastery by a certain Athanasius, a monkl there, in which he defends Nestorius, Theodore and Thedoret and got the blessing of Matta in the introduction. It is because Matta is one unity clown and so are all his disciples that they want to excuse any heresy and every heresy to get all the churches under one umbrella.

Go there and see and compare this monastery with any one

The only monestry I did not visit in EGypt is the monstery of Anba Hedra in Aswan. St. Macarius monastery, that used to bring forth the defenders of faith and Popes together with Ma7ara2 monstery because of the transfer of books there after the fall of the the library of Alexandria, became a business enterprise when it become Matta's place. We cannot compare this worldly place, filled with heresies and world worship, with the Baramous, Syrian, Anba Bishoy, Der El-Zugag, Anba Tomas, Anba Shenoudah, Anba Antony, Anba Pavly, Abo Seifen (Sedi kerir and Masr Adminah) monasteries to name a few. The latter monasteries are guided by the Holy Spirit, have produced saints, whereas the place where Matta used to live is guided by his spirit and by the spirit of those who hate the church so much that they worship Matta even after his death.

Tell me the name of one spiritual person who came out of Matta's place in the past 35 years ? Nobody. Zill. Heretic after heretic, that is all.

One last note:

Matta entered the monastery of St. Samuel the Confessor in Qualamon mountain in 1948, and could not bear the tough life like any other monk and left the monastery in a rebellious act, leaving behind the old blind monk who he was supposed to look after, St. Anderaous of St. Samuel's monastery. You might know him as St. Anderous is a recognized saint in the Church.

Matta's life as a monk started as a rebellious monk, arrogant and puffed-up and quite unhuman in his feelings, ended as a heretic and a traitor who conspired against the Church, and in between enjoyed two long excommunication periods at the hand of two Popes for heresy and administrative errors, of financial sort.

The only positive note in his life comes before entering the monastery, but the pride of Matta and his papal ambitions blinded him.

before Fr. Matta it was a falling monastery with just 5 old monks ... see it now

ÂÂ
A heretical and wordly place unworthy of the name of a great saint and defender of faith like St. Macarius. It seems that your measures are concerned only with the financial profit the monastery enjoys.

 ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  

[Macarius]

My brother !!

why are you using this words too much , " heretic , heretical " !!

did you read " The Orthodox Prayer Life " for fr Matta ?

[Salpy]

I probably don't belong in this discussion, but I just want to sort out my own thoughts on this and see if they make any sense to anyone:

I get the feeling the problem here may be that Fr. Matta has written quite a few books, some of which are perfectly orthodox, as well as other books which contain some pretty obvious errors, like the ones Stavro has pointed out above. 

To aggravate the problem, St. Vladimir Press has published some of his books in English and those seem to be the books that did not contain any obvious theological errors.  The result is a lot of Orthodox who have read his books in English think he is a great guy and can't understand the charges of heresy.  Perhaps also some Orthodox who read Arabic think he's fine because they haven't read the more questionable books, or maybe they have but they don't have the thological background to recognize the errors.

I don't read Arabic, so I can't read the objectionable books and form my own opinion.  However, if Stavro (and others I've read) are correct about the objectionable material, Fr. Matta seems to be someone whose works should be approached with great caution (to put it politely.)  I have no reason to doubt what Stavro and others have written about Fr. Matta's alleged heresies, as the stuff they quote seems so bizarre I can't imagine anyone making that up.  Fr. Matta's errors seem to be those of a person who just hasn't had solid theological training and who indulges in theological speculation.

Now of course Fr. Matta has written many good, orthodox books.  Otherwise, St. Vlad's wouldn't have published some of them.  So people quote his good stuff to support him and say he is Orthodox.

The problem I have with that, is that heretics often say and write many good things in addition to their heresy.  I am sure Nestorius, Arius and Joseph Smith had many good things in their writings.  However, a heretic is not someone whose writings are 100% bad, but whose writings contain enough error to lead people astray. 

