Having issues viewing this message? Please click here. September 6, 2013, Friday -- A Proposal of Common Work for Peace among Catholics and Orthodox "I believe, Mary, that in Egypt your heart remained humble and always filled with joy. Is not Jesus the most beautiful homeland? What did exile matter to you if you possessed Heaven? But when you returned to Jerusalem, a great sorrow awaited you, your heart was flooded with an immense sorrow: Jesus withdrew himself from your tender care for three days, and this alone became for you a true and harsh exile." —St. Therese of the Child Jesus (to whom Pope Francis has a particular devotion). This reflection will be part of the Prayer Vigil for Peace tomorrow evening in St. Peter's Square. The only true exile The loss of Jesus is the only true exile, the only ultimate sorrow. The loss of the hope of redemption from sin, of healing from fallenness, which Jesus in his holiness offers, is the only despair that can plunge souls into impenetrable night. He is the true "Promised Land." The "land promised" where humans can be at home. That is what we learn from these lines of St. Therese of the Child Jesus, which will be cited tomorrow in Rome during the prayer vigil for peace called by Pope Francis. The disappearance of Christians And that is why the suffering and looming disappearance of Christians, of believers in Christ, in the Middle East, is something all Christians ought to feel as a painful wound that needs to stop bleeding so healing can start. All Christians -- Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike. In yesterday's email, I noted that a small village in Syria, where the Christians still speak a version of Aramaic, is now under attack by rebel forces. This village should be protected. The day of prayer and fasting We are now on the eve of September 7, the Day of Prayer and Fasting for Peace called for by Pope Francis. Francis is moving earth and heaven to try to bring about a ceasefire in the terrible civil war which has killed many innocent women and children in Syria. Francis will be present in St. Peter's Square tomorrow evening, starting at 7 p.m., to lead the prayers for peace in a special service designed for the occasion, which has just been released by the Vatican. The vigil will be televised live on EWTN. It is not clear how the rest of the world's media will cover this extraordinary initiative. Will it be passed over in near silence?
The sorrow of Mary Significantly, this vigil comes on the eve of the birthday of the Virgin Mary. It also comes five weeks before the Pope will celebrate on October 12 and 13, in Rome, with great solemnity, the 96th anniversary of the astonishing "Miracle of the Sun" which occurred in Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917, in the presence of 70,000 witnesses. In this "Marian" context, the reflection of St. Therese of the Child Jesus cited above takes on special significance. For, in the midst of war, in the midst of the helplessness and despair which comes with the snuffing out of innocent human lives -- especially the lives of children and all the promise those lives contain -- the figure of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who herself suffered such great sorrow, both at the disappearance of her son for three days in Jerusalem when he was 12, and at his death on the cross when he was 33, returns to offer comfort. On the path of sorrow, we do not go anywhere Mary has not been before us. And in our brokenheartedness, she whose heart was pierced can comfort us. In this "Marian comfort" is a basis for hope that human beings, fallen as we are, wounded as we are, limited as we are, may yet find the hard and painful way toward building that just peace, even if imperfect, which can be a powerful eschatological sign of the final divine promise of eternal life, even in this fallen world. In Mary and her witness, we have the hope of finding peace, even in war-torn Syria, where 110,000 people have been killed in the past two years, even in the Middle East, where armed forces have been preparing for, and sometimes waging, war for many decades, and likewise throughout the world, where peace is often fragile and elusive. Mary can be a central figure of hope and comfort for all because she represents all. She was a child of the people of Israel, a Jew, trained in the Jewish law, delighting in the Jewish holy days. Yet, as the mother of Jesus, she is of course revered by all Christians as the Mother of the Church, the "new Eve" for the "new Israel." At the same time, she is also revered, as Miriam, by all Muslims, as the Virgin Mother of Jesus. And, in particular, she is revered in Damascus, the capital of Syria. There, in a certain house, lives a woman named Myrna. In that house, for more than two decades, a mysterious icon of Mary and the child Jesus has been weeping, inexplicably. Mary of Damascus, Mary of Kazan The icon is an inexpensive copy of the famous Russian icon of Our Lady of Kazan -- the most sacred of all the holy icons of Russia, sometimes called "The Protection of Russia." That original of that icon is now in Kazan again, after having been lost for decades. It only came back after being protected in Fatima in the 1970s, and then in Rome, in the very apartment of Pope John Paul II, where I myself saw it in the year 2000, after traveling to Kazan and learning that it had been lost. It was that experience which led me to decide to try to do something to bring about a reconciliation between Catholics and Orthodox, despite nearly 1,000 years of separation, after 1,000 years of unity. And so we established the "Urbi et Orbi Foundation," to try to work in modest ways with the Orthodox to build the presuppositions for closer communion. Those presuppositions are friendship and trust. And to build friendship and trust requires talking and working together, on common projects. We have therefore supported the work of Constantine Sigov in Kiev, Ukraine, who heads the important St. Clement Center there; the work of Orthodox priests and laypeople in Kharkiv, Ukraine, who are attempting to help handicapped children live fuller lives; and a conference between Catholic and Orthodox theologians in November in Minsk, Belarus, under the patronage of Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Filaret. The Vatican's Council for Promoting Christian Unity recommended all of these projects to us, and Cardinal Kurt Koch, head of that Council, has sent us a letter thanking us for our support of these projects.
