Ever-virgin Mary

[CelticRebel]

Regarding my other post about the multiple ways to interpret the wording of Paul's instructions - can you see the possibility of English not conveying the full meaning of what the Greek originally said?

I honestly (and I too value scripture and agree with Matt's statement about scripture) don't see the one wife statement as being contradictory with the instructions of the Orthodox Church - since it could be interpreted multiple ways. In fact - I was looking up some thing online, and there are Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics that all interpret "one" differently than you are interpreting it. That's one of the roles of the Church - to help interpret unclear verses.

The Bible doesn't say every rule or instruction as Kylissa said - in fact, it says to pay attention to the instructions passed down verbally and written.

Certainly I can see that.

So, how does one know which is correct -- the Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox interpretation? There must be a standard to go by. I still would like someone to show me how it is a sound practice that a church's interpretation can override a clear teaching of scripture. That's how liberal apostate Protestantism justifies gay marriage and ordination.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

But when scripture is so clear as to not need interpretation, and yet a church imposes or requires something that contradicts that scripture, what then? The result is the imposition of a man-made tradition over the clear teaching of scripture.

This is in reply to Jesus4Madrid's post # 255. I don't know why it wouldn't let me quote that post.

I a not aware of any case where the Church requires something that contradicts its understanding of Scripture. It may require something that contradicts your understanding of Scripture.

Who is the ultimate judge: you, or the consensus of Christians throughout the ages?

 

[CelticRebel]

I understand and agree.

(And thank you for being gracious! )

It is never a matter of choosing between Tradition and Scripture. There should never BE a contradiction.

And yes, Scripture makes it plain that God does not endorse same-sex marriage, in multiple passages. But in a sense, that's what others are telling you here regarding the "one wife" passage. The problem is that exactly what that means is less clear to you (and I agree, I wouldn't be able to know for sure from Scripture alone either).

But this is where the importance of Tradition does come in. And as others have pointed out (I was not aware), early Church writings were not silent on the matter, and I can also easily imagine Paul wasn't either, while he was physically present with and instructing the new Churches. There are several passages in Scripture regarding choosing those who would be ordained, so it is clearly something they were concerned with.

Nearly everything the Church does and decides is "for the salvation" of everyone involved. Rules are made, and relaxed, and sometimes things are allowed that are less than ideal because we are imperfect human beings, but the ultimate goal is the salvation of our souls. I've seen this over and over in the development of rules as well as the application of them. That is what comes to mind when I think about this question. Having now had a relationship with a priest as my Father Confessor, I can understand some of the wisdom in not allowing a priest to find and marry a wife while serving as a priest.

I'll be honest with you - this is one that tripped me up early on too, and I didn't agree with it or understand it. I thought at least the priest should be able to take a "leave of absence" and remarry, then resume his priestly duties. I don't know exactly why that isn't possible (and I also don't know - it even MIGHT BE with a Bishop allowing in special circumstances - as I said, rules can even be waived or relaxed at times). But basically I have learned to trust that the Church knows what she is doing, what she has done, and am willing to accept that. Especially since it doesn't apply to me anyway, and this is really just a case of me deciding that I know better than the Church how she ought to conduct herself ... and in the end, HOW do I know this is not what the Holy Spirit did reveal to the Apostles and early bishops, since I do in fact see and acknowledge the wisdom of it?

My answer to the bolded parts: But there are contradictions. So, in that case which should a person believe? I say scripture.

It isn't possible because a church says it isn't, in contradiction to the scriptures.

I am seeing more and more how it is unsafe and unsound to make tradition equal to scripture.

 

[CelticRebel]

I a not aware of any case where the Church requires something that contradicts its understanding of Scripture. It may require something that contradicts your understanding of Scripture.

Who is the ultimate judge: you, or the consensus of Christians throughout the ages?

There is no consensus of Christians throughout the ages. If there was, there would be no divisions in Christianity.

Do you agree that scripture in many cases says something so clearly that it doesn't need interpreting? If so, and if some church requires a practice in contradiction to that clear teaching, then what? What is a person to believe?

 

[rusmeister]

But when scripture is so clear as to not need interpretation, and yet a church imposes or requires something that contradicts that scripture, what then? The result is the imposition of a man-made tradition over the clear teaching of scripture.

This is in reply to Jesus4Madrid's post # 255. I don't know why it wouldn't let me quote that post.

