[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158994#msg158994 date=1345065023] The prayers within the Oriental Orthodox Church are different.
Are all authoritative?
They are all the prayers of the Church being prayed by the Fathers.
Before I answer this question, let me ask you whether you know of any dogmatic or theological differences between the different prayers contained in the different OO churches.
I don't know them all. But you have discovered that St Severus teaches error, a fact that had escaped the whole Church previously, therefore it may be that some of the other Churches use a rite which does not agree in all statements with those you think you find in our own rites.
For instance, you have identified that there is dogmatic error in our rites (I don't want to go cutting and pasting again where you said there was dogmatic error). Now if the other Orthodox rites do not contain that error they are therefore more accurate.
But how do you know that our rite contains error and the other rites do not? It cannot be by reference to our rite because you have said that it contains dogmatic error. It must therefore be by referernce to the consensus of the Fathers.
How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him
Called human error, and God's grace. Theology is not God. theology is the study of God. An incorrect theology doesn't mean that you are lacking him, just mistaken about him.
Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
Yes, it is Sabellian. Opposed by Tertullian. But, again, that is irrelevant. YOU said that there was a mistake in the liturgy. For you to acknowledge this, you must compare it with another source than the liturgy. You called it wrong because it did not sit well with an outside source. Why then would you not say the other source was wrong for conflicting the verse rather than saying the verse was wrong for conflicting the source.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158997#msg158997 date=1345065383] But how do you know that our rite contains error and the other rites do not? It cannot be by reference to our rite because you have said that it contains dogmatic error. It must therefore be by referernce to the consensus of the Fathers.
Yes, this is my point exactly. I will not answer any more question until this one is answered.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158997#msg158997 date=1345065383] I don't know them all. But you have discovered that St Severus teaches error, a fact that had escaped the whole Church previously, therefore it may be that some of the other Churches use a rite which does not agree in all statements with those you think you find in our own rites.
I am saddened that you accuse me of such a thing and I do ask you to tell me where did I say that and in what context.
I cannot continue a discussion based on false information.
How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him
Called human error, and God's grace. Theology is not God. theology is the study of God. An incorrect theology doesn't mean that you are lacking him, just mistaken about him.
Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
Yes, it is Sabellian. Opposed by Tertullian. But, again, that is irrelevant. YOU said that there was a mistake in the liturgy. For you to acknowledge this, you must compare it with another source than the liturgy. You called it wrong because it did not sit well with an outside source. Why then would you not say the other source was wrong for conflicting the verse rather than saying the verse was wrong for conflicting the source.
That is the question.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You still did not answer how can we correct the quote you provided. Can you please do so?
If you can not, please let me know and I will continue to illustrate my point to you.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg159000#msg159000 date=1345065557] I am saddened that you accuse me of such a thing and I do ask you to tell me where did I say that and in what context.
I cannot continue a discussion based on false information.
[quote author=JG link=topic=9585.msg159002#msg159002 date=1345065780] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg159000#msg159000 date=1345065557] I am saddened that you accuse me of such a thing and I do ask you to tell me where did I say that and in what context.
I cannot continue a discussion based on false information.
How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him
Called human error, and God's grace. Theology is not God. theology is the study of God. An incorrect theology doesn't mean that you are lacking him, just mistaken about him.
Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
Yes, it is Sabellian. Opposed by Tertullian. But, again, that is irrelevant. YOU said that there was a mistake in the liturgy. For you to acknowledge this, you must compare it with another source than the liturgy. You called it wrong because it did not sit well with an outside source. Why then would you not say the other source was wrong for conflicting the verse rather than saying the verse was wrong for conflicting the source.
That is the question.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You still did not answer how can we correct the quote you provided. Can you please do so?
If you can not, please let me know and I will continue to illustrate my point to you.
I DON'T NEED TO! THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT. THE POINT IS YOU SAID IT WAS WRONG. IT WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT WAS COMPARED TO SOMETHING MORE CORRECT THAN IT. BUT THAT CANNOT BE IF IT IS THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE THING. IM NOT SAVING THE CHURCH FROM SABELLIANISM, I AM SAYING THAT A VERSE IN THE CHURCH EXHIBITED THAT, AND YOU AGREED. SIMPLE!