A Concert in Honor of Pope Francis Moreover, we are also co-sponsoring, with a Russian Orthodox foundation, a Catholic-Orthodox concert in Rome on November 12, with music from both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, in honor of Pope Francis, the Pope of Mary and the Pope of the poor. We are looking for funding support for this concert. All members of our Foundation will be invited to Rome to attend the concert. If you would like to join the Foundation and receive an invitation to this concert in Rome, please click here: https://insidethevatican.com/urbi-et-orbi/urbi-et-orbi-foundation In the context of the increasing tension over the situation in Syria, which may lead toward a confrontation between the United States and Russia, our work of bringing together Catholics and Orthodox -- Americans, Western Europeans and Russians -- seems all the more important. Lightning bolts On February 11 in Rome, at 6 in the evening, next to St. Peter's Square, at the precise time that the lightning bolts struck the dome of St. Peter's, I was meeting in a Roman cafe with Stephen Klimczuk, who was soaked from head to foot from the cold February rain. We discussed all these matters, on the very day of Pope Benedict's resignation. Stephen has now prepared a "modest proposal" for Catholic-Orthodox work which will serve as a partial guideline for the work of our Foundation in the months and years ahead. This proposal is printed below. Please consider joining with us by becoming members of our Foundation. Simply reply to this email for further information by clicking here. I will answer each email personally. =============== The Right Hour: A Case for Intensified Catholic-Orthodox Cooperation by Stephen Klimczuk A key theme of Inside the Vatican's apostolate is the importance -- and indeed urgency -- of Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation. In an increasingly post-Christian world where Christian faith and life are under pressure as never before, or even under literal attack, the need for unity has never been greater. Despite its historic wariness of the Vatican, the roughly 150 million member Russian Orthodox Church has extended a hand of cooperation to Rome in recent years, sending its young Metropolitan Hilarion to explore practical ways of working together --- in Europe, in the Holy Land and beyond. The worsening plight of Christians in the Middle East only adds to the timeliness of this undertaking. However, to date only a relatively few enthusiasts on both sides have taken much notice or interest. The Greek word Kairos comes to mind: this may finally be the right or opportune hour for Catholics and Orthodox to join forces in new and practical ways.