One thing I have noticed about Fr. Matta's supporters is that they tend to be deeply spiritual, devout, Orthodox people who have read Fr. Matta's good writings and have been greatly edified by them.  The one question I have always had is whether they have also had the chance to read the more objectionable works, and if so, how they reconcile those writing with their opinions of him.

Anyhow, forgive me for butting into a thread where I don't belong, since I haven't really read Fr. Matta's writings.  I am really just trying to process what I have heard and read about him in the hopes of making sense out of it.

[Stavro]

Salpy,

while your analysis is excellent in most parts, you uncharacteristically err in this point:

One thing I have noticed about Fr. Matta's supporters is that they tend to be deeply spiritual, devout, Orthodox people who have read Fr. Matta's good writings and have been greatly edified by them.

What are the standards you judge the followers of Matta by ?

It is clear that no heretic can be called a christian, and he cannot have any life within him as he cut himself from the tree of Life as a direct result of their heresy. It is clear that Matta's supporters, those who defend him, and those who take active actions against the Church, fall into the category of heresy and schism.

I do not consider someone who read the "orthodox prayer life", which I believe is an average book, and liked the book actually a Matta supporter. Maybe you do not know what matta's supporters do and how they act and as such you have no way of judging them, being unfamiliar with the Coptic church affairs. It goes beyond reading one book, written in Matta's long gone orthodox days, ino being immersed into dirty politics, getting the Pope and most of the clergy imprisoned, advocating heresy, supporting givernment actions against the Church and much more.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

I will ask you therefore to be careful in making such generalization, for you are assisting a heretical group and a schismatic group by your statements. It is the same as claiming that there are Arians who are actually devout, or Nestorians who are spiritual and christian, or JW who love God. It is also the same as a Copt supporting an Armenian heretic against the Armenian Patriarch, and appreciating the spirituality and devotion of his followers, and voicing his support in the face of an Armenian christian who has seen the damage done to his Church.

We cannot appease Matta's followers, even those who post here, by describing their actions, ideas and personalities as deeply devout and spiritual. The ones who used to post here are corrupt and have been inflicting more damage in other forums, sadly coptic ones, more than you imagine. While that might be your personal opinion, it has no basis within the Tradition to bestow such honor on heretics. You are not helping them , but assisting them unintentionally in to remain in this state of self-adoration and arrogance. Why do they then have any need to review their actions if they are "saints" ? I was there at one point, and I know that it needs a slap in the face to wake the sincere among them up. They have to be corrected, not appeased.

Till now,no one of Matta's supporters, and there has been many who posted here at one point of time, was able to come forward and defend Matta's ideas except by their insults, the action of no spiritual persons. If they are going to hide for too long behind their ignorance of arabic, then let them at least ask their spiritual fathers and leaders and the able theolgoians, or let them shut up until they have been able to discern the truth. They would not, because it is not a matter of truth for them, but of pride.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Fr. Matta's errors seem to be those of a person who just hasn't had solid theological training and who indulges in theological speculation.

He is a miserable theologian, that is true, and miserable monk, but this is only part of the problem. It is pride, vanity and his ambitions that led Matta all the way to his errors. It does only need a second grade Sunday School kid to know that the Apostles are humans, not incarnate Holy "Spirits", that the Son is begotten from the Father before all ages, and that the divinity is not eaten.

If it was just a theological training problem, it could have been corrected. Matta was excomunicated twice, and was on the verge of a third excommunication, and able theologians like H.H. the Pope, Anba Bishoy, Anba Gregorios, Anba Youaness and many other TRUE spiritual persons have have pointed out the errors to him. Matta responded with more errors and with an attack on the Church by being actively engaged in treason against his legitmate Pope with Saddat.

You cannot view Matta's treason and schismatic actions in isolation from his heresies. They go together.