Hold it right there, pardner!
There is no such thing as ANY text anywhere, in any shape or form, not being "interpreted". "Interpret" does not mean "complex, in requirement of special explanation" but "Understand". Given that it is possible to understand Scripture wrongly (I assume at this point that you grant that), then "clear" is purely subjective" WE think "Eat, drink, this is MY Body" to be VERY clear - and yet Baptists and Mennonites don't think so at all. WE interpret it differently than they do. They think Christ didn't 'mean what He said' literally, although the Jews listening to Him, His contemporaries, speaking the same language obviously did ("This is a hard saying, etc" and many left). So all text is interpreted one way or the other. There is no such thing as Scripture "so clear as to not need interpretation because anything you read anywhere you interpret based on your own cultural understandings and limitations.

 

[CelticRebel]

Hold it right there, pardner!
There is no such thing as ANY text anywhere, in any shape or form, not being "interpreted". "Interpret" does not mean "complex, in requirement of special explanation" but "Understand". Given that it is possible to understand Scripture wrongly (I assume at this point that you grant that), then "clear" is purely subjective" WE think "Eat, drink, this is MY Body" to be VERY clear - and yet Baptists and Mennonites don't think so at all. WE interpret it differently than they do. They think Christ didn't 'mean what He said' literally, although the Jews listening to Him, His contemporaries, speaking the same language obviously did ("This is a hard saying, etc" and many left). So all text is interpreted one way or the other. There is no such thing as Scripture "so clear as to not need interpretation because anything you read anywhere you interpret based on your own cultural understandings and limitations.

I understand and agree that there are cases where certain scripture is interpreted differently. That's the reasons for denominations, just like you pointed out also.

But there are cases where scripture is so clear that it can mean only one thing. Would you not agree?

 

[All4Christ]

Hold it right there, pardner! There is no such thing as ANY text anywhere, in any shape or form, not being "interpreted". "Interpret" does not mean "complex, in requirement of special explanation" but "Understand". Given that it is possible to understand Scripture wrongly (I assume at this point that you grant that), then "clear" is purely subjective" WE think "Eat, drink, this is MY Body" to be VERY clear - and yet Baptists and Mennonites don't think so at all. WE interpret it differently than they do. They think Christ didn't 'mean what He said' literally, although the Jews listening to Him, His contemporaries, speaking the same language obviously did ("This is a hard saying, etc" and many left). So all text is interpreted one way or the other. There is no such thing as Scripture "so clear as to not need interpretation because anything you read anywhere you interpret based on your own cultural understandings and limitations.

Exactly my point with the previous post...the Church from early on helped direct the Church in understanding the scripture/, including this one, as is evident by other writings at the time...that's one of the reasons the Church is here. (One of many).

 

[CelticRebel]

Exactly my point with the previous post...the Church from early on helped direct the Church in understanding the scripture/, including this one, as is evident by other writings at the time...that's one of the reasons the Church is here. (One of many).

When Paul says do not forbid to marry, I don't need anyone else to help me understand that. And when any church says "Do not forbid to marry, except __________", I know that it is adding a man-made tradition to the scriptures.

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

Let's get back on topic please.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[dzheremi]

There is no consensus of Christians throughout the ages. If there was, there would be no divisions in Christianity.

To get things back on topic, as George95 has requested, this idea of consensus also applies to beliefs about St. Mary, and shows that in the history of how the Church has actually operated, it is not understood to mean "everyone agrees; there are no dissenters at all", but rather "on balance, what do we, in the greatest degree, find to be in keeping with the ancient witness of the fathers?" Hence, when at the Council of Ephesus it was found that the East Syrians could not agree with the understanding of the majority gathered there about the correct way to believe about St. Mary, we did not go back to the drawing board so as to come up with something that would be acceptable to both them and us. They were quite simply wrong, and hence what had been a Church of one confession became two separate churches, each of their own confession regarding this point. It didn't mean that there was no consensus regarding the doctrine itself, but rather that different populations within the Church were at odds regarding what was the correct interpretation of the meaning of the scriptures and the teachings of the fathers on this issue.

Go figure. Those crazy ancients! So unlike us!

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Certainly I can see that.

So, how does one know which is correct -- the Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox interpretation? There must be a standard to go by. I still would like someone to show me how it is a sound practice that a church's interpretation can override a clear teaching of scripture. That's how liberal apostate Protestantism justifies gay marriage and ordination.

