I do feel that, with this upcoming generation, with knowledgeable people like yourself, the Coptic Orthodox Church can bring about a re-commitment to the fathers and attain to the purity of the Apostolic faith once again.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158863#msg158863 date=1344917126] I do feel that, with this upcoming generation, with knowledgeable people like yourself, the Coptic Orthodox Church can bring about a re-commitment to the fathers and attain to the purity of the Apostolic faith once again.
Pray for me Thank you. I have the same feeling. :)
"Now the question is: “Is original sin the inheritance of death only”? If this were the case, then God would be unjust (God forbid), because inheriting death would be inheriting the punishment without justification. But, sin entered the world through our forefathers’ sin, and it passed from them to all humanity who came from their seed. So, passing on death was caused by passing on sin."
What is wrong with this statement. This is very Orthodox.
Sin is the disease that all humanity inherited through Adam and Eve. Humanity would not have known sin had Adam and Eve not sinned. Through their disobedience, humanity was corrupted and became subject to sin. We inherited the disease that Adam and Eve transmitted to us.
We say in the liturgy: "We have fallen through the seduction of the serpent" though it is was Adam and Eve who did fall. But all humanity fell while it was in Adam's loins.
"So, passing on death was caused by passing on sin."
Compare this to what St. Severus 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."
-Correspondence with Julian of Halicarnassus
One says we inherit the actual sin itself, the other denies this saying we are only affected by Adam's sin insofar that we are born of a corrupt mortal nature. Who are you going to believe? A modern Metropolitan or a Holy Father of the Church who has been venerated for around 1500 years as a "teacher of Orthodoxy?"
While I firmly believe that there is a legitimate distinction in emphasis between the so called "western" and "eastern" views of atonement and salvation, is it perhaps also true that some in the East can create too great of a dichotomy between the two?
One says we inherit the actual sin itself, the other denies this saying we are only affected by Adam's sin insofar that we are born of a corrupt mortal nature. Who are you going to believe? A modern Metropolitan or a Holy Father of the Church who has been venerated for around 1500 years as a "teacher of Orthodoxy?"
As I said before, two can read the same thing and come up with two different conclusions.
In the liturgy of St. Gregory we pray: "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"
Who ate? Was it Adam or the priest that is praying this? Or St Gregory who wrote the liturgy? Or the people who are attending the liturgy?
How can we explain this in light of what Fr. Athanasius wrote? The reason I pick on Fr. Athanasius writing is that some use his article to attack what Met Bishoy has written.
With all due respect Imikhail, you are missing the point. The reverend father Athanasius did not WRITE ANYTHING, the reverend father quoted two of the greatest and most prolific fathers of the Church in their writing against this heterodox teaching. Fr. Athanasius is a defender of the Orthodox faith, not of his own opinion, hence if you read his writing, MOST of the content is quotes from the fathers. Quoting a line in the liturgy does not discount the fact that BOTH St. Cyril AND St. Severus denounced this belief, not to mention St. John Chrysostom in his Commentary on the epistle to the Romans;
"As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so doth the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? “Through the sin of one.” But what means, “for that all have sinned?” This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal." On Romans 5:12
and later
"For if it is in sin that death hath its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for “death reigned,” he says, “from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.”
How did it reign? “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? it will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all." Continuing on Verse 13
and again,
"What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner.What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large." On verses 18,19
As for the liturgy of St. Gregory i wont pretend to be an expert but i will give my own opinion as to the matter. My own personal opinion is that everytime I hear that line in the liturgy, it causes me to solemnly reflect on my own sins, my own transgressions, the times in my own life where i have deliberately 'eaten of the fruit of the tree' of my own desires, despite having all other forms of Godliness available to me. It causes me to ponder my own choices to consider how, often, i will do as i please, to bring me 'happiness', even though i know the ordinance of the Lord, and i KNOW full well what i SHOULD be doing. It causes me to understand the calamity of my own sinning and to stop gawking at the sins of others. Thats my two cents, and please only consider it to be my two cents as this just reflects my own thoughts when participating in this prayer.