[Stavro]

My brother !!

why are you using this words too much , " heretic , heretical " !!

My brother,

...because they are biblical words that best describe the state of unorthodox people and of unorthodox ideas, like Matta and his followers. I understand that in our politically correct society the "H-word" is unpleasant and itches our ears, and I am willing to use any other combination of words as long as they convey the same meaning. I had the same argument with a Matta follower before,and apparently he could not get beyond the same problem. If this is your only problem,my brother, just ignore my choice of words and concentrate on the facts that I presented and that condemn Matta as a h..., sorry, unorthodox person and his idea as pure blapshemy. Sorry for the use of "blasphemy", I am running out of words here.

But on the other hand, such attitude exposes a cancer in our church outside of Egypt, the "group-hug" mentality takes more importance than the truth itself. 

did you read " The Orthodox Prayer Life " for fr Matta

Yes.

[Salpy]

Forgive me, Stavro, I did not mean to offend you, even though it is obvious that I did.  Perhaps I should have been more clear in my post. 

When I wrote of "Fr. Matta's supporters" I was writing only of the people I have known, or been acquainted with, who liked him.  In my experience, these are people who have read his "good" books, have been spiritually edified by them, and seem to have not read his more objectionable material.  In some cases I don't even think they were aware of the allegations of heresy against him.  Also, especially in the cases of some EO's, I don't think they were aware of what he did to His Holiness Pope Shenouda.  These are the people I was referring to in positive terms.  I don't see these particular people as being evil conniving heretics, who want to undermine the Church.

Now obviously you have had a very different experience.  I don't doubt that there were persons surrounding and supporting Fr. Matta who knowingly and willingly shared in his objectionable beliefs and who supported what he did to His Holiness.  I would never refer to these people in positive terms.

[Macarius]

Yes.

so , what you think about his book ( The Orthodox Prayer life ) ?? !!!

did you read what Anba Mekhail wrote in Watani newspaper about Fr. Matta when he departed may be there are some errors ( May be ) but that don't mean that Fr. Matta is bad or heretic , no one without any errors ,... alot of the old church fathers have some errors and the church consider them saints and doctors too ...
lets benfit from the good things in his book and keep aside the errors ( if it exist )

[Stavro]

Salpy,

thanks for the clarification. Matta's dogs know about his heresies, it is not a secret that the most of the bishops have banned his books. The Pope, the bishops, and most of the clergy have discussed them many times. They are either so ignorant that they do not know anything about the Church affairs and teachings, and their ignorance must be exposed in all honesty, or they know exactly that they are going against the Church, and then they have to be exposed as well. No third way about it. The ones I know are ALL corrupt and they find satisfaction in opposing the Church, and that is why Matta appeals to them.

I am not convinced they do not know. Should that be the case, they should examine their spiritual life for the Spirit can never lead the real believer away from the Church, even if they act in ignorance.

Macarius,
I think "life of orthodox Prayer" is an average book, and it is only fitting for beginners and those who are starting to pray. Good for them. It is unrelated to the discussion to try to excuse Matta the heretic from his heresies and his treason by bringing up a book, the only  passable book in many of his heretical books, for it is unrelated to the discussion.

The way to exonerate Matta is to prove that the Arianism, Eutychanism and Nestorianism (the bizarre writer that he was, he managed to have all kind of heresies in his books) that appears in his books, together with universalism, denial of the sacraments effectiveness, denial of atonement for intended sins, "divinization" of men and all the other heresies can be reconciled with Orthodoxy. This is the way to prove that the ideas of Matta are actually orthodox. He is condemned by his own mouth and by his own writings.