First, there are not churches but the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ and when you speak of "churches", you effectively make Christ to be a polygamist. No big deal, I understand what you are saying, but please remember that we believe in one "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", just as the original Christians did.

Second, the Church's interpretation does not ever override a clear teaching of Scripture. Your example of remarriage is a red herring.

Third, orthodoxy in faith, practice and indeed, the very canon of Scripture, is found in that which was taught "everywhere, always, by everyone". It is ironic that you should mention gay marriage, because that is only allowed in denominations that allow one's individual judgement to trump that of the Church "everywhere, always, by everyone". When the individual's interpretation is elevated above that of the Church, then really anything goes. Hence, gay marriage.

 

[buzuxi02]

This is an opinion of Paul, something that he prefers, not a requirement, and certainly not a requirement to be imposed by a church. In other passages, as I have shown, Paul says forbid not to marry. He also says it is good to have a wife. It is clear that this is something that is left to the individual to decide, not something to be imposed from without.

No, we know without a reasonable shadow of a doubt that those elected to manage a church could only be once married upon being ordained, and could not remarry if widowed. St Hippolytus in 220AD harshly criticized Pope Callixtus for ordaining remarried men to the priesthood something that was never done before or since Callixtus.

Secondly presbyters tended to be old men (thats what the word means basically "elders"). Paul only sanctions the young widowers to remarry and the older ones to be added to the rolls of widows.

In 1 Cor 7.25-33 he speaks of how its better not to marry as more inline with the things of the Lord, but he only endorses virgins (not widows) of contracting a marriage. This would be in keeping with what is practised within the presbytery, and his instructions to Timothy that bishops are to be a one woman husband. They would have married once presumably at youth and beget children and would not seek out a second wife once in the sacerdotal orders when they were more mature..

This is precisely why sola scripture is faulty. You read into it what you want to read into without looking into the actual historical practise. To add to the misunderstanding is the use of translations from the original greek into modern non greek languages.

 

[~Anastasia~]

My answer to the bolded parts: But there are contradictions. So, in that case which should a person believe? I say scripture.

It isn't possible because a church says it isn't, in contradiction to the scriptures.

I am seeing more and more how it is unsafe and unsound to make tradition equal to scripture.

But the problem is, you are interpreting "husband of one wife" to mean something. And if what you say it means ... isn't the same thing as what the early Church fathers said it means - how do you know you're right?

Especially when they are many centuries closer to the culture and idioms, etc. of the day, and generally spoke the language Scripture was written in?

They decided what WAS to be Scripture, or at least ratified it. If what they held as Tradition was directly contradicted, wouldn't it have behooved them to keep those books out? Some writings were prevented because they led to error, in fact. But my point is, if you were the one setting up the Church, making the rules, compiling the books - wouldn't it make sense to make it all consistent? That may not make sense to you right now though.

I would reiterate that it's not "Tradition vs. Scripture" and never can be. It's not as though they are separate authorities which can contradict each other, so you decide which one to follow. That WOULD be a bad thing, if it were so.

Rather, Tradition is the totality of what was handed down by the Apostles, and Scripture is a part of that. It is indeed the most important part - and the Gospels are the most important part of that.

You mention God's opinion of same-sex unions as being obvious, so that "not forbidding to marry" cannot be used to justify it. What about God's opinion of marriage? The ideal is and always has been to marry only once. So why is it so impossible to think that expecting those who serve as priests to be held to God's perfect standard? It is not as though they are FORBIDDEN to marry, as they are in the Catholic Church. Most parish priests ARE married. They are simply forbidden to REmarry, and are instead to be "the husband of one wife".

My overall point is that I don't think you can say this is "clear" and only possible to interpret as you interpret it, and it is not right to claim that Church Tradition contradicts Scripture in this.

I hope I'm not sounding contentious to say this, as I may have said it a bit strongly. But I think it's important to understand.

Peace to you.

 

[SeventhValley]

No, we know without a reasonable shadow of a doubt that those elected to manage a church could only be once married upon being ordained, and could not remarry if widowed. St Hippolytus in 220AD harshly criticized Pope Callixtus for ordaining remarried men to the priesthood something that was never done before or since Callixtus.

Secondly presbyters tended to be old men (thats what the word means basically "elders"). Paul only sanctions the young widowers to remarry and the older ones to be added to the rolls of widows.

