It must surely depend on YOUR interpretation of what the Liturgical prayers teach.
If I thought that St Cyril or St Severus contradicted the prayers of the Church then I would not say that they were wrong but that I had not understood the prayers of the Church correctly.
The 7th verse of the doxology of St. Shenouda the Archmandrite say, "One in essence is the Trinity, Coessential and Life-giving, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three names for one God." Does that sound perfectly correct to you? If it does, then you must explain a little such that you can show me that the verse does not contradict the fathers. It sort of sounds Sabellian.
The second verse of the lobsh of the Monday Theotokia says, "Adam our Father, the first creation..." The coptic says, "Adam ghar peniot, pishorp en thamio."
How would you explain these? My point, is, don't look as one being above the others, but look as the fathers along with the liturgy. The fathers wrote the liturgy. It was not some divine thing that came out of a spring in the middle of the earth. To say that you take the liturgy above the fathers is almost meaningless. Thats like saying, "I take the written prayers of the saints (such as Ephraim the Syrian) over the fathers."
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158963#msg158963 date=1345060698] It must surely depend on YOUR interpretation of what the Liturgical prayers teach.
If I thought that St Cyril or St Severus contradicted the prayers of the Church then I would not say that they were wrong but that I had not understood the prayers of the Church correctly.
This is the whole idea. But it also depends on the understanding of who the Church Father is and my understanding of what the writing.
"One in essence is the Trinity, Coessential and Life-giving, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three names for one God." Does that sound perfectly correct to you?
This particular verse is wrong and it is corrected by Fr. Shenouda Maher.
There Psalmody, in particular, does contain grammatical, linguistic and sometimes dogmatic errors (especially the new additions of Kiahk).
This surely contradicts what you have said 5 minutes ago...
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).
Now you seem to be saying that there ARE errors in the liturgical texts and they should not take precedence.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158967#msg158967 date=1345062136] Surely it is not wise to base anything on your own understanding?
For myself, I accept everything that St Severus says as my spiritual father and if I have thought differently then I correct myself by his teachings.
This requires understanding of the Orthodox teaching. Because. if one chooses a particular Father and take everything he said for granted even if it conflicts with the Church prayers, then this would create a conflict in the Spiritual life.
Well then, since you say that the Psalmody is a liturgy, and that there is a part of the Psalmody that is incorrect, you concede that there was a part of the litrugical rites of the church which were incorrect.
Now how would you know they were incorrect if you had not compared them with the Fathers? What makes them correct. why should I not follow Sabellianism because the psalmody guided me there? It is because I take the whole picture! The fathers along with the liturgy.
I'd like an answer as to why the Liturgy would be above the Fathers if it was Fathers who wrote the liturgy.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158969#msg158969 date=1345062302] This surely contradicts what you have said 5 minutes ago...
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).
Now you seem to be saying that there ARE errors in the liturgical texts and they should not take precedence.
Which?
If you are referring to the quote Return Orthodoxy mentioned. Then we need to discuss it in more detail.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158972#msg158972 date=1345062436] Well I guess that I will leave others to discuss this with you. I don't know what to say if you think that St Severus teaches error.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158972#msg158972 date=1345062436] Well I guess that I will leave others to discuss this with you. I don't know what to say if you think that St Severus teaches error.
I did not say he did.
I said hypothetically even if St Sawiros says something contradictory to the liturgical prayers, then the liturgical prayers take precedence.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158976#msg158976 date=1345062647] My question: Why would the liturgy written by Fathers take precedence over the Fathers?
Because it is ho the Church prays and confess her faith in the presence of the Lord Himself.
There Psalmody, in particular, does contain grammatical, linguistic and sometimes dogmatic errors (especially the new additions of Kiahk).
So you are appearing to say that the liturgical texts contain dogmatic errors and they must be accepted above the clear teaching of the Fathers because they are superior. This seems to be contradictory.
Do you believe that St Severus teaches error or not? If you do not then how can you suggest it is a mistake to follow his teaching. If you do believe he teaches error then I would be interested to know where and what.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158977#msg158977 date=1345062771] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158976#msg158976 date=1345062647] My question: Why would the liturgy written by Fathers take precedence over the Fathers?
Because it is ho the Church prays and confess her faith in the presence of the Lord Himself.
Really? Is that actually your answer?
It is the Fathers who prayed it with the Lord in their heart!
My point stands; the fathers wrote the liturgy.It not a matter of who says it. The content was written by the Fathers. so why should the contents of the Liturgy (written by the Fathers) be taken above the Fathers?
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158979#msg158979 date=1345062876] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158977#msg158977 date=1345062771] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158976#msg158976 date=1345062647] My question: Why would the liturgy written by Fathers take precedence over the Fathers?