In addition, try to explain to us how his actions against the Church and how his treason when he actively assisted in getting the Pope, and 125 clergy and laymen, faithful to their Pope, imprisoned. How do you explain actively participating in supporting Saddat in his plans to exterminate the Copts ? Saddat's plans were not hidden, he said it clearly in 1956 when he was the head of the Islamic Convention that he will exterminate the Copts or make them shoe lickers (Hassan El-Muneri " Discussion by murder", "The minutes of the 1956 Islamic convention") . Since he reigned, he actively undertook steps to get to his goals, supporting the Islamic brotherhood massacres against the Copts and facilitating them, burning down churches,.... . Did Matta the traitor miss all that ?

Saddat last plan was to make Matta a Pope, and depose the lawful Pope, which will split the Church instantly. Very clever. Matta supported Saddat openly and claimed that Saddat is acting on behalf of God to protect the Church. 
(Time magazine, September 28th, 1981).

Note the timing, my brother. It was the darkest hour in the history of the Copts, and nobody could have imagined that Saddat will be assassinated by his own amidst all the security and all the army on national TV. The last thing Copts needed was a traitor among them. The assassination of Saddat is a miracle, that the man who wanted to tear the Church apart was torn apart himself. Matta's dogs do not talk about it much, for it was the hour their leader was shamed forever. . God had other plans, and Matta was shamed forever and his reputation in Egypt among Copts is equal to that of Judas, a traitor, and his legacy is that of Arius, a heretic.

Defend that together with his heresies, and we should listen. I hope you have learnt something new today. I am afraid that to refer to an irrelevant book like the mediocre "Life of prayer" just makes you look bankrupt.

Defend his heresies and treason, if you can.

but that don't mean that Fr. Matta is bad or heretic , no one without any errors

Cut your losses, brother. Think about it for yourself. The errors you are talking about, if you want to put the above phrase in an orthodox context, would be sins related to behavior, not to faith. An errors that has been explained and rejected by the Church and on which a heretic, like Matta, insists, is unforgivable. Using the same lame excuse we should also excuse Arius and Nestorius from their heresies. Does not work that way, my brother.

A treason or a schim is the same as a heresy. Matta is guilty of both.

alot of the old church fathers have some errors and the church consider them saints and doctors too

With major differences:

+ They either retracted, or
+ The errors are unrelated to salvation on open questions
+ They never insisted on their errors once they were pointed out to them
+ They never pursued a schism within the Church or were actively involved in treason.

Weak defense again, my brother.

It is good though that you now acknowledge that Matta is a heretic or has wrote heresies, you are at least honest. You will find a hard time actually getting any writer of any denomination from any time who will rival Matta the heretic in his numerous heresies. It takes talent like that of Matta the heretic to be able to write such bizarre contradictory things. Any thing he reads in a foreign book, he copies without discernment. 


     

[Macarius]

Salpy,
 Matta's dogs know about his heresies,

Sorry , i can't debate you while you are talking in this way !!!

it is not a secret that the most of the bishops have banned his books. The Pope, the bishops, and most of the clergy have discussed them many times.

i want you to compare between Fr. Matta and some of the Bishops ... do read Watani newspaper , see the bishops who pray in the wedding ceremonies for the rich people !!!alot of bishops attend a wedding because its owner is a rich !!! and they don't care about poor
those Bishops hate Fr. Matta because he is a real monk , because he used to say the truth ... , do you know about Anba Bishoy and his acts
By the way alot of Bishops said that Fr. Matta is a great and they read his books and benfit from it
Fr. Matta is a Saint ...

if he is a heretic why the Pope didn't excommunicate him !!!! Why Anba Mikail the oldest Bishop let him stay as the spirtual father of the monastery ? Why the pope visited the monastery and blessed it in 1996 ?

[Salpy]

Macarius,

Just out of curiosity, have you read the books written by Fr. Matta which contain his alleged heresies?  If so, what is your take on what he wrote?  If not, perhaps you may want to read them just to see what the fuss is about and then you will be able to form a more educated opinion.  I have not read them, but that is because they are not printed in English.  If I were able to read them, I would do so just so I could have a more complete discussion with others about them.