Listen, everyone who has commented seems to understand that except you. So, i'm going to assume that people get it. If you don't, I'm sorry.
COME ON. THIS IS BASIC STUFF. IT IS AS BASIC AS ONE PLUS ONE IS TWO!
Ok Imikhail, if we go with your logic and the liturgical prayers deserve the highest precedence (I dont agree), then we must understand that the absolution (which you mentioned) is a part and parcel with it and thus indicates who's writings are infallible (i use the term loosely) within the Church. Thus by your own words, you have insinuated to me that St. Severus of Antioch, who is actually the FIRST name mentioned, is a source of Orthodox doctrine, because the liturgy says so. THIS IS YOUR LOGIC.
Well this is what St. Severus of Antioch, the light of the east said,
"The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally (kata phusin) mixed with our substance (ousia), as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians, in other words the Manichees, claims, but because they (Adam and Eve) had lost the grace of immortality the judgment and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition. we are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents. but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children," [Julien d' Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d' Antioche sur I'incorruptibilite du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), pp 130-131, quoted in: John Meyendorff: Christ in Eastern Orthodox Thought, p 227]" Quoted directly from http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
Therefore it is clear, by your own logic that it is not St. Severus who is wrong, God forbid, but that YOU dont understand the liturgical prayer in an Orthodox manner. Case closed
How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him
Called human error, and God's grace. Theology is not God. theology is the study of God. An incorrect theology doesn't mean that you are lacking him, just mistaken about him.
Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
Yes, it is Sabellian. Opposed by Tertullian. But, again, that is irrelevant. YOU said that there was a mistake in the liturgy. For you to acknowledge this, you must compare it with another source than the liturgy. You called it wrong because it did not sit well with an outside source. Why then would you not say the other source was wrong for conflicting the verse rather than saying the verse was wrong for conflicting the source.
That is the question.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You still did not answer how can we correct the quote you provided. Can you please do so?
If you can not, please let me know and I will continue to illustrate my point to you.
I DON'T NEED TO! THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT. THE POINT IS YOU SAID IT WAS WRONG. IT WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT WAS COMPARED TO SOMETHING MORE CORRECT THAN IT. BUT THAT CANNOT BE IF IT IS THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE THING. IM NOT SAVING THE CHURCH FROM SABELLIANISM, I AM SAYING THAT A VERSE IN THE CHURCH EXHIBITED THAT, AND YOU AGREED. SIMPLE!
Listen, everyone who has commented seems to understand that except you. So, i'm going to assume that people get it. If you don't, I'm sorry.
COME ON. THIS IS BASIC STUFF. IT IS AS BASIC AS ONE PLUS ONE IS TWO!
It is not that simple. You have to take in context how the verse is written.
There is only one word that needs to be changed in the verse you cited and that is "replace three names" by "one name".
As you may know Coptic numerals are written using the Cotic alphabet so it is only a difference between two letters that makes this verse either a heresy or Orthodox.
Unfortunately, this may have been a typo that never got corrected and neither did the Arabic nor the English translation.
However, this should not be a problem for the one who understands what he is praying.
We recite this verse so many times when we say "In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit One God"
So, this verse should not pose a threat to having the liturgical prayers containing heresies.
Again, the error in this verse is contained in one Coptic letter that is most like is a type that never got corrected in the translations.
Regardless of what mistake or how small it was, you knew that there was a mistake! Why did you know this? My question is not why there was a mistake, but how you knew there was one.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158915#msg158915 date=1344994453] Stavro! I am glad you chimed in, i really do like hearing your opinion!
I do think in a way one could say that we participated with Adam in committing the sin in the idea that through Adam's transgression sin entered the world and we became liable to death. Thats just my two cents.