Because it is what the Church prays and confess her faith in the presence of the Lord Himself.
Really? Is that actually your answer?
It is the Fathers who prayed it with the Lord in their heart!
My point is that who prays it and when is irrelevant to what was written. What was written was written by fathers. Why then does it take precedence over fathers?
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158978#msg158978 date=1345062822] To remind you, you said...
There Psalmody, in particular, does contain grammatical, linguistic and sometimes dogmatic errors (especially the new additions of Kiahk).
So you are appearing to say that the liturgical texts contain dogmatic errors and they must be accepted above the clear teaching of the Fathers because they are superior. This seems to be contradictory.
Do you believe that St Severus teaches error or not? If you do not then how can you suggest it is a mistake to follow his teaching. If you do believe he teaches error then I would be interested to know where and what.
Fr. Peter,
You need to read the previous posts to understand where I am coming from. But I will make it simple for you.
Putting aside all definitions, let's say that St. Sawiros says that there is nothing called Original sin. However, the liturgy mentions the Original Sin. Liturgy would take precedence.
Now, this would never happen because in the liturgy we do take the absolution from St. Sawiros. So, there is no way he would be contradictory to what the Church confesses; otherwise his absolution is meaningless.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
My exact point.
I'm going to sit this one out. I think it is in good hands now.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537] [quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537] [quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
When we say "Amen" to these prayer, it does mean that we are in agreement with those prayers: Believe them and Confess them.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158987#msg158987 date=1345063863] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537] [quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158988#msg158988 date=1345064153] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158987#msg158987 date=1345063863] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537] [quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
ReturnOrthodoxy
They do give you theology of the highest caliber. How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him (this is what theology is)
Ok, so you keep bringing St Shenouda Doxology. Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
The Liturgical prayers and the sacraments have different texts in the different Orthodox Churches.
Which should be followed as authoritative?
St Severus does not at all believe in Original Sin as Augustine describes it. Therefore if you think you find Original Sin in the Liturgical texts it must be because you have not understood them properly since St Severus does not teach any error, nor does St Cyril whom he follows.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9585.msg158990#msg158990 date=1345064537] The Liturgical prayers and the sacraments have different texts in the different Orthodox Churches.
Which should be followed as authoritative?
For me it would be the the prayers within the Oriental Church.
St Severus does not at all believe in Original Sin as Augustine describes it. Therefore if you think you find Original Sin in the Liturgical texts it must be because you have not understood them properly since St Severus does not teach any error, nor does St Cyril whom he follows.
This goes to my earlier post of what is the definition of the Original Sin. I was discussing it from the context the posters brought up.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158989#msg158989 date=1345064487] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158988#msg158988 date=1345064153] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158987#msg158987 date=1345063863] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537] [quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
ReturnOrthodoxy
They do give you theology of the highest caliber. How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him (this is what theology is)
Ok, so you keep bringing St Shenouda Doxology. Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
I keep bringing it up because you keep avoiding it. I'm not gracious. I'm going to annoy you with it. You already acknowledged that something is wrong with it. That was you acknowledgment. But how can you claim something is wrong if you don't know what is right? So you must have gotten your source that something is right in order to know that the psalmody is wrong! What is that source? The fathers? But isn't the liturgy more authoritative?
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158992#msg158992 date=1345064786] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158989#msg158989 date=1345064487] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158988#msg158988 date=1345064153] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158987#msg158987 date=1345063863] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537] [quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196] So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
ReturnOrthodoxy
They do give you theology of the highest caliber. How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him (this is what theology is)
Ok, so you keep bringing St Shenouda Doxology. Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
I keep bringing it up because you keep avoiding it. I'm not gracious. I'm going to annoy you with it. You already acknowledged that something is wrong with it. That was you acknowledgment. But how can you claim something is wrong if you don't know what is right? So you must have gotten your source that something is right in order to know that the psalmody is wrong! What is that source? The fathers? But isn't the liturgy more authoritative?
ReturnOrthodoxy
I am not annoyed ehatsoever, I just think you are just missing the point. So, let's discuss it so you may understand my point.
Can you please answer my questions in my last post to you?
Comments
If I thought that St Cyril or St Severus contradicted the prayers of the Church then I would not say that they were wrong but that I had not understood the prayers of the Church correctly.
The 7th verse of the doxology of St. Shenouda the Archmandrite say, "One in essence is the Trinity, Coessential and Life-giving, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three names for one God." Does that sound perfectly correct to you? If it does, then you must explain a little such that you can show me that the verse does not contradict the fathers. It sort of sounds Sabellian.