And yes many will use the reverend Fr. Athanasius short write up to attack what H.E. has written, and for good reason, H.E. has not related the teachings of the holy fathers in H.E's writing, plain and simple.
Dear Fr. Kyrillos,
I just want to thank you for the article, i will give it a read! I know that, for myself, I am sometimes far too "anti-west" in my thinking and it causes me to repulse all notions of western views, sometimes without reason :P. I think it is almost a defense mechanism because of the dominance of western thought in many of my own Coptic counterparts which causes me to be very 'on guard' you could say. I also wanted to say that i tremendously enjoy all your sermons (from the time you were a deacon till now!), particularly your excellent grounding in the fathers! May the Lord keep your service many many years.
Please pray for me, father, and everyone else who would remember me in their prayers
Quoting a line in the liturgy does not discount the fact that BOTH St. Cyril AND St. Severus denounced this belief, not to mention St. John Chrysostom in his Commentary on the epistle to the Romans;
Dear Least of All
I am not questioning the quotes of the fathers or their existence. However, the liturgical prayers do contain the faith of the Church.
Are you suggesting that the liturgical prayers are wrong? Or is it one line of the liturgy not enough?
No, far be it from me to suggest the beautiful liturgical prayers of our church are wrong (although it seems the Holy Synod doesnt even consider them safe by virtue of their altering of the Sagda prayers a few years back).
I think that one requires the correct patristic grounding, when they approach the liturgy and The Bible, in order to understand the true meaning. If you, much like H.E., choose to believe against the faith of the fathers then you will not be privy to the true meaning of the liturgical prayer. I think this debate has went far beyond completion, it must be abundantly clear at this point that we inherit a mortal corruptible nature from Adam and Eve as their issue but NOT that we inherit their sin. No proof texting of scripture, the liturgy, or even the fathers can change that.
If I am not mistaken, what Great Cyril and Magnificent Severus teach is the following:
1) We did not take part in committing Adam's sin. We did not exist then.
2) We do not inherit the sin nor the guilt of sin.
Point no. 2 is easily proven by the lack of supporting Patristic references and the presence of opposing Patristic writings. It might be indeed an innovation by St. Augustine.
However, point no.1 contradicts the Gregorian liturgy as Imikhail pointed out. Spiritual and personal interpretations are appreciated, but the text is clear and the church prayers and liturgical texts are the ultimate expression of faith. There is no proof texting involved here and the argument by imikhail should not be discounted so easily, even if he might be wrong on other issues.
On a side note, we are getting ourselves in the internal fight between the two factions of Chalcedon, that produced all the anti-Augustine literature. We should not blindly follow everything the Byzantine wrote to discredit St. Augustine.
Who are you going to believe? A modern Metropolitan or a Holy Father of the Church who has been venerated for around 1500 years as a "teacher of Orthodoxy?"
It is an easy answer.
By the way, Anba Bishoy is the one who championed the efforts to sign the agreed statements with the Chalcedonians, in total disregard of Dioscoros, Severus, Samuel the Confessor, Filoxenus, Pope Benjamin, Jacob of Serug, Timothy, Theodosius and every single bishop, priest and deacon and layman who was baptized in the Orthodox Faith since 451 a.d.. He was the chief "negotiator" of the Coptic Church in these blessed unity discussions.
Do we have enough integrity to apply the same standard " a Holy Father or a modern metropolitan" to the agreed statements and to any notion of the alleged Orthodoxy of Chalcedon?
^Some good points. But please, if we discuss Chalcedon let's do it on a separate thread. I would like to stick to the topic at hand. What do you say then Stavro, is it appropriate to say we committed the sin of Adam?
^Some good points. But please, if we discuss Chalcedon let's do it on a separate thread. I would like to stick to the topic at hand.
There is no need to discuss Chalcedon here or elsewhere. I just like to point out the contradictions that is associated with our recent acceptance of Chalcedon as Orthodox.
What do you say then Stavro, is it appropriate to say we committed the sin of Adam?