In 1 Cor 7.25-33 he speaks of how its better not to marry as more inline with the things of the Lord, but he only endorses virgins (not widows) of contracting a marriage. This would be in keeping with what is practised within the presbytery, and his instructions to Timothy that bishops are to be a one woman husband. They would have married once presumably at youth and beget children and would not seek out a second wife once in the sacerdotal orders when they were more mature..

This is precisely why sola scripture is faulty. You read into it what you want to read into without looking into the actual historical practise. To add to the misunderstanding is the use of translations from the original greek into modern non greek languages.

My own ruminations:

Interesting point. On one hand the ever virginity is not possible looking only at the gospels with a plain reading of the Koine Greek. On the other hand the ever virginity teaching was around before canon was established(specifically found in the protoevangelium of James).

Millennialism is found in scripture and taught by John according to Justin Martyr. But was rejected later on not because it was not a scriptural teaching but because too many doomsday heretics arose from it.(the fruit of the teaching).

Also before many scriptures were written there were simple liturgies.

So I think going off scripture from a traditional point of view is actually not accurate. Scripture seems to be a little t tradition not Tradition as a non-negotiable thing.

Thoughts?

 

[ArmyMatt]

There were no priests, just presbyters -- but semantics aside, the scripture does not forbid remarriage of ministers, especially of widowed ones. In fact, it doesn't address the situation specifically for ministers. Paul does say do not forbid marriage. That establishes a principle. The Church has no right to prohibit remarriage of widowed ministers/priests. Doing so goes against the principle that Paul stated.

presbyters are priests. the modern term priest comes from the abbreviation for presbyter, which was prest. and our priests are still called Presbyters.

you are right, we do not forbid the marriage of widowed presbyters. however, nowhere does it say that widowed presbyters can marry and remain presbyters. so they can remarry. we forbid nothing and are following St. Paul. what you have to show is where it says someone who is ordained and widowed can marry and still remain in that role. because if you cannot, then there is no issue with a second marriage for someone who was widowed, and it is not forbidden by our Church.

 

[buzuxi02]

My own ruminations:

Interesting point. On one hand the ever virginity is not possible looking only at the gospels with a plain reading of the Koine Greek. On the other hand the ever virginity teaching was around before canon was established(specifically found in the protoevangelium of James).

Millennialism is found in scripture and taught by John according to Justin Martyr. But was rejected later on because it was not a scriptural teaching but because too many doomsday heretics arose from it.(the fruit of the teaching).

Also before many scriptures were written there were simple liturgies.

So I think going off scripture from a traditional point of view is actually not accurate. Scripture seems to be a little t tradition not Tradition as a non-negotiable thing.

Thoughts?

I would agree. The ritual aspects such as liturgies, prayers and actual practises tended to be more of the oral tradition. For example the pre-pauline hymn found in phillipians of Christ's divinity, its theological content is important to scholars. Paul quotes a known hymn that has a high christological meaning, it would not have been the only one but it shows how such an important understanding just happened to be quoted just once as Paul makes a point.

Even though modern scholarship likes to point to PJ as the first written source we already know the apocryphal Odes of Solomon which predates PJ references the perpetual virginity of Mary as well .

As far as Revelation the majority of the eastern Church did not even read Revelation. And yes it was not recieved universally till after millenialism and montanism died out. St Gregory Nazianzen is an interesting example. He knew and quoted from Revelation but when he wrote his list of canonical book he omitted Revelation and made clear that doctrine should be formulated using only the books on his list.

 

[SeventhValley]

Of course small t-scripture also brings to question what dose God want. Well it apparently changes as the church is given different Revelations.

Of course what if Christ inspired canon to become Tradition above all else? This is possible too as apparently his dogma was not final at his ascension.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, but Scripture is NOT "small t tradition"?

 

[All4Christ]

When Paul says do not forbid to marry, I don't need anyone else to help me understand that. And when any church says "Do not forbid to marry, except __________", I know that it is adding a man-made tradition to the scriptures.

They aren't forbidden to marry, as others have said...only that they can't remarry yet still be a priest. No one is forbidden to remarry if they are widowed. The scripture is not contradicted.

 

[All4Christ]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, but Scripture is NOT "small t tradition"?

I'm not understanding that either. Scripture is a part of tradition, but it isn't small 't'