My other cents are that i personally prefer to use this terminology,
“No one is precluded from baptism and grace, ... [so] ought not and infant be forbidden, who, being newly born, has in no way way sinned, but only having contracted the contagion of death.” St. Cyprian of Carthage
and
“But forgetfulness having taken possession of the minds of men, through the long-suffering of God, has acted recklessly in transferring to mortals the name which is applicable to the only true God; and from the few the infection of sin spread to the many”
St. Justin Martyr (or the Philosopher if you prefer).
Personally i prefer to say that we inherited the contagion of death or the sickness of sin which passed onto mankind (not the guilt). But i do not think it matters what you call it, so long as you are clearly being committed to the fathers.
Pray for me
Dear "Least of all",
thank you for your reply. I am happy you returned to discuss this topic.
There is an overwhelming support from the Fathers (save St. Augustine) in favour of your position. I will not contest this fact.
However, the Gregorian liturgy seems to be opposing this position and this needs a cautious approach and a serious explanation. It cannot be easily dismissed unless it is proven to be a modern introduction that was influenced by false dogma.
But then again, the Fathers lived and prayed the liturgy and the vast majority of them must have understood the words to mean something different than my interpretation, evident from their teachings on this matter, and this is enough to defend your position.
I will ask my Father of Confession, who is a close friend of Abouna Athanasius. :)
Thanks Stavro! I eagerly await what your father of confession has to say! Please post back what his, more knowledgeable, interpretation is. I would also like Fr. Peter's opinion, if you arent too busy, father
And exactly as you said. If our fathers prayed our liturgies and yet expounded the faith as they have, there must be an issue with the interpretation if we take the liturgy to mean the opposite of what they said. I, for one, do not and my own personal interpretation is fully in congruity with the fathers (atleast i hope :D).
Cant wait to see what you have to say!
And i would also like to thank RO for coming in as well, your opinion is always a witness to the fathers.
And of course i always know that i am hearing words of wisdom and experience when our reverend father Peter graces us with a reply :).
Thanks all, i do believe we genuinely agree about the consensus of the fathers of this, expect for Imikhail :P (maybe H.E. Metropiltan Bishoy under a different user name? :P, kidding!)
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg159011#msg159011 date=1345067302] Regardless of what mistake or how small it was, you knew that there was a mistake! Why did you know this? My question is not why there was a mistake, but how you knew there was one.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I knew there was one because it does not agree with the other liturgical prayers namely:
Ok Imikhail, if we go with your logic and the liturgical prayers deserve the highest precedence (I dont agree), then we must understand that the absolution (which you mentioned) is a part and parcel with it and thus indicates who's writings are infallible (i use the term loosely) within the Church. Thus by your own words, you have insinuated to me that St. Severus of Antioch, who is actually the FIRST name mentioned, is a source of Orthodox doctrine, because the liturgy says so. THIS IS YOUR LOGIC.
This is not my own logic but what I received from the Church. This what I was taught by my teachers. I am just a disciple conveying what I am taught.
You are avoiding the point, the point is that by your logic one can claim that because St. Severus' name is mentioned in the absolution of the servants (in fact is the first name), then according to the liturgical tradition (which you say outranks the authority of the fathers), St. Severus is an expounder of the Orthodox faith and thus we must adhere to his teaching. This is all based on the logic you present of the authority of the liturgy and the fathers. Now it is either that your tradition comes crashing down and your reasoning is faulty (because according to you the liturgy disagrees with St. Severus' expounding of the Orthodox faith EVEN THOUGH that same liturgy just presented him to us as an expounder of the Orthodox faith) OR your interpretation is wrong. Take your pick.
P.S. if what you are taught by your teachers disagrees with what St. Severus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc, taught, then your teachers taught you wrong.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg159019#msg159019 date=1345080492] You are avoiding the point, the point is that by your logic one can claim that because St. Severus' name is mentioned in the absolution of the servants (in fact is the first name), then according to the liturgical tradition (which you say outranks the authority of the fathers), St. Severus is an expounder of the Orthodox faith and thus we must adhere to his teaching. This is all based on the logic you present of the authority of the liturgy and the fathers. Now it is either that your tradition comes crashing down and your reasoning is faulty (because according to you the liturgy disagrees with St. Severus' expounding of the Orthodox faith EVEN THOUGH that same liturgy just presented him to us as an expounder of the Orthodox faith) OR your interpretation is wrong. Take your pick.