The second verse of the lobsh of the Monday Theotokia says, "Adam our Father, the first creation..." The coptic says, "Adam ghar peniot, pishorp en thamio."
How would you explain these? My point, is, don't look as one being above the others, but look as the fathers along with the liturgy. The fathers wrote the liturgy. It was not some divine thing that came out of a spring in the middle of the earth. To say that you take the liturgy above the fathers is almost meaningless. Thats like saying, "I take the written prayers of the saints (such as Ephraim the Syrian) over the fathers."
ReturnOrthodoxy
It must surely depend on YOUR interpretation of what the Liturgical prayers teach.
If I thought that St Cyril or St Severus contradicted the prayers of the Church then I would not say that they were wrong but that I had not understood the prayers of the Church correctly.
This is the whole idea. But it also depends on the understanding of who the Church Father is and my understanding of what the writing.
For myself, I accept everything that St Severus says as my spiritual father and if I have thought differently then I correct myself by his teachings.
There Psalmody, in particular, does contain grammatical, linguistic and sometimes dogmatic errors (especially the new additions of Kiahk).
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).
Now you seem to be saying that there ARE errors in the liturgical texts and they should not take precedence.
Surely it is not wise to base anything on your own understanding?
For myself, I accept everything that St Severus says as my spiritual father and if I have thought differently then I correct myself by his teachings.
This requires understanding of the Orthodox teaching. Because. if one chooses a particular Father and take everything he said for granted even if it conflicts with the Church prayers, then this would create a conflict in the Spiritual life.
Now how would you know they were incorrect if you had not compared them with the Fathers? What makes them correct. why should I not follow Sabellianism because the psalmody guided me there? It is because I take the whole picture! The fathers along with the liturgy.
I'd like an answer as to why the Liturgy would be above the Fathers if it was Fathers who wrote the liturgy.
ReturnOrthodoxy
This surely contradicts what you have said 5 minutes ago...
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).
Now you seem to be saying that there ARE errors in the liturgical texts and they should not take precedence.
Which?
If you are referring to the quote Return Orthodoxy mentioned. Then we need to discuss it in more detail.
Well I guess that I will leave others to discuss this with you. I don't know what to say if you think that St Severus teaches error.
Try Kirie Eleison! :D
ReturnOrthodoxy
Well I guess that I will leave others to discuss this with you. I don't know what to say if you think that St Severus teaches error.
I did not say he did.
I said hypothetically even if St Sawiros says something contradictory to the liturgical prayers, then the liturgical prayers take precedence.
My question: Why would the liturgy written by Fathers take precedence over the Fathers?
Because it is ho the Church prays and confess her faith in the presence of the Lord Himself.
There Psalmody, in particular, does contain grammatical, linguistic and sometimes dogmatic errors (especially the new additions of Kiahk).
So you are appearing to say that the liturgical texts contain dogmatic errors and they must be accepted above the clear teaching of the Fathers because they are superior. This seems to be contradictory.
Do you believe that St Severus teaches error or not? If you do not then how can you suggest it is a mistake to follow his teaching. If you do believe he teaches error then I would be interested to know where and what.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158976#msg158976 date=1345062647]
My question: Why would the liturgy written by Fathers take precedence over the Fathers?
Because it is ho the Church prays and confess her faith in the presence of the Lord Himself.
Really? Is that actually your answer?
It is the Fathers who prayed it with the Lord in their heart!
My point stands; the fathers wrote the liturgy.It not a matter of who says it. The content was written by the Fathers. so why should the contents of the Liturgy (written by the Fathers) be taken above the Fathers?
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158977#msg158977 date=1345062771]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158976#msg158976 date=1345062647]
My question: Why would the liturgy written by Fathers take precedence over the Fathers?
Because it is what the Church prays and confess her faith in the presence of the Lord Himself.
Really? Is that actually your answer?
It is the Fathers who prayed it with the Lord in their heart!
I am not sure if I follow your argument.
RO
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
To remind you, you said...
There Psalmody, in particular, does contain grammatical, linguistic and sometimes dogmatic errors (especially the new additions of Kiahk).
So you are appearing to say that the liturgical texts contain dogmatic errors and they must be accepted above the clear teaching of the Fathers because they are superior. This seems to be contradictory.
Do you believe that St Severus teaches error or not? If you do not then how can you suggest it is a mistake to follow his teaching. If you do believe he teaches error then I would be interested to know where and what.
Fr. Peter,
You need to read the previous posts to understand where I am coming from. But I will make it simple for you.
Putting aside all definitions, let's say that St. Sawiros says that there is nothing called Original sin. However, the liturgy mentions the Original Sin. Liturgy would take precedence.
Now, this would never happen because in the liturgy we do take the absolution from St. Sawiros. So, there is no way he would be contradictory to what the Church confesses; otherwise his absolution is meaningless.