^Thank you for the input. But to clarify, are you saying it is appropriate to affirm we committed Adam's sin without inheriting his guilt? If so, how is this the case? I am not trying to take one side or the other, I just want to understand.
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.
“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.”
How can we reconcile this quote with the litany we pray for the Departed:
"For no one is pure and without blemish even though his life on earth be a single day."
It is good that we quote the Fathers. However, we need to be cautious in building dogma around the Fathers when the liturgical prayers say otherwise.
I wanted to add input into this very very interesting discussion. Before the fast of the Theotokos is over, I recommend anybody here to go buy the SVS translation of St. Jacob of Serug's homilies "On the Mother of God" (what's more amazing, an OO Church father whose works are venerated by EOs). In his first homily, I find interesting implications of Original Sin, which I will quote many relevant parts that I quoted in another forum (where I was arguing against the Immaculate Conception):
Indeed, the Holy Spirit came to Mary, to let loose from her the former sentence of Eve and Adam.
He sanctified her, purified her and made her blessed among women; He freed her from that curse of sufferings on account of Eve, her mother.
...
The Spirit freed her from that debt that she might be beyond transgression when He solemnly dwelt in her.
He purified the Mother by the Holy Spirit while dwelling in her, that He might take from her a pure body without sin.
...
The Word had descended that He might become flesh; on this account, by the Spirit He purified the one from whom He had become flesh,
so that He might become like us in everything when He descended, except for this: that His pure body is without sin.
...
He made her pure, limpid, and blessed as that Eve, before the serpent spoke with her.
He bestowed on her that first grace which her mother had, until she ate from the tree which was full of death.
The Spirit who came made her like Eve of old, though she did not hear the council of the serpent nor his hateful speech.
...
He sanctified her body and made her without hateful lusts, as the virgin Eve had been until she lusted.
The sin which entered Adam's race with impulses of desire, the Holy Spirit cast out from her when He came within her.
That increase of evil inclination which the serpent effected, He wiped from her and filled her with holiness and integrity.
...
She rose up to this measure on her own, until the Spirit, that perfecter of all came to her.
She was full of grace from God which was more exalted than all; the Only-begotten dwelt in her womb to renew all.
It be interesting to note that St. Jacob repeatedly mentions that the Theotokos was chosen for her purity and righteousness above all other women in the world:
Our Lord descending to earth beheld all women; He chose one for Himself who among them all was pleasing.
He searched her and found humility and holiness in her, and limpid impulses and a soul desirous of divinity.
And a pure heart and every reckoning of perfection, because of this He chose her, the pure and most fair one.
...
He observed her, how exalted and pure from evil, nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust.
And she allows no thought for luxury, nor worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.
Desire for worldly vanity does not burn in her, nor is she occupied with childish things.
...
She was a person of discernment, full of the love of God, because our Lord does not dwell where there is no love.
When the Great King desired to come to our place, He dwelt in the purest shrine of all the earth because it please him.
He dwelt in a spotless womb which was adorned with virginity, and with thoughts which were worthy of holiness.
...
Maiden, full of beauty hidden in her and around her, and pure of heart that she might see the mysteries which had come to pass in her.
This is beauty, when one is beautiful of one's own accord; glorious graces of perfection are in her will.
However great be the beauty of something from God, it is not acclaimed if freedom is not present.
...
If another had pleased more than her, He would have chosen that one, for the Lord does not respect persons since He is just and right.
If there had been a spot in her soul or a defect, He would have sought for Himself another mother in whom there is no blemish.
This beauty which is teh most pure of all beauties, exists in the one who possesses it by means of a good will.
...
She was made pure like John and like Elisha, like Elias and like Melchisedek, who were renowned.
She ascended to the degree of these heights in beauty, so she was chosen to be the Mother of the Son of the Holy One.
She drew near to the limit of virtue by her soul; so, that grace which is without limit dwelt in her.
So the Theotokos is chosen because she not merely pure, but the purest of all women due to the virtues of her own soul, despite the fact that before the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, she had in her the "sin which entered Adam's race with impulses of desire," which "the Holy Spirit cast out from her when He came within her."
