4 Vasile Gordon, Introducere în Omiletică (Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din .. Analize omiletice, catehetice şi pastorale (Bucureşti: Editura. Cultural catechetical centre “Bishop Dr. Vasile Stan” Târgu Lăpuș. .. 7 Vasile Gordon, Introducere în catehetica ortodoxă, Ed. Sophia, Bucureşti, , p. Gordon, Vasile, Introducere în Catehetica Ortodoxă, Bucharest: Editura Sophia, Gordon, Vasile, Cateheze pastorale pe înțelesul tuturor, vol.
|Published (Last):||8 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||14.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Cyril and His Opponents Cyril of Alexandria – Exegete of Scripture His activity afterwhen Nestorius, appointed on the patriarchal chair of Constantinople,2 provokes an Christological dispute regarding the hypostatic union and the honouring of Virgin Mary as Mother of God, he stood out by the strength of his faith and the constancy in the holly teaching of the apostolic Christianity.
In his Christological thinking, the Holly Hierarch was inspired by the profound piety in God and Virgin Mary, and also his ardour for the true confession, toughly tested by the heretic preaching of Nestorius. Is so happens that, at soon as he was aware of the wandering against Virgin Mary, he started a true campaign of convincing his adversary and then of his condemning, verbally and in writing.
For him, the teaching of the becoming human of the Son of God is related in the being to the Mother of God. If this teaching had not been supported and clarified, the Embodiment would have been, apparently, an illusion or a word emptied of its content.
The Alexandrian mystical tendency and the Antiochian rationalist one inevitably collided in the era of the great Christological controversies. Thus, for Saint Cyril, no division in the person of Jesus Christ the Redeemer, since by body we understand the human nature in all its integrity, namely body and rational soul, nature which got united with the divine nature in the hypostasis of the Logos. This thing shows that the hypostasis of the Word was truly united to the human nature, with no change and mixture and there is a single Christ, true God and true human.
Therefore, it could not, so much the less, designate an independent man. Thus, with its creation in the Virgin Mary, the human nature belongs to the Logos which fully appropriated it, body and soul. Therefore the human nature, the body and the soul, belongs to the Word not to an ordinary man, being united with the divine nature in a single concrete person. Although the natures have totally different essence, the union excludes any division, since God the man is the only Hypostasis in two natures, kept in their integrity and their natural properties.
Therefore, the different natures do not exclude one another and do not cancel the union, but each of them subsists upon their natural way of 5 IDEM, Ep. Theodor, PG 76, Because of this fact Saint Cyril considers Jesus Christ the Redeemer as the embodied divine Logos, as man of history and as God Himself, Who, united to the human nature, lives, dies and resurrects for mankind.
Thus, Emanuel, namely the embodied God, must be adored in its divine-human Hypostasis. However, the Saint appreciates that the Logos of God maintains certain limits within this union, namely: Given all these specifications, Saint Cyril surpasses the limits of the formula Logos sarx from the thinking of Saint Athanasius and admits that the soul of Jesus Christ is a theological factor Scholia de incarn.
He refers to this problem in is Eastern letter from and in the special letter addressed to the Egyptian monarchs, offering them details on the new heresy initiated by Nestorius. From all the above mentioned aspects we understand that the entire work of Saint Cyril, in great part transposed in extremely valuable theological works, make the proof of an inexhaustible inheritance, from which the entire Orthodoxy is endlessly nourished. We praise our God Almighty for the fulfilled things!
He believed so because he could not understand the human nature as person and could not accept that this nature can have his own power and remain at the same time nature, like the Eucharistic body.
Believing that the human nature of Christ is independent, Nestorius cannot realize how the Eucharistic can be life-giver.
The identity between the Eucharistic body and the historical body meant for Nestorius the same common human nature, penetrated by the Logos. At Saint Cyril from Alexandria the Eucharistic body is a concrete reality; the incarnated person is the same in the Eucharistic body.
On the other hand, Nestorius asserted the separation of natures in Christ and underlined the symbolic aspect of the Holy Eucharist. III, Paris,p. The nestorian concept of person applied to the human nature from Jesus Christ, that brings a lot of ambiguity in Eucharistic dogma, was fallen apart by Cyril by accepting the union between Logos and the human nature.
In his thinking, the Eucharistic body, as body of Logos, highlights the exact position of human nature in the act of Incarnation, like anenhypostatically nature, considering them human and divine nature as identical. According vaasile this traditional doctrine, Christ is really present in Eucharist, which shows that the life-giving body is identical with the human nature ingroducere in Logos.
This body has in himself the possibility to give life to those who share him.
Text și discurs religios nr. 4/ | Ioan Milică –
This fact is demonstrated by Saint Cyril when he speaks about the indissoluble union between Logos and His body: And by the unknown rationality of His union with the body, in consequence, He showed the body like a life-giver, such is also Himself through His nature. Introducwre, the union acquires meaning by integration into Logos. Our Savior Himself, by referring to the fact that His body is life- giver, extended this quality at the Eucharistic body, as a consequence of the same hypostatical union.
Saint Cyril underlines this aspect saying that: Saint Cyril underlines this relationship in contrast with Nestorius who makes the human nature an independent person.
For him the work of Logos and the action of the human nature are introducfre same, the body being one with the Logos by union. His purpose is evidently Eucharistic: The effects of this Eucharistic body are a consequence of hypostatical union between the Word of God and the human nature, both standing for the evidence of the union between God and man. Saint Cyril builds this Eucharistic and realistic balance on the Christological conception and sees the union between these two natures as a complete integration of the Eucharistic body in Logos, by transformation.