Stavro,

Is it possible to somehow post a link to Fr. Matta's objectionable writings in Arabic?  I think it would be helpful if that were possible. 

[Stavro]

Sorry , i can't debate you while you are talking in this way !!!

I am not particularly looking forward for your opinion, as much as I respect you. Neither you or any of Matta admirers can debate me on the issue, for to be able to stand up and hold your own in such a discussion you will have to defend balant blasphemies of Matta.

I proved what I said by book and page, you still have to come up with some kind of explanation for what is a heresy and reconcile it with the faith. I challenge you.

do read Watani newspaper , see the bishops who pray in the wedding ceremonies for the rich people !!!

huh .... that really gives a great explanation for Matta's heresies and really proves your point. Wow .... I am speechless, and you are right, rich people should not pray in churches, they should pray in mosques with emams.

Fr. Matta because he is a real monk , because he used to say the truth ...

What truth ? Is it the truth about Christ being non -eternal, or is it the truth about drinking the divinity in the EUcharist, or is it maybe that we are all incarnate Holy Spirits but we needed Matta to enlighten us about this "fact" ?

Or is it the truth about Saddat being the messenger of God to protect the Church and therefore persecute the COptic nation with the blessing of Matta ?

Prove this truth from his book and his interviews. Or better, just cut your losses.

By the way alot of Bishops said that Fr. Matta is a great and they read his books and benfit from it Fr. Matta is a Saint ...

That is good to hear. Would you please indicate how they explained their heresies ?

do you know about Anba Bishoy and his acts

A great theologian and a great bishop, a confessor of faith at the time of Saddat when he was imprisoned for the sake of faith by the inistigation of Matta the traitor.

But I know that you guys have a special fear from the man for H.E.M. exposes any unorthodox teaching like that of the heretical monk Matta. Assume for the sake of discussion that he is a sinner, and I will ignore the fact that you moved into judging his person and not his faith, how does this exonerate Matta from heresy himself ? How does it work ?

Let Anba Bishoy, may the Lord help him for his continuous struggle against the heretics like Matta and his followers, be the worst person on earth. How does it relate to the heresies of Matta that ARE PROVEN BY PAGE AND BOOK and what brought ANba Bishoy into the discussion to begin with ?

Put up or shut up.

[Anastasios]

While I don't appreciate Stavro's rough tone, I certainly can understand his sentiment; I did a little research into Fr Matta and discovered that he was a vociferous supporter of contraception and forced sterilization in Egypt to solve the "problem" of "overpopulation."  To me, that is just insane.  The sources this is based on can be found in the thesis of Fr John Schroedel on Natural Family Planning in the St Vladimir's Seminary library. Unfortunately, I do not live there anymore so I cannot just go down the hill and get the book to make the citation.

Anastasios

[Macarius]

Why you go out of the subject ... did i said that rich should not pray in churches ! i said there is no reason for all those bishops who pray in one wedding !! among them Anba Bishoy ..they do that for money
Let Anba Bishoy protect his home first before he defend the heresies , let him help his sister to reuturn from Islam ... LOL  ... so sorry for a bishop can't protect his family from the heresies , how he can defend the church !!!

nothing wrong in Fr. Matta Books , Any great one will have such controversy in his books ... it is not his fault because you don't understand it .. i am sure that you read his books to search for mistakes , as muslims who read the Bible to search for mistakes ... Both of you will find it because you want that .

you didn't answer me , Why the Pope didn't excommunicate him

[Stavro]

did i said that rich should not pray in churches ! i said there is no reason for all those bishops who pray in one wedding !! among them Anba Bishoy ..they do that for money

This is typical for a Matta follower. Answer the heresies and the allegations or shut up. Put up or shut up.
I understand that you are cornered and have little to say, and as such you are resorting to a childish technique. I will not honor such behavior with a reply, specially as you cannot prove anything and are just bringing your "hearsay" crap, while I have brought forth evidence that Matta is a traitor and a heretic.