Perhaps the word "sin" may have a wider meaning here than just an unrighteous action committed and the consequence of guilt it brings.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=9585.msg158917#msg158917 date=1344996575] ^I would just interpret that as meaning blemish or stain of corruption. What does the original Greek say?
Let's go with this interpretation. What is is sin it is separation from God and joining to the devil.
Can any one, even the newborn, say that he/she is perfect without sin? The answer is No.
The Church, in the Baptismal rite, cast out the devil from the catechumen, even the newborn.
the Bible is clear:
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23
Yes i do acknowledge that all are born with the stigma of the first sin, the contagion of death, the disease of sin. But i will no way agree that any child is responsible in any capacity for committing any sins. Man's image has been tarnished and marred by this first sin.
And yes, i would think that it makes good sense to perform an exorcism on those who are still under the dominion of this world (sorry if i seem overly dualistic :P) and still have the stain of the contagion of death. I do not think that it in any way means that those people were born with the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin.
I think the discussion is really not moving in any direction as it seems we are going back and forth about nothing. I do think its clear from the fathers that we inherit no guilt from the sin of Adam and Eve but as their issue we suffer the consequences and have the contagion of death or sickness of death passed on. I do think it should be more than enough to have read that both St. Cyril and St. Severus (as quoted by the reverend father Athanasius) condemned believing that we inherit any form of guilt, for us to drop that idea at once.
I shall bow out
Pray for me, and i mean it!
Thanks for the discussion Imikhail, Severian, Mina, and Stavro!
I've listened to how Catholics interpret this word "guilt." For just as the word sin can mean something different than just an impious action one makes, as in the phrase "Original Sin," to them the word "guilt" does not also necessarily imply culpability or responsibility for the state of mortality you're born into, but rather the state of separation from God. It's as if you were guilty, for you are born accursed and thus prone to condemnation.
While I acknowledge such terminology does not exist in OO tradition, as far as I've read, could one at least allow that such terminology used by Western theologians might be understood in a way to the point where they might essentially agree with the posts here with the Cyrillian and Severian quotes made?
No comment (i am bowed out :P) but wanted to link an article that has many relevant points from the most educated His Eminence the Metropolitan Abba Seraphim of the British Orthodox Church;
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158946#msg158946 date=1345048668] No comment (i am bowed out :P) but wanted to link an article that has many relevant points from the most educated His Eminence the Metropolitan Abba Seraphim of the British Orthodox Church;
I just had to reply and say this. With all due respect, Imikhail you have taken a quite indefensible position and you just seem too set in your ways to accept the patristic tradition. By setting yourself in opposition to Abouna Athanasius, arguably one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic Theologian on the planet, H.E. Metroplitan Abba Seraphim, also one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic theologians on the planet, and the views as previously expressed by our own Fr. Peter Farrington, also one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic Theologians on the planet, AND against the consensus of the fathers, you have given yourself a rather weak position to stand on. Unless of course you happen to be sole infallible interpreter of all things dogmatic in the Church.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158949#msg158949 date=1345054477] I just had to reply and say this. With all due respect, Imikhail you have taken a quite indefensible position and you just seem too set in your ways to accept the patristic tradition. By setting yourself in opposition to Abouna Athanasius, arguably one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic Theologian on the planet, H.E. Metroplitan Abba Seraphim, also one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic theologians on the planet, and the views as previously expressed by our own Fr. Peter Farrington, also one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic Theologians on the planet, AND against the consensus of the fathers, you have given yourself a rather weak position to stand on. Unless of course you happen to be sole infallible interpreter of all things dogmatic in the Church.
May the Lord bless you and please pray for me
Dear Least of All,
My position is the liturgical prayers not specific persons. It is through the liturgical prayers that the Church confess her faith.
It does not matter much the opinions of certain people when those opinions are in opposition to what the Church prays.
