New Book "Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditione: The Orthodox Theology of Tradition as a Solution to the Reformation Debate about Theological Authority" by Fr Mark Aziz is available now on Amazon http://t.co/OzHRbVvRBr
Why aren't the apostolic constitutions (Didascalia Apostolorum) given the same level of dignity and worship as the bible? Most people don't even know they exist. We seem to have become protestant, where people constantly quote the bible out of context to sit their own purpose.
Why aren't the apostolic constitutions (Didascalia Apostolorum) given the same level of dignity and worship as the bible?
Why should they be? The Church has always reserved a special dignity for the Holy Scriptures within Her Tradition. That is not the case for the Didascalia.
What is everyone's thoughts on the authority of the Liturgy and the theological implication of what we pray? For example the bit about prayers for those in hades that were in the Pentecost kneeling prayers.
What is everyone's thoughts on the authority of the Liturgy and the theological implication of what we pray? For example the bit about prayers for those in hades that were in the Pentecost kneeling prayers.
IMO, the liturgy should not contradict the Holy Bible (interpreted ecclesially and patristically). If it does, then it should be changed. The question is whether prayers for those in Hades actually contradict the Bible.
But is Liturgy a primary or secondary source of theology for us? If we're suggesting that liturgy is also Holy Tradition shouldn't it also be given same weight as Holy Scripture, the Fathers, the witness of the Saints (martyrdom and acts of mercy), life of prayer, the concilliar decicions of the Church, etc? Or at least shouldn't all those aspects of paradosis create a tension which shapes our theology?
"Several years ago I came across a short article in a journal of the Coptic Church where it stated that this Church had decided to remove prayers for those held in hell from its service books, since these prayers “contradict Orthodox teaching”. Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. Recently I had the possibility to do so, and a Coptic Metropolitan replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell. I told the metropolitan that in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches there are prayers for those held in hell, and that we believe in their saving power. This surprised the Metropolitan, and he promised to study this question in more detail.
During this conversation with the Metropolitan I expressed my thoughts on how one could go very far and even lose important doctrinal teachings in the pursuit of correcting liturgical texts. Orthodox liturgical texts are important because of their ability to give exact criteria of theological truth, and one must always confirm theology using liturgical texts as a guideline, and not the other way round. The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi, and dogmas are considered divinely revealed because they are born in the life of prayer and revealed to the Church through its divine services. Thus, if there are differences in the understanding of a dogma between a certain theological authority and liturgical texts, I would be inclined to give preference to the latter. And if a textbook of dogmatic theology contains views different from those found in liturgical texts, it is the textbook, not the liturgical texts, that need correction."
But is Liturgy a primary or secondary source of theology for us? If we're suggesting that liturgy is also Holy Tradition shouldn't it also be given same weight as Holy Scripture, the Fathers, the witness of the Saints (martyrdom and acts of mercy), life of prayer, the concilliar decicions of the Church, etc? Or at least shouldn't all those aspects of paradosis create a tension which shapes our theology?
I don't know what you mean by primary vs secondary. All I'm saying is that if there is a contradiction between the Holy Bible and liturgical texts, the former should take precedence.
The same goes for the Holy Bible vs the Fathers. Some fathers taught universalism, but this is rejected by the Church based on scriptural teachings.
There are certain 'grades' of authority within Holy Tradition, and the Holy Bible alone occupies the highest 'grade'.
That's my opinion, I feel that people who undermine the Holy Bible further do so in overreaction to sola scriptura or to the unnecessary separation of the Holy Bible from Holy Tradition.
Comments
The same goes for the Holy Bible vs the Fathers. Some fathers taught universalism, but this is rejected by the Church based on scriptural teachings.
There are certain 'grades' of authority within Holy Tradition, and the Holy Bible alone occupies the highest 'grade'.
That's my opinion, I feel that people who undermine the Holy Bible further do so in overreaction to sola scriptura or to the unnecessary separation of the Holy Bible from Holy Tradition.
Please let me know your thoughts.