As we can see, Saint Cyril sees the Eucharistic teaching in close relationship with the Christological doctrine. From this point of view, fatehetica thinking of Nestorius has a horizontal dimension and suggests a collaboration rapport between two equal persons, in which the human one remains outside the Logos.
Undoubtedly, Nestorius explores this reflection in his teaching about Eucharist. In the context of the differences between the common body of Nestorius and the life-giver body of Cyril stands the Eucharistic teaching of the real presence of the Body and Blood of the Incarnated Logos.
Text și discurs religios nr. 6/ | Ioan Milică –
This is My godhead that is broken for you? Therefore, the Eucharistic body is separated by the Son of God in the same way as the body is separated by the divine nature, Eucharist being an argument of these reasons. In this context, Saint Cyril will present in a different way the Eucharistic reality and the Christological truth. Therefore, God accepts the elements not only as a new continuation form of His body, but as an affirmation of the membership of this body to Eucharist.
The difference of mode and substance does not constitute a difference because in the body of God exercise the same work. From this point of view, Eucharist is the necessary continuation of Incarnation, although he is a different kind of presence, but the same body gives us life and unites us with the Life.
From the Christological point of view, Saint Cyril relates his Eucharistic doctrine to his soteriological vision. As we have seen, Nestorius separates the Eucharistic body from the historical body, denying constantly the Eucharistic body.
Being God, He has the power to make us after his image, being present in us and making us to be present in Him in a real way. His godhead has the power to cover us in it and to be in us all, having in itself what is proper to our body.
He is present in the Eucharist and us in Him by the partaking with His sacrificial spirit and with His Resurrection state. No, because else is the relative participation through that the Son came in us and else is the union through that He has made to Himself body from the Holy Virgin. Also, Saint Cyril claims the fact that the physical participation in the Eucharistic body unites us between our selves and makes us corporealp.
Catehetjca a natural continuation of these concerns, a question regarding Jesus Christ the Redeemer and His relation with our human nature was raised. No doubt, since the embodied Son of God was at the centre of both controversies, the confrontation with the Arians and the Semi-Arians brought some clarifications related to the Christological dogma.
It is known that Arius claimed that the Logos did not take full human nature, but only the body without the soul,44 and later on, Apollinaris, claimed that it took a body and a soul with no vaile.
Afterwards, Eustathius speaks of the Logos who was not born from Virgin Mary and did not suffer, but who was infroducere to Him, whom vaasile raised from vaeile dead. However, Apollinaris, as Arius, claimed that the divine Logos did vasie take full human nature, but only mindless living body, He himself taking the place of the mind. His argumentation was that: Their starting point was the historical person of Christ, strongly accentuating His full humanity.
Thus, Diodorus of Tarsus, a famous representative of the School introduucere Antioch, as strange as it would seem, used the Logos- anthropos scheme. For Diodorus, the divine Logos is separated from the Man in Mary and one cannot even say He suffered, both more likely that the Man suffered, the temple of the Logos God.
He is the one who claimed that the Logos lived in Christ as it did in the prophets, with the single difference that it lived permanently in Christ.
He is still the one who taught about the two sons, differentiating the Son of God from the Son of David. We deduce from here that, although he supported the Logos-sarx formula, he is however a complete tributary of the Logos-anthropos Christology of Nestorian type. The Creature is not the same with the Son of God: Kntroducere one who is the Face of God has assumed the face of the slave, however the face of the slave is not the Face of God Thus, God dwelled in 50 Justinian the Emperor shows in his works the reason for which Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned.
This profane symbol of Theodore was presented at the Council of Ephesus and read later on at Chalcedon; both councils condemned both the author, and also those who use this symbol.
The fact that he was anathematised after death has the same value as if he would have been anesthetised in life. Later on, the Church name Arius introducsre Macedonius, after their death. No doubt the Church understood that only those who kept the pious doctrine mutually declared with the Universal Church until the end, are in communion with the Church.
As for Theodore, he was banished by the Universal Church because he died in his disbelief. This fact is also proven by the tradition of the Church in Mopsuestia, which removed his name from introducerr diptychs of the Church, because of his blasphemy.
The fact that the defenders of Theodore would accept him would be in contradiction with the very Church where he was a bishop, which banished him from long as a heretic. Justinian also brings ijtroducere arguments from the Holy Bible and from the Church practice of condemning the heretics, after their death.
Sometimes, some of the Holy Fathers accepted the heretics: In time, however, man participated too in this connection by his will, which catehdtica to a union between the two persons in a single subject of worship, so that one must no longer speak of the two sons, but of a single one.
In nitroducere regard, Virgin Mary was not a birth giver of God, but a birth giver of Man. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, as we have seen, was looking not at Jesus the man, to reach God, but at God the Word, whom he always considered the subject that redeemed us. This gives him the possibility to state the strong unity between the divine nature and the human nature in Christ.
It deals of course with the entire human nature, body and soul. At the same time, the human nature, being complete in Christ, did not mean intrpducere was independent, to form a distinct person, different from the one of Intrdoucere. Although the expressions of the Saint have Apolinarian origin, still he always explains them in an orthodox manner.
B-h curve pdf
catehetiva After the Embodiment, the human nature is called by the Cyril embodied nature, to show that the Logos was united with the human nature, adding to It Its divinity and human nature, suffers of all its actions and sufferings.
Thus, God was made man, remaining however God. Without a change or mixture, he is crucified God; he suffered in an unsuffering way, namely with the body. By the fact that Jesus Christ is one and the same in relation to the divinity and to the humanity, there is a communication of characteristics and actions between the two natures, so that none of them changes.
It inttoducere precisely in this direction that wondered Nestorius and the Antiochans, who, by casile the natures into distinct persons, tore the communion. Against them, Saint Cyril confesses the fullness of the natures and their unity in the hypostasis of the divine Logos.