The Scripture and liturgical prayers take precedence over any personal writings.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158953#msg158953 date=1345055538] The Scripture and liturgical prayers take precedence over any personal writings.
Even the personal writings of Fathers of the Church like St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith and St. Severus of Antioch?
[quote author=JG link=topic=9585.msg158954#msg158954 date=1345055839] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158953#msg158953 date=1345055538] The Scripture and liturgical prayers take precedence over any personal writings.
Even the personal writings of Fathers of the Church like St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith and St. Severus of Antioch?
Yes. If those writings are in conflict with the liturgical prayers, then the liturgical prayers take precedence.
Otherwise, the Church would be praying wrong, her faith is wrong, her rituals would be wrong, and the sacraments performed would be performed on the bases of wrong faith (as in the case of the Original sin we are discussing).
I am not saying that those fathers mentioned are in opposition of the Church faith. I am just stating a hypothetical case.
Could you please define what you mean by liturgical? Would you consider the psalmody as being liturgical? or are you referring only to the Liturgy of the Eucharist?
Could you please define what you mean by liturgical? Would you consider the psalmody as being liturgical? or are you referring only to the Liturgy of the Eucharist?
ReturnOrthodoxy
Liturgy of Baptism, Eucharist, Water, Matrimony, Unction of the Sick, Funeral, Vespers, Matins, .... etc
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158961#msg158961 date=1345059036] So Protestants adhere to sola scriptura, i guess Imikhail adheres to sola liturga
Dear Least of All,
I am afraid your assessment is mistaken.
There is not one liturgical prayer that is not based on the Scripture. There is not one liturgical prayer that is not based on Tradition.
So, by default the liturgical prayers are the expression of the Church faith.
If any writing contradicts the liturgical prayers, then by default the writing contradicts the faith that is expressed by the Church through the Scripture and the Tradition she has received.
Comments
Pray for me
I do feel that, with this upcoming generation, with knowledgeable people like yourself, the Coptic Orthodox Church can bring about a re-commitment to the fathers and attain to the purity of the Apostolic faith once again.
Pray for me
Thank you. I have the same feeling. :)
+Likewise, please pray for me
Sin is the disease that all humanity inherited through Adam and Eve. Humanity would not have known sin had Adam and Eve not sinned. Through their disobedience, humanity was corrupted and became subject to sin. We inherited the disease that Adam and Eve transmitted to us.
We say in the liturgy: "We have fallen through the seduction of the serpent" though it is was Adam and Eve who did fall. But all humanity fell while it was in Adam's loins.
I wonder if any of you have read this critique:
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/311_THE_NEW_SOTERIOLOGY.pdf
While I firmly believe that there is a legitimate distinction in emphasis between the so called "western" and "eastern" views of atonement and salvation, is it perhaps also true that some in the East can create too great of a dichotomy between the two?
In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos
In the liturgy of St. Gregory we pray: "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"
Who ate? Was it Adam or the priest that is praying this? Or St Gregory who wrote the liturgy? Or the people who are attending the liturgy?
How can we explain this in light of what Fr. Athanasius wrote? The reason I pick on Fr. Athanasius writing is that some use his article to attack what Met Bishoy has written.
"As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so doth the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? “Through the sin of one.” But what means, “for that all have sinned?” This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal." On Romans 5:12
and later
"For if it is in sin that death hath its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for “death reigned,” he says, “from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.”
How did it reign? “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? it will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all." Continuing on Verse 13
and again,
"What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large." On verses 18,19
This commentary can be accessed here, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xii.html
As for the liturgy of St. Gregory i wont pretend to be an expert but i will give my own opinion as to the matter. My own personal opinion is that everytime I hear that line in the liturgy, it causes me to solemnly reflect on my own sins, my own transgressions, the times in my own life where i have deliberately 'eaten of the fruit of the tree' of my own desires, despite having all other forms of Godliness available to me. It causes me to ponder my own choices to consider how, often, i will do as i please, to bring me 'happiness', even though i know the ordinance of the Lord, and i KNOW full well what i SHOULD be doing. It causes me to understand the calamity of my own sinning and to stop gawking at the sins of others. Thats my two cents, and please only consider it to be my two cents as this just reflects my own thoughts when participating in this prayer.