A return to Communion is beyond our earthly means Symbolic gestures and theological dialogue have their place, but can only take us so far. We should regard our aspiration not so much as reunion, but as a return to communion -- and we must acknowledge that this is a task beyond human means, given the better part of a thousand years of separation and divergence. No committee can engineer it. Both sides must pray for God to intervene or inspire us in some new way, and for the help and intercession of Our Lady and all the saints. In the meantime, Catholics and Orthodox can begin cooperating much more closely to push back against the tide of a post-Christian future. So near, yet still so far Facing the hard facts of separation is a good starting point. The points of doctrine which keep us apart may be few, but they remain immovable despite recent decades of dialogue that have improved mutual understanding. To over-simplify the details, the Orthodox do not accept the Filioque in the Creed and the Catholic understanding of the Petrine office; they also regard Rome as having been too influenced, for too many centuries, by a dry Roman legalism and neo-Scholasticism. For our part, we find some Orthodox doctrine and practice as being rather vague on one level, while being too willing to operate as a national department of state on another level – for example, in Russia where the dividing line between government policy and Church policy is often hard to see, and where hardball tactics are not unknown. Given Our Lord's seemingly rather clear words about the indissolubility of marriage, we also have difficulty understanding how Orthodoxy can permit divorce and second (or even third) Church-sanctioned "non-sacramental" remarriages. (Though some Catholic theologians wish to explore this to see if any Eastern insight can help the plight of those whose marriages seemingly have failed.) Taking stock of the baggage of history The Second Vatican Council, with its theme of episcopal collegiality, appeared to provide a new opening for a warming of relations. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople symbolically lifted the mutual anathemas of 1054 AD. While formal dialogue was initiated, one cannot point to any breakthroughs. The first Slav Pope, Blessed John Paul II, brought new energy and interest to the matter, given his greater insight into (and appreciation for) the riches of Orthodox mysticism, patristics, liturgy, sacred music and iconography. He felt that both sides were impoverished by the separation, and had much to learn from one another. Blessed John Paul's powerful metaphor of a Church "breathing with two lungs again" resonated with many Catholics, but with fewer Orthodox. Russians in particular doubted that a patriotic Pole firmly rooted in Western culture and Latin Europe could gain the confidence of Eastern Orthodoxy. When the Pope wished to travel to Russia to return a holy icon of Our Lady of Kazan, lost in the Bolshevik Revolution, he was rebuffed. In 2004, it was sent back to Russia generously and unconditionally. Admittedly, the 1990s were not a good time for Catholic-Orthodox relations, given how tensions (and even violence and war) erupted after the crack-up of the Soviet bloc. Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs fought each other in the former Yugoslavia, and in Ukraine there was much sparring over Church property between Eastern-rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. There remains some difficulty with the Russian Orthodox over the rebuilding of Latin-rite churches and structures to serve the several hundred thousand Catholics (mainly ethnic Poles, Germans and Lithuanians) who remain in the Russian Federation and in Kazakhstan. However, the biggest sore point continues to be the existence of Eastern-rite Catholicism, which many Orthodox regard with hostility. The late 16th century "Union of Brest" allowed Orthodox in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to accept the primacy of Rome, while retaining their Byzantine Rite liturgy, married parish priesthood and other Eastern practices. (If Byzantine Rite Catholicism among the Slavs has been a lightning-rod, the existence of other Oriental churches in communion with Rome -- for example the Maronites of Lebanon -- has been less contentious.) We have to admit that the Union of Brest was not a great success, at least insofar as it sought to restore communion between East and West, and it only turned most Orthodox further against Rome. Disliked by the Orthodox, misunderstood by Latin-rite Catholics and often persecuted by Orthodox (and later Communist) states, these "Uniates" (historically a term of abuse) often showed immense courage and perseverance. But many Eastern-rite Catholics who emigrated to the United States found themselves adrift and cold-shouldered by their fellow Roman Catholics, and not a few of their descendants belong instead today to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Curiously, despite Orthodoxy's official disapproval of Eastern-rite Catholicism, they themselves have sponsored something analogous: a modest-sized "Western Rite Orthodox" movement, where Orthodox may practice their faith according to Western, Latin traditions.