P.S. if what you are taught by your teachers disagrees with what St. Severus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc, taught, then your teachers taught you wrong.
Dear Least of All,
You think it is that simple to just get a quote from the fathers to prove a point. It is not that simple.
If you read St Sawiros quote closely, he was writing it against heretical sect (the Messalians).
Do you understand who that sect is, as St Sawiros did in his time?
Do you know enough about the Messalians system of thought regarding creation, human soul, sin?
Do you know what prompted St Sawiros to write his excerpt that he wrote?
Do you have the whole article so that you can understand the context?
When you study these things, you will find out, hopefully, that St. Sawiros agrees perfectly with the liturgical prayers especially the one I quoted from the liturgy of St Gregory.
You cannot take one quote out of context, time, history and build dogma around it.
1) thank you for not addressing your faulty logic, it proves my point.
2) You are right, we cant take the fathers in isolation or out of context. That is why i didnt do that, you dont seem to have read my post in post 173 so i will copy it to you here,
Thus it can be seen that original sin is the idea that we are born, as Severian said, with the sin of our forefathers and that the guilt this very sin stains all of us.
However the idea of propagation of sin is very foreign to the eastern fathers and did in fact begin with Augustine. The major doctrinal problem of Augustine's area was that of Pelagianism and the Pelagians believed that while Adam set a bad example for humanity, his sin really did nothing for humanity. Augustine recognized the error in this and combated it, but he seems to have stepped too far. In trying to assert that the first sin did have an effect on humanity he went so far as to state that it in fact did pass on the very guilt of that sin to humanity.
A proper Orthodox view of this believes no such thing, take St. Cyril;
"Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality, was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a moral source... So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s transgression” (Doctrinal Questions and answers)
and further,
"And elsewhere he continues “human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin... Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions.”
Thus for St. Cyril we are not born with Adam and Eve's sin, how could we be, we had yet to exist! But Adam and Eve became mortal and corruptible and as the issue of a corruptible source, the rest of humanity became corruptible. St. Cyril's teaching about corruption as the major aftermath of the first sin, which was then passed onto humanity, is directly from the thought of St. Athanasius in On the Incarnation;
“ But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in the process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. “
Thus this paradigm is one that has come down to us through the line of the fathers.
St. Severus of Antioch one of the foremost theologians the church has ever had, to be regarded with St. Athanasius and St. Cyril as defenders of the faith had this to say,
"The reason for which we said to have become heirs of the curse and of condemnation and of death is not that the sin and condemnation and death passed to us, as if these fell to our nature by lot, for man's nature was from the beginning free from all these things, but that the method which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as i have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal of a mortal father. These things are defined by the holy John [Chrysostom] in the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and by the holy Cyril in the letter to Succensus" Letter 78 of St. Severus in the Select Letters of Severus of Antioch republished by the Oriental Orthodox Library
and from Fr. Athansius' article,
" The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally (kata phusin) mixed with our substance (ousia), as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians, in other words the Manichees, claims, but because they (Adam and Eve) had lost the grace of immortality the judgment and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition. we are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents. but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children," [Julien d' Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d' Antioche sur I'incorruptibilite du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), pp 130-131, quoted in: John Meyendorff: Christ in Eastern Orthodox Thought, p 227]" accessed at http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
Thus it is clear and undeniable that the fathers saw no perpetuation of this 'sin' in humankind. But as the sons and daughters of one who is mortal and fallen under corruption we too are born mortal and corruptible. We inherit the human condition of Adam and Eve and not the sin of our forefathers. Much like a woman who has HIV will bear children with HIV but the children will not bear the moral responsibility for decisions made by their mother in order to contract HIV (if there be any particular moral decision made in that regard), no the children are free of this, but they are born with the mother's disease. "
Please, do enlighten me if you think i have quoted St. Cyril, St. Severus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian et al, out of context? I dont see how one could really misinterpret what St. Cyril said when he says, "And elsewhere he continues “human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin... Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions".