And yes many will use the reverend Fr. Athanasius short write up to attack what H.E. has written, and for good reason, H.E. has not related the teachings of the holy fathers in H.E's writing, plain and simple.
Dear Fr. Kyrillos,
I just want to thank you for the article, i will give it a read! I know that, for myself, I am sometimes far too "anti-west" in my thinking and it causes me to repulse all notions of western views, sometimes without reason :P. I think it is almost a defense mechanism because of the dominance of western thought in many of my own Coptic counterparts which causes me to be very 'on guard' you could say. I also wanted to say that i tremendously enjoy all your sermons (from the time you were a deacon till now!), particularly your excellent grounding in the fathers! May the Lord keep your service many many years.
Please pray for me, father, and everyone else who would remember me in their prayers
I am not questioning the quotes of the fathers or their existence. However, the liturgical prayers do contain the faith of the Church.
Are you suggesting that the liturgical prayers are wrong? Or is it one line of the liturgy not enough?
I think that one requires the correct patristic grounding, when they approach the liturgy and The Bible, in order to understand the true meaning. If you, much like H.E., choose to believe against the faith of the fathers then you will not be privy to the true meaning of the liturgical prayer. I think this debate has went far beyond completion, it must be abundantly clear at this point that we inherit a mortal corruptible nature from Adam and Eve as their issue but NOT that we inherit their sin. No proof texting of scripture, the liturgy, or even the fathers can change that.
Pray for me, a sinner
1) We did not take part in committing Adam's sin. We did not exist then.
2) We do not inherit the sin nor the guilt of sin.
Point no. 2 is easily proven by the lack of supporting Patristic references and the presence of opposing Patristic writings. It might be indeed an innovation by St. Augustine.
However, point no.1 contradicts the Gregorian liturgy as Imikhail pointed out. Spiritual and personal interpretations are appreciated, but the text is clear and the church prayers and liturgical texts are the ultimate expression of faith. There is no proof texting involved here and the argument by imikhail should not be discounted so easily, even if he might be wrong on other issues.
On a side note, we are getting ourselves in the internal fight between the two factions of Chalcedon, that produced all the anti-Augustine literature. We should not blindly follow everything the Byzantine wrote to discredit St. Augustine. It is an easy answer.
By the way, Anba Bishoy is the one who championed the efforts to sign the agreed statements with the Chalcedonians, in total disregard of Dioscoros, Severus, Samuel the Confessor, Filoxenus, Pope Benjamin, Jacob of Serug, Timothy, Theodosius and every single bishop, priest and deacon and layman who was baptized in the Orthodox Faith since 451 a.d.. He was the chief "negotiator" of the Coptic Church in these blessed unity discussions.
Do we have enough integrity to apply the same standard " a Holy Father or a modern metropolitan" to the agreed statements and to any notion of the alleged Orthodoxy of Chalcedon?
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
"For no one is pure and without blemish even though his life on earth be a single day."
It is good that we quote the Fathers. However, we need to be cautious in building dogma around the Fathers when the liturgical prayers say otherwise.
Perhaps the word "sin" may have a wider meaning here than just an unrighteous action committed and the consequence of guilt it brings.
God bless.
^I would just interpret that as meaning blemish or stain of corruption. What does the original Greek say?
Let's go with this interpretation. What is is sin it is separation from God and joining to the devil.
Can any one, even the newborn, say that he/she is perfect without sin? The answer is No.
The Church, in the Baptismal rite, cast out the devil from the catechumen, even the newborn.
the Bible is clear:
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23
I just recalled, i particularly liked many aspects of this paper here; http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/golubov_rags_of_mortality.htm
If it would interest anyone.
And yes, i would think that it makes good sense to perform an exorcism on those who are still under the dominion of this world (sorry if i seem overly dualistic :P) and still have the stain of the contagion of death. I do not think that it in any way means that those people were born with the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin.