A series of visible, practical steps to cooperate and form a common front for Christian life in a hostile world Despite the dashed hopes and points of friction, there is new impetus for Catholic and Orthodox collaboration. Pope Benedict worked very hard to make relations warmer, and today the freshness and humility of Pope Francis’ pontificate provides a new opening for still greater things. In my opinion, the following might be a suitable "wish list" of action steps: 1. Launch a new joint standing committee of Catholic & Orthodox bishops in Europe: its first objective would be to have a positive, Christian influence on the public policy environment in a not altogether friendly European Union. A second, and no less important, objective would be to work together to help the suffering and beleaguered Christians of the Middle East and Near East. Helsinki, Finland might provide an appropriately neutral meeting place (and permanent secretariat location) for such a joint standing committee, with the symbolism of being at an important historic border of East and West. The Monastery of St. Catherine of Sinai might also be a suitable and inspiring occasional meeting site. Should this model prove useful, similar committees could be formed in some other parts of the world to pursue specific, tangible common objectives, with bishops delegated to serve by their respective Churches. 2. Develop new monastic and grassroots exchanges: Among the Orthodox, monastic life remains central, and bishops are generally drawn from the ranks of monks. Why not arrange for formal exchanges of monks from Greece, Russia, Serbia, the Holy Land and elsewhere with their Catholic counterparts, and vice versa? And why not create exchanges of young people where Orthodox may be invited to foot pilgrimages to Santiago de Compostela and Chartres? 3. Create a series of major concerts highlighting the glories of Catholic & Orthodox sacred music -- in major cities of the world. 4. Let the bells toll for Catholic-Orthodox cooperation: The Western (Gregorian) and Julian calendars coincide some years at Easter, and this will happen again next year on April 20, 2014 (in the Western calendar). What better way to signal cooperation than to have all Catholic and Orthodox cathedrals and churches throughout the world pray for unity and ring their bells at noon local time wherever they may be as a sign of their common hopes? If 2014 is too soon to organize this, the next opportunities will be in 2017 and, much later, in 2034. 5. Leverage bonds of interest and affection where they exist: The Sovereign Order of Malta is one the few Catholic institutions for which the Russians (and the Russian Orthodox Church) have a real affection, and the Order can provide a unique bridge between Catholics and Orthodox. The Knights of Malta today have diplomatic relations with some nine majority Orthodox population countries, including Russia and Serbia. In 2012, the Moscow Kremlin Museums hosted a successful major exhibition on artistic and culture treasures from the Order of Malta's 900 year history, which also intertwines with Russian history. (After Napoleon's capture of Malta, Tsar Paul I of Russia irregularly assumed the headship of this Catholic order in order to save it from extinction -- and Russians have been fascinated ever since.) I realize these are the mere musings of a Catholic layman, though I grew up with a strong awareness of my paternal line Orthodox ancestors. There is much to do, starting with prayer and confidence-building steps both large and small. Last year I donated a painting to St. Juliana of Lazarevo Russian Orthodox Church in Santa Fe, New Mexico -- a very traditional parish with a unique Southwestern adobe structure capped with a blue onion dome. The parish priest graciously accepted my gift, which now hangs in the parish hall. It was a small gesture. We must now do much more. Stephen Klimczuk is a corporate strategist, foundation director, author and sometime Oxford University fellow. He is a Trustee of the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project. ================== On Fasting "If you see an enemy, be reconciled with him. If you see a friend gaining honor, do not be jealous of him. And let not only the mouth fast, but also the eye and the ear and the feet and the hands and all members of your bodies." —St. John Chrysostom ==================== New Foundation Editor's Note: I wanted to thank the “Founding Members” of our new “Urbi et Orbi Foundation,” who have contributed more than $100,000 since Christmas to help us launch this initiative, aimed at working to improve relations between Catholics and Orthodox. We do seek further support. Because of the situation in Syria, our work with the Orthodox, and with the Russian Orthodox in particular, becomes even more important. If anyone would like more information about this important initiative, please write to me by clicking here. –Robert Moynihan
Hi MS7 You seem to be very versed in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic relations and I suspect you know much about the different councils over centuries that were the catalyst for the separations and the points of difference that now separate the east and the west Christians, i.e. the Catholic and the Orthodox. Being Catholic and regarding myself well versed in my Catholic faith and having always followed Catholic tradition, I was surprised to find out, by accident, that an internal belief about Our Lord Jesus that I believed is apparently not so much a Catholic belief but apparently it’s an Orthodox belief. I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is both God and Man and I always believed that His Divine nature and His Human nature are one. However the Catholic belief is that Jesus’ Divine nature and His Human nature are actually two distinct natures and are not one. Initially this shocked me. I could not believe that as a Catholic this is what I was expected to believe. So I researched and found out that yes I was incorrect; as a Catholic I am to believe that the Divine Nature of Christ performs one function and the Human nature of Christ carries out a different role. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. the Bishop of Rome, accordingly declared his famous Tome which was rejected by the Coptic Church. But the Council accepted and voted for it, thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. To me, this belief of 2 natures in Christ amounts to the Nestorian heresy which the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. denounced as a heretical and ultimately excommunicated Nestorus. Nestorus was Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D., he was excommunicated by the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus held in 431 A.D. because he refused to name the Virgin St. Mary "Mother of God" (Theotokos). He believed that St. Mary gave birth to a mere human and that Divinity descended and filled this human; Thus the Virgin Mary would be called the "Mother of Jesus" (Christokos), and not the "Mother of God" (Theotokos). I suspect that most Roman Catholics today are unaware that this is what we are to believe as Catholics. I certainly hope that the Orthodox /Roman relations get together to sort out this mess so as we can start the reunification of Christs Church on earth and all get on the same page. Your thoughts would be appreciated The following are some of the councils of the past that denounced the different heresies in regard to the nature of Christ ending with the Council of Chalcedon because this is where we as Roman Catholic and those that are of Coptic Orthodox persuasion [at least] seem to have diverged on our paths. The Widely known Heresies Concerning the Nature of Christ A) The Heresy of Arius (Arianism): Arius denied the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; he considered that Christ was not consubstantial with the Father and that He was created. The roots of Arianism still exist until this day. Even after being condemned in 325 A.D. by the Council of Nicea, Arius and his followers caused trouble, dissension and suspicions within the Holy Church. B) The Heresy of Apollinarius: Apollinarius preached the Divine Nature of Christ, but did not believe in His complete human nature; he considered that the human nature of Christ was not in need of a soul and thus He was without soul because God the Logos provided the needed life. As this implied that the human nature of Christ was incomplete, the Holy Ecumenical Council of Constantinople held in 381 A.D. condemned Apollinarius and rejected his idea declaring it a heresy. C) The Heresy of Nestorus (Nestorianism): Nestorus was Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D., he was excommunicated by the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus held in 431 A.D. because he refused to name the Virgin St. Mary "Mother of God" (Theotokos). He believed that St. Mary gave birth to a mere human and that Divinity descended and filled this human; Thus the Virgin Mary would be called the "Mother of Jesus" (Christokos), and not the "Mother of God" (Theotokos). Nestorus’ priest, Anastasius, spread this teaching; and Nestorus then confirmed it and wrote five books to refute the idea that the Virgin was the "Mother of God". In doing so he is considered to have denied the Divinity of Christ. His theory that Divinity descended and filled Our Lord meant that there was no Hypostatic union, but rather meant that the Divinity descended to accompany Him or to fill Him as in the case of saints. In other words, Nestorus’ concept meant that Christ became a dwelling for God just as He became a dwelling for the Holy Spirit through His Baptism. As such, Christ is considered a "Carrier of God" (Theophorus), which is the same title given to St. Ignatius of Antioch. He explained that it was impossible for the Virgin to give birth to God, as the creation never gives birth to the Creator. Besides, whatever is born of flesh will merely be flesh. Thus the opinion of Nestorus was that the relation between the human nature of Christ and the Divine nature started just after His Birth from the Virgin and it was not a Hypostatic union. He explicitly said: "I distinguish between the two natures". In this way the Nestorian belief is against the Propitiation Creed, because if Christhas not united with the Divine nature it would have been impossible for Him to offer an unlimited propitiation (or sacrifice.) sufficient for the forgiveness of all sins of all people throughout the ages. When our Church [Coptic Orthodox] says that the Virgin is the "Mother of God", it confirms that she gave birth to the Incarnate Logos and not that she was the source of the Divine nature. Certainly not. God the Logos is the Creator of the Virgin, but He, in the fullness of time, descended and filled her and she became pregnant and carried Him united with the human nature and she gave birth to Him. The twelve Anathemas which St. Cyril issued include answers to all the Nestorian heresies. He condemned those who said that the two natures resulted from being joined together and those who said that God the Logos was working in the man Jesus or that God the Logos was dwelling in Jesus. He also condemned those who distinguished between Jesus and God the Logos claiming that He was merely a man born of a woman. D) The Heresy of Eutyches (Eutychianism): Eutyches was an archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. He zealously opposed the Nestorian heresy and was so highly concerned about the unity of the two natures in Christ, which Nestorus tore apart, that he fell into another heresy. Eutyches said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ. After St. Dioscorus had excommunicated him, Eutyches pretended that he repented and accepted the true faith and St. Dioscorus allowed him to return on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A.D., and was also excommunicated by the Coptic Church. The Council of Chalcedon: In spite of the fact that the Council of Ephesus had excommunicated Nestorus, the Nestorian roots extended to influence the council of Chalcedon where the trend to separate the two natures became so apparent that it was said that Christ is two persons, a God and a human being; the one works miracles and the other accepts insults and humiliation. Following the same trend, Lee, the Bishop of Rome, accordingly declared his famous Tome which was rejected by the Coptic Church. But the Council accepted and voted for it, thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. Nestorus claimed that those two natures were distinctly separate. The Cartage’s Council proclaimed their union but Nestorus separated them by this explanation. Just as he concluded that Christ had two natures, he also concluded that He had two wills and two lines of action. The problem of the two natures and two wills has its roots here and thus began disruption and conflict within the Church. Now we are trying to settle this question by attempting to rewrite a satisfactory wording of our faith, which would be acceptable to all.