I also dont see how i have misinterpreted St. Cyril when he says, "What has Adam’s guilt to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say : “The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for parents, but the soul which had sinned, it shall die.” How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which had sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner.... After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin.
And i also dont see how i misinterpreted St. Severus when he said, The reason for which we said to have become heirs of the curse and of condemnation and of death is not that the sin and condemnation and death passed to us, as if these fell to our nature by lot, for man's nature was from the beginning free from all these things, but that the method which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as i have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal of a mortal father. These things are defined by the holy John [Chrysostom] in the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and by the holy Cyril in the letter to Succensus"
If you could please show me where i have misunderstood the fathers and where i have taken the fathers' consensus out of its proper context, i would be grateful.
Before I address your question and show you that my logic is not faulty as you claim (because I am certain that you are misunderstanding my points), I want you to answer me this question:
Do you think the quote from St. Gregory liturgy, below, is in conflict with the quotes you keep pasting?
"One plant there was, from which You forbade me to eat. This of which You said to me: 'From this only do not eat!' I ate of my own free will"
TBH, I always took that as being a comemoration of my sin, and how the sin of Adam relates to mine. It has never seemed to me that I was literally condemning my self for the sin.
Its like me saying, "I betrayed Jesus with a kiss." I evidently never did that, and I am not guilty of the sin of Judas, but I did the same thing as Judas.
I, personally, see no conflict. One is contemplatory, and the other, dogmatic.
Comments
Are all authoritative?
They are all the prayers of the Church being prayed by the Fathers.
The prayers within the Oriental Orthodox Church are different.
Are all authoritative?
They are all the prayers of the Church being prayed by the Fathers.
Before I answer this question, let me ask you whether you know of any dogmatic or theological differences between the different prayers contained in the different OO churches.
For instance, you have identified that there is dogmatic error in our rites (I don't want to go cutting and pasting again where you said there was dogmatic error). Now if the other Orthodox rites do not contain that error they are therefore more accurate.
But how do you know that our rite contains error and the other rites do not? It cannot be by reference to our rite because you have said that it contains dogmatic error. It must therefore be by referernce to the consensus of the Fathers.
That is the question.
ReturnOrthodoxy
But how do you know that our rite contains error and the other rites do not? It cannot be by reference to our rite because you have said that it contains dogmatic error. It must therefore be by referernce to the consensus of the Fathers.
Yes, this is my point exactly. I will not answer any more question until this one is answered.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I don't know them all. But you have discovered that St Severus teaches error, a fact that had escaped the whole Church previously, therefore it may be that some of the other Churches use a rite which does not agree in all statements with those you think you find in our own rites.
I am saddened that you accuse me of such a thing and I do ask you to tell me where did I say that and in what context.
I cannot continue a discussion based on false information.
That is the question.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You still did not answer how can we correct the quote you provided. Can you please do so?
If you can not, please let me know and I will continue to illustrate my point to you.
I am saddened that you accuse me of such a thing and I do ask you to tell me where did I say that and in what context.
I cannot continue a discussion based on false information.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg159000#msg159000 date=1345065557]
I am saddened that you accuse me of such a thing and I do ask you to tell me where did I say that and in what context.
I cannot continue a discussion based on false information.
You think this is funny?
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158998#msg158998 date=1345065474] Called human error, and God's grace. Theology is not God. theology is the study of God. An incorrect theology doesn't mean that you are lacking him, just mistaken about him. Yes, it is Sabellian. Opposed by Tertullian. But, again, that is irrelevant. YOU said that there was a mistake in the liturgy. For you to acknowledge this, you must compare it with another source than the liturgy. You called it wrong because it did not sit well with an outside source. Why then would you not say the other source was wrong for conflicting the verse rather than saying the verse was wrong for conflicting the source.