I think the discussion is really not moving in any direction as it seems we are going back and forth about nothing. I do think its clear from the fathers that we inherit no guilt from the sin of Adam and Eve but as their issue we suffer the consequences and have the contagion of death or sickness of death passed on. I do think it should be more than enough to have read that both St. Cyril and St. Severus (as quoted by the reverend father Athanasius) condemned believing that we inherit any form of guilt, for us to drop that idea at once.
I shall bow out
Pray for me, and i mean it!
Thanks for the discussion Imikhail, Severian, Mina, and Stavro!
While I acknowledge such terminology does not exist in OO tradition, as far as I've read, could one at least allow that such terminology used by Western theologians might be understood in a way to the point where they might essentially agree with the posts here with the Cyrillian and Severian quotes made?
http://britishorthodox.org/glastonburyreview/issue-122-an-orthodox-view-of-the-catholic-doctrine-of-the-immaculate-conception-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary/
No comment (i am bowed out :P) but wanted to link an article that has many relevant points from the most educated His Eminence the Metropolitan Abba Seraphim of the British Orthodox Church;
http://britishorthodox.org/glastonburyreview/issue-122-an-orthodox-view-of-the-catholic-doctrine-of-the-immaculate-conception-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary/
I do not personally agree with many of the quotes in this article. They are in opposition of the liturgical prayers.
May the Lord bless you and please pray for me
I just had to reply and say this. With all due respect, Imikhail you have taken a quite indefensible position and you just seem too set in your ways to accept the patristic tradition. By setting yourself in opposition to Abouna Athanasius, arguably one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic Theologian on the planet, H.E. Metroplitan Abba Seraphim, also one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic theologians on the planet, and the views as previously expressed by our own Fr. Peter Farrington, also one of the greatest Orthodox Coptic Theologians on the planet, AND against the consensus of the fathers, you have given yourself a rather weak position to stand on. Unless of course you happen to be sole infallible interpreter of all things dogmatic in the Church.
May the Lord bless you and please pray for me
Dear Least of All,
My position is the liturgical prayers not specific persons. It is through the liturgical prayers that the Church confess her faith.
It does not matter much the opinions of certain people when those opinions are in opposition to what the Church prays.
The Scripture and liturgical prayers take precedence over any personal writings.
The Scripture and liturgical prayers take precedence over any personal writings.
Even the personal writings of Fathers of the Church like St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith and St. Severus of Antioch?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158953#msg158953 date=1345055538]
The Scripture and liturgical prayers take precedence over any personal writings.
Even the personal writings of Fathers of the Church like St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith and St. Severus of Antioch?
Yes. If those writings are in conflict with the liturgical prayers, then the liturgical prayers take precedence.
Otherwise, the Church would be praying wrong, her faith is wrong, her rituals would be wrong, and the sacraments performed would be performed on the bases of wrong faith (as in the case of the Original sin we are discussing).
I am not saying that those fathers mentioned are in opposition of the Church faith. I am just stating a hypothetical case.
Could you please define what you mean by liturgical? Would you consider the psalmody as being liturgical? or are you referring only to the Liturgy of the Eucharist?
ReturnOrthodoxy
imikhail,
Could you please define what you mean by liturgical? Would you consider the psalmody as being liturgical? or are you referring only to the Liturgy of the Eucharist?
ReturnOrthodoxy
Liturgy of Baptism, Eucharist, Water, Matrimony, Unction of the Sick, Funeral, Vespers, Matins, .... etc
I do consider the Psalmody liturgical.
So Protestants adhere to sola scriptura, i guess Imikhail adheres to sola liturga
Dear Least of All,
I am afraid your assessment is mistaken.
There is not one liturgical prayer that is not based on the Scripture. There is not one liturgical prayer that is not based on Tradition.
So, by default the liturgical prayers are the expression of the Church faith.
If any writing contradicts the liturgical prayers, then by default the writing contradicts the faith that is expressed by the Church through the Scripture and the Tradition she has received.