Put up or shut up.

Let Anba Bishoy protect his home first before he defend the heresies , let him help his sister to reuturn from Islam ... LOL  ... so sorry for a bishop can't protect his family from the heresies , how he can defend the church !!!

 

Classy ! Keep on going man, for not only do not know when to stop, you are even bragging about being inferior in intelligence and basic human feelings.

Is this really all you got, champ ? Is your defense concerning Matta the heretic centered around Anba Bishoy's sister and family ? I do not even have to write anything.

You know, each and every time one of the followers of Matta revives a topic I think they must be a little deep and maybe have something to say, and maybe enlighten us about the "orthodoxy" of Matta, yet they meet their low standard each and every time and say nothing except worship their daddy, Matta.

If you are totally ignorant, why do you pick up fights ?  Is it the arrogance that you all share and the lowly view about anybody else? Lord have mercy.

nothing wrong in Fr. Matta Books

It seems that you do not know your own faith, and cannot discern the right or wrong just like Matta the heretic. He is just a heretic, nothing wrong other that. I wonder whether you can even understand the gravity of it.

it is not his fault because you don't understand it .. i am sure that you read his books to search for mistakes , as muslims who read the Bible to search for mistakes ... Both of you will find it because you want that .

Never mind.

Are you appealing to muslims now ? I can direct you to an article on islamonline.com, the fanatic muslim site, who have mourned Matta deeply for they meet with him ideologically on many levels and specially the hate for the Church and Pope. 

you didn't answer me , Why the Pope didn't excommunicate him

Did you answer me ?

In any case, it seems that this is the last fig leve that is covering your naked and empty mind, and it shall also fall to leave Matta and his follower exposed.

If excommunication is your standard, then Matta was excommunicated, not once, but twice, and the second time for a long nine years under a saint in the figure of Pope Kyrillos. His apparent and false confession o faith was nothing but a trick, for he continued his heresies soon after the Pope died.

If your argument is that Pope Shenouda did not find anything wrong with Matta's teachings, then you can review his sermons and books since the 70's and specially the last two years where H.H. made it clear that Matta is a heretic and his monastery follows his line of heresies. You guys are lucky for the presence of H.H., who said that he is exposing Matta;s ideas and does not care about Matta's personal insults against the Pope, for H.H. is fighting heresies and not persons.

Are you really that incompetent to fail to recognize on whose side the Pope stands ?

Anastasios,

I will come back to your comment concerning Matta's views on family. You make an interesting point.   

[EkhristosAnesti]

Anastasios,

The Coptic Church endorses contraception. It certainly doesn't "force" it, but in light of previous discussion with you on this issue, I believe that whether it's forced or not is not of much relevance to you since you seem to have issues with contraception per se if I recall correctly. Thus, your contention with Fr. Matta in this regard, is a contention with the whole Coptic Church.

I know you're aware of this, but I thought I would explicate that point for others.

[Macarius]

why you talk in bad way like kid getting angry .. LOL

- you believe that you proved that Fr. Matta is wrong but you proved nothing ..

Why the Pope didn't ecxommunicate him like he did with others , the pope excommunicated alot of heretics during his papcy... why so ANSWER ME .... We will follow Fr. Matta till the Church excommunicate him and i am sure that this will not happen because he is a real saint ....
By the way the Anathema is diffrent than the Persnaol problems . .. Why the Pope Kyrols didn't excommunicate him , why the Pope Shenouda didn't too !!!!!! 
if i didn't listen about his Anathema with my ears than this means he is not wrong

- As u talked about St. Makkar monastery i talked about Anba Bishoy ... you didn't answer me also , how someone can defend the heresies while his family fallen in it

By the way , most of the Copts love Fr. Matta .... in my Church ( by the way it is very very famous and Big Coptic ORthodox Cathedral in Egypt ) all the priests and deacons read and love his books

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: Fr. Matta and the Eucharist