That is the question.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You still did not answer how can we correct the quote you provided. Can you please do so?
If you can not, please let me know and I will continue to illustrate my point to you.
I DON'T NEED TO! THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT. THE POINT IS YOU SAID IT WAS WRONG. IT WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT WAS COMPARED TO SOMETHING MORE CORRECT THAN IT. BUT THAT CANNOT BE IF IT IS THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE THING. IM NOT SAVING THE CHURCH FROM SABELLIANISM, I AM SAYING THAT A VERSE IN THE CHURCH EXHIBITED THAT, AND YOU AGREED. SIMPLE!
Listen, everyone who has commented seems to understand that except you. So, i'm going to assume that people get it. If you don't, I'm sorry.
COME ON. THIS IS BASIC STUFF. IT IS AS BASIC AS ONE PLUS ONE IS TWO!
You think this is funny?
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Not at all. It is how I feel reading in circles through this thread.
Well this is what St. Severus of Antioch, the light of the east said,
"The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally (kata phusin) mixed with our substance (ousia), as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians, in other words the Manichees, claims, but because they (Adam and Eve) had lost the grace of immortality the judgment and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition. we are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents. but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children,"
[Julien d' Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d' Antioche sur I'incorruptibilite du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), pp 130-131, quoted in: John Meyendorff: Christ in Eastern Orthodox Thought, p 227]" Quoted directly from http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
Therefore it is clear, by your own logic that it is not St. Severus who is wrong, God forbid, but that YOU dont understand the liturgical prayer in an Orthodox manner. Case closed
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg159001#msg159001 date=1345065738]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158998#msg158998 date=1345065474] Called human error, and God's grace. Theology is not God. theology is the study of God. An incorrect theology doesn't mean that you are lacking him, just mistaken about him. Yes, it is Sabellian. Opposed by Tertullian. But, again, that is irrelevant. YOU said that there was a mistake in the liturgy. For you to acknowledge this, you must compare it with another source than the liturgy. You called it wrong because it did not sit well with an outside source. Why then would you not say the other source was wrong for conflicting the verse rather than saying the verse was wrong for conflicting the source.
That is the question.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You still did not answer how can we correct the quote you provided. Can you please do so?
If you can not, please let me know and I will continue to illustrate my point to you.
I DON'T NEED TO! THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT. THE POINT IS YOU SAID IT WAS WRONG. IT WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT WAS COMPARED TO SOMETHING MORE CORRECT THAN IT. BUT THAT CANNOT BE IF IT IS THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE THING. IM NOT SAVING THE CHURCH FROM SABELLIANISM, I AM SAYING THAT A VERSE IN THE CHURCH EXHIBITED THAT, AND YOU AGREED. SIMPLE!
Listen, everyone who has commented seems to understand that except you. So, i'm going to assume that people get it. If you don't, I'm sorry.
COME ON. THIS IS BASIC STUFF. IT IS AS BASIC AS ONE PLUS ONE IS TWO!
It is not that simple. You have to take in context how the verse is written.
There is only one word that needs to be changed in the verse you cited and that is "replace three names" by "one name".
As you may know Coptic numerals are written using the Cotic alphabet so it is only a difference between two letters that makes this verse either a heresy or Orthodox.
Unfortunately, this may have been a typo that never got corrected and neither did the Arabic nor the English translation.
However, this should not be a problem for the one who understands what he is praying.
We recite this verse so many times when we say "In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit One God"
So, this verse should not pose a threat to having the liturgical prayers containing heresies.
Again, the error in this verse is contained in one Coptic letter that is most like is a type that never got corrected in the translations.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Stavro! I am glad you chimed in, i really do like hearing your opinion!
I do think in a way one could say that we participated with Adam in committing the sin in the idea that through Adam's transgression sin entered the world and we became liable to death. Thats just my two cents.