An explanation of the Coptic Orthodox beliefs is as follows regarding the nature of Christ and these beliefs are what I subscribe to even though I still consider myself a Catholic. I believe that we as Catholics do believe the following especially if one believes the teachings of St Cyril and St Augustine and considers the writings of Louisa Picaretta. The following is taken from a paper written by the late H. H. Pope Shenouda III Patriarch of the See of St. Mark of the Coptic Orthodox Church, entitled the Nature of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is God Himself; the Incarnate Logos. Who took to Himself a perfect manhood. His Divine nature is one with his human nature yet without mingling, confusion or alteration; a complete Hypostatic Union. Words are inadequate to describe this union. It was said, that without controversy, "Great is the mystery of Godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.” (I Tim. 3:16). As this union is permanent, never divided nor separated, we say in the liturgy that His Godhead never departed from His manhood for a single moment nor even for a twinkle of an eye. The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This Unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s womb. As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it. The Holy Church did not find an expression more reliable, deep and precise than that which was used by St. Cyril the Great, and which St. Athanasius the Apostolic used before him. Both of them were true leaders in the theological field worldwide. The Nature of this Union Union without Mingling, Confusion, Alteration or Transmutation: By "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barley, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature. The Example of the Union of Iron and Fire: St., Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement, but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire. Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well. The Example of the Union between the Soul and the Body: This example was used by St. Cyril, St. Augustine and a large number of ancient and recent theologians. In this simile, the nature of the soul unites with the physical earthly nature of the body to form a union of one nature, which is the human nature. This united nature does not include the body alone nor the soul alone but both together are combined without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation. No transmutation occurs of the soul into the body nor of the body into the soul, yet both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one nature and one person. Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature?!
You are up at 2-4am writing this??? Do you sleep? LOL From now on, please push the 'Reply' button so I will get an alert notification that you have written directly to me. I almost skipped over this thread this morning as I am running out the door. I will get back to you! I also suggest asking Peter B. who is a theologian and more well read than I. I actually have come across some things that I was not aware of regarding the Orthodox, so we are both searching for answers! I am reaping the glow of Divine Mercy Sunday! NOTHING is going to ruin my day today!! marti
I realise that most people on this sight live in the US or in Europe. However, I live on the east coast of Australia and yesterday afternoon at around 5pm I wrote and sent the above. And yes I was fast asleep at 2-4am on Monday the 28th. It is now [here on the east coast of Australia], Tuseday the 29th April at 0910 in the morning and I have no idea what time it is in the US or anywhere else for that matter; I suspect it is still Monday probably around 3pm. I don't get a lot of time on the internet especially over the last 10 -12 months. I know I will be unable to write or partake in these discussions probably in the near future as thats just how my life has been. I wish I could! I really enjoy the discourses and the information and it is very edifying to be part of such a like minded Catholic forum. Ignorance is the only reason I can offer for not pushing a reply button to notify you. As I was and I think still am unaware of this button I will look around and try to identify it. If Peter B, reads the above post I would certainly appreciate his imput. I look forward to your reply. I will now press the post reply button and I will look for the other reply button, as its probably staring me in the face. Thank you God Bless