I hope this clears up the issue.
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
My exact point.
I'm going to sit this one out. I think it is in good hands now.
ReturnOrthodoxy
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196]
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537]
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196]
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
When we say "Amen" to these prayer, it does mean that we are in agreement with those prayers: Believe them and Confess them.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537]
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196]
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158987#msg158987 date=1345063863]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537]
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196]
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
ReturnOrthodoxy
They do give you theology of the highest caliber. How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him (this is what theology is)
Ok, so you keep bringing St Shenouda Doxology. Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
Which should be followed as authoritative?
St Severus does not at all believe in Original Sin as Augustine describes it. Therefore if you think you find Original Sin in the Liturgical texts it must be because you have not understood them properly since St Severus does not teach any error, nor does St Cyril whom he follows.
The Liturgical prayers and the sacraments have different texts in the different Orthodox Churches.
Which should be followed as authoritative?
For me it would be the the prayers within the Oriental Church.
This goes to my earlier post of what is the definition of the Original Sin. I was discussing it from the context the posters brought up.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158988#msg158988 date=1345064153]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158987#msg158987 date=1345063863]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537]
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196]
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
ReturnOrthodoxy
They do give you theology of the highest caliber. How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him (this is what theology is)
Ok, so you keep bringing St Shenouda Doxology. Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
I keep bringing it up because you keep avoiding it. I'm not gracious. I'm going to annoy you with it. You already acknowledged that something is wrong with it. That was you acknowledgment. But how can you claim something is wrong if you don't know what is right? So you must have gotten your source that something is right in order to know that the psalmody is wrong! What is that source? The fathers? But isn't the liturgy more authoritative?
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158989#msg158989 date=1345064487]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158988#msg158988 date=1345064153]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158987#msg158987 date=1345063863]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9585.msg158986#msg158986 date=1345063644]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158985#msg158985 date=1345063537]
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158982#msg158982 date=1345063196]
So Imikhail, you are saying that the liturgical prayers of the church take precedence, but then you said that understanding it properly needs you to understand the Orthodox faith which would require you to understand the fathers. But here you seem to be insinuating that to understand the fathers we must understand the liturgy and that the liturgy takes precedence. There is a serious flaw in your semi-circular reasoning.
You cant take one thing above the other and make it the infallible authority, thats why i called you a sola-liturgist (its a word now), you have to understand both together.
Just accept what the fathers teach, its simple. Stop making yourself the infallible interpreter of doctrine and bow in humility to the teaching of the Orthodox fathers for they contain the Orthodox faith.
And no, the fathers teach in concert with the liturgy, which teaches in concert with the Bible, which teaches in concert with Orthodox tradition, stop dividing them into different categories.
Least of All,
You are the one who said that St. Sawiros did not teach the concept of Original Sin. However, the liturgical prayers do contain it.
So, either you do not understand what St. Sawiros wrote, or you are taking his teachings out of context.
I pushed you, and I am glad I did, and suggested that even if the Church Fsathrs teach in contradiction of the liturgical prayers, then we need to pay attention to them.
This is very important because we need to start our faith from the liturgy. There are so many Church Fathers and not all of are in agreement. But the Church faith is preserved in her liturgical prayers.
No, the church faith is preserved in a conciliar understanding of the fathers.
I disagree. It is contained in the liturgical prayers. Without the liturgical prayers the sacraments cannot be performed. A priest cannot bring a homily on baptism and perform the sacrament of baptism while reading it.
It is through the liturgical prayers that we receive the new nature, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's body and blood, remission of sins, ... etc
Great! So the Liturgical prayers give us new nature, the gifts of the spirit, the lords body etc. But they don't give us theology. If they did, we would have a problem as we noted in that verse of St. Shenouda's doxology.
I know a priest cannot bring a homily and perform a sacrament with it.
ReturnOrthodoxy
They do give you theology of the highest caliber. How can talking with God, performing His sacraments do not contain Him (this is what theology is)
Ok, so you keep bringing St Shenouda Doxology. Can you please correct it from your understanding of the Fathers? In other words what specifically is wrong with the quote you provided?
I keep bringing it up because you keep avoiding it. I'm not gracious. I'm going to annoy you with it. You already acknowledged that something is wrong with it. That was you acknowledgment. But how can you claim something is wrong if you don't know what is right? So you must have gotten your source that something is right in order to know that the psalmody is wrong! What is that source? The fathers? But isn't the liturgy more authoritative?
ReturnOrthodoxy
I am not annoyed ehatsoever, I just think you are just missing the point. So, let's discuss it so you may understand my point.
Can you please answer my questions in my last post to you?