My other cents are that i personally prefer to use this terminology,
“No one is precluded from baptism and grace, ... [so] ought not and infant be forbidden, who, being newly born, has in no way way sinned, but only having contracted the contagion of death.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage
and
“But forgetfulness having taken possession of the minds of men, through the long-suffering of God, has acted recklessly in transferring to mortals the name which is applicable to the only true God; and from the few the infection of sin spread to the many”
St. Justin Martyr (or the Philosopher if you prefer).
Personally i prefer to say that we inherited the contagion of death or the sickness of sin which passed onto mankind (not the guilt). But i do not think it matters what you call it, so long as you are clearly being committed to the fathers.
Pray for me
Dear "Least of all",
thank you for your reply. I am happy you returned to discuss this topic.
There is an overwhelming support from the Fathers (save St. Augustine) in favour of your position. I will not contest this fact.
However, the Gregorian liturgy seems to be opposing this position and this needs a cautious approach and a serious explanation. It cannot be easily dismissed unless it is proven to be a modern introduction that was influenced by false dogma.
But then again, the Fathers lived and prayed the liturgy and the vast majority of them must have understood the words to mean something different than my interpretation, evident from their teachings on this matter, and this is enough to defend your position.
I will ask my Father of Confession, who is a close friend of Abouna Athanasius. :)
And exactly as you said. If our fathers prayed our liturgies and yet expounded the faith as they have, there must be an issue with the interpretation if we take the liturgy to mean the opposite of what they said. I, for one, do not and my own personal interpretation is fully in congruity with the fathers (atleast i hope :D).
Cant wait to see what you have to say!
And i would also like to thank RO for coming in as well, your opinion is always a witness to the fathers.
And of course i always know that i am hearing words of wisdom and experience when our reverend father Peter graces us with a reply :).
Thanks all, i do believe we genuinely agree about the consensus of the fathers of this, expect for Imikhail :P (maybe H.E. Metropiltan Bishoy under a different user name? :P, kidding!)
Regardless of what mistake or how small it was, you knew that there was a mistake! Why did you know this? My question is not why there was a mistake, but how you knew there was one.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I knew there was one because it does not agree with the other liturgical prayers namely:
"In the Name of the Father and the Son ..."
P.S. if what you are taught by your teachers disagrees with what St. Severus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc, taught, then your teachers taught you wrong.
You are avoiding the point, the point is that by your logic one can claim that because St. Severus' name is mentioned in the absolution of the servants (in fact is the first name), then according to the liturgical tradition (which you say outranks the authority of the fathers), St. Severus is an expounder of the Orthodox faith and thus we must adhere to his teaching. This is all based on the logic you present of the authority of the liturgy and the fathers. Now it is either that your tradition comes crashing down and your reasoning is faulty (because according to you the liturgy disagrees with St. Severus' expounding of the Orthodox faith EVEN THOUGH that same liturgy just presented him to us as an expounder of the Orthodox faith) OR your interpretation is wrong. Take your pick.
P.S. if what you are taught by your teachers disagrees with what St. Severus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc, taught, then your teachers taught you wrong.
Dear Least of All,
You think it is that simple to just get a quote from the fathers to prove a point. It is not that simple.
If you read St Sawiros quote closely, he was writing it against heretical sect (the Messalians).
Do you understand who that sect is, as St Sawiros did in his time?
Do you know enough about the Messalians system of thought regarding creation, human soul, sin?
Do you know what prompted St Sawiros to write his excerpt that he wrote?
Do you have the whole article so that you can understand the context?
When you study these things, you will find out, hopefully, that St. Sawiros agrees perfectly with the liturgical prayers especially the one I quoted from the liturgy of St Gregory.
You cannot take one quote out of context, time, history and build dogma around it.
2) You are right, we cant take the fathers in isolation or out of context. That is why i didnt do that, you dont seem to have read my post in post 173 so i will copy it to you here,
Thus it can be seen that original sin is the idea that we are born, as Severian said, with the sin of our forefathers and that the guilt this very sin stains all of us.
However the idea of propagation of sin is very foreign to the eastern fathers and did in fact begin with Augustine. The major doctrinal problem of Augustine's area was that of Pelagianism and the Pelagians believed that while Adam set a bad example for humanity, his sin really did nothing for humanity. Augustine recognized the error in this and combated it, but he seems to have stepped too far. In trying to assert that the first sin did have an effect on humanity he went so far as to state that it in fact did pass on the very guilt of that sin to humanity.
A proper Orthodox view of this believes no such thing, take St. Cyril;
"Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality, was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a moral source... So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s transgression” (Doctrinal Questions and answers)
and further,
"And elsewhere he continues “human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin... Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions.”
Thus for St. Cyril we are not born with Adam and Eve's sin, how could we be, we had yet to exist! But Adam and Eve became mortal and corruptible and as the issue of a corruptible source, the rest of humanity became corruptible. St. Cyril's teaching about corruption as the major aftermath of the first sin, which was then passed onto humanity, is directly from the thought of St. Athanasius in On the Incarnation;
“ But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in the process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. “
Thus this paradigm is one that has come down to us through the line of the fathers.
St. Severus of Antioch one of the foremost theologians the church has ever had, to be regarded with St. Athanasius and St. Cyril as defenders of the faith had this to say,
"The reason for which we said to have become heirs of the curse and of condemnation and of death is not that the sin and condemnation and death passed to us, as if these fell to our nature by lot, for man's nature was from the beginning free from all these things, but that the method which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as i have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal of a mortal father. These things are defined by the holy John [Chrysostom] in the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and by the holy Cyril in the letter to Succensus" Letter 78 of St. Severus in the Select Letters of Severus of Antioch republished by the Oriental Orthodox Library
and from Fr. Athansius' article,
" The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally (kata phusin) mixed with our substance (ousia), as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians, in other words the Manichees, claims, but because they (Adam and Eve) had lost the grace of immortality the judgment and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition. we are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents. but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children,"
[Julien d' Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d' Antioche sur I'incorruptibilite du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), pp 130-131, quoted in: John Meyendorff: Christ in Eastern Orthodox Thought, p 227]" accessed at http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
Thus it is clear and undeniable that the fathers saw no perpetuation of this 'sin' in humankind. But as the sons and daughters of one who is mortal and fallen under corruption we too are born mortal and corruptible. We inherit the human condition of Adam and Eve and not the sin of our forefathers. Much like a woman who has HIV will bear children with HIV but the children will not bear the moral responsibility for decisions made by their mother in order to contract HIV (if there be any particular moral decision made in that regard), no the children are free of this, but they are born with the mother's disease. "
Please, do enlighten me if you think i have quoted St. Cyril, St. Severus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian et al, out of context? I dont see how one could really misinterpret what St. Cyril said when he says, "And elsewhere he continues “human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin... Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions".
I also dont see how i have misinterpreted St. Cyril when he says, "What has Adam’s guilt to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say : “The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for parents, but the soul which had sinned, it shall die.” How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which had sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner.... After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin.
And i also dont see how i misinterpreted St. Severus when he said, The reason for which we said to have become heirs of the curse and of condemnation and of death is not that the sin and condemnation and death passed to us, as if these fell to our nature by lot, for man's nature was from the beginning free from all these things, but that the method which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as i have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal of a mortal father. These things are defined by the holy John [Chrysostom] in the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and by the holy Cyril in the letter to Succensus"
If you could please show me where i have misunderstood the fathers and where i have taken the fathers' consensus out of its proper context, i would be grateful.
Before I address your question and show you that my logic is not faulty as you claim (because I am certain that you are misunderstanding my points), I want you to answer me this question:
Do you think the quote from St. Gregory liturgy, below, is in conflict with the quotes you keep pasting?
"One plant there was, from which You forbade me to eat. This of which You said to me: 'From this only do not eat!' I ate of my own free will"
Its like me saying, "I betrayed Jesus with a kiss." I evidently never did that, and I am not guilty of the sin of Judas, but I did the same thing as Judas.
I, personally, see no conflict. One is contemplatory, and the other, dogmatic.
ReturnOrthodoxy