Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

No where in the other thread did you show that Christ was contradicting what the archangel Gabriel told St. Mary. Your own insistence that one verse contradicts another was supported by nothing save your own logic, hence the suspicion that you regard yourself as infallible.

In St. Luke 1:41 we are told that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; the plain meaning is that what St. Elizabeth goes on to say in inspired by the Holy Spirit. What is it she then says, as inspired by the Holy Spirit (by the way, your comment at that time that it was 'just two women' implies you think women don't count):

She then spoke out with a loud voice and said: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."

If we follow your odd logic, you would have to argue we cannot call the fruit of her womb 'blessed' either. Still inspired by the Spirit, St. Elizabeth goes on to say in verse 45:

Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfilment of those things which were told her from the Lord

This was told her by the Lord. If Beamishboy is adding the Lord to the list of those he will defy if they do not agree with his own interpretation (I seem to remember that your own Archbishop, who venerates the Blessed Virgin is on that list), then I daresay your claque of chums will support that too.

In St. Luke 1:48 St. Mary says that future generations will call her blessed. We are a future generation, we call her 'blessed'; the plain word of the Scripture. You twist the Scriptures to say that another part of Luke contradicts the word of the Spirit here. It does not, except in your own vivid imagination.

If I have to choose between how Christians have interpreted these verses since at least the time of St. Irenaeus, and the views of one who does not 'give a toss' (in your own vivid phrase) about anything that contradicts his own prideful reading of the Scriptures, I'll go with two thousand years of the Holy Tradition which includes Holy Scripture itself. You provide a good example of the imbalance which comes to interpretations based only on one's own reading.

You have never told us why we should accept your interpretations, by the way. I'm with that Jewish peasant girl and her Son; you can keep your knights, your castles, and your swords, the riches of the Kingdom of Heaven are not found in such things.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

No where in the other thread did you show that Christ was contradicting what the archangel Gabriel told St. Mary. Your own insistence that one verse contradicts another was supported by nothing save your own logic, hence the suspicion that you regard yourself as infallible.

In St. Luke 1:41 we are told that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; the plain meaning is that what St. Elizabeth goes on to say in inspired by the Holy Spirit. What is it she then says, as inspired by the Holy Spirit (by the way, your comment at that time that it was 'just two women' implies you think women don't count):

If we follow your odd logic, you would have to argue we cannot call the fruit of her womb 'blessed' either. Still inspired by the Spirit, St. Elizabeth goes on to say in verse 45:

This was told her by the Lord. If Beamishboy is adding the Lord to the list of those he will defy if they do not agree with his own interpretation (I seem to remember that your own Archbishop, who venerates the Blessed Virgin is on that list), then I daresay your claque of chums will support that too.

In St. Luke 1:48 St. Mary says that future generations will call her blessed. We are a future generation, we call her 'blessed'; the plain word of the Scripture. You twist the Scriptures to say that another part of Luke contradicts the word of the Spirit here. It does not, except in your own vivid imagination.

If I have to choose between how Christians have interpreted these verses since at least the time of St. Irenaeus, and the views of one who does not 'give a toss' (in your own vivid phrase) about anything that contradicts his own prideful reading of the Scriptures, I'll go with two thousand years of the Holy Tradition which includes Holy Scripture itself. You provide a good example of the imbalance which comes to interpretations based only on one's own reading.

You have never told us why we should accept your interpretations, by the way. I'm with that Jewish peasant girl and her Son; you can keep your knights, your castles, and your swords, the riches of the Kingdom of Heaven are not found in such things.

Peace,

Anglian

I see, as in the past, you have stayed clear of the Lukan verses. I understand your discomfort and won't trouble you with it again.

You misrepresented me. I have never said Luke contradicted the word of God. I said Luke contradicted your Marian veneration. Luke shows that it's wrong. A foolish woman in a crowd tells Jesus that His mother is blessed and Jesus (as he has dismissed in other parts of Scriptures this overplay of his mother's importance) dismissed her with a simple - anyone who obeys him is blessed. What a blow to Marian veneration but of course you are blind to it.

The only way out for those steep in Mary veneration is to play down the very words of our Lord.

Isn't Jesus' reply reminiscent of another remark of his? His mother and brothers came to take him home. His disciples told him they were at the door waiting for him. What did our Lord say? Blessed is his mother? Ho Ho Ho!!! NO!!! He says "Who is my mother, Who are my brothers?" Turning to his disciples, he says, Those who obey the will of my Father are my mother, my brothers and sisters.

Another unmistakable slap in the face of those who claim the veneration of Mary is a Christian doctrine. But of course we shall turn a blind eye to all this, shan't we?

 

[Montalban]

I see, as in the past, you have stayed clear of the Lukan verses. I understand your discomfort and won't trouble you with it again.

He dealt with Luke's verses by mentioning what he thought Jesus said. That's error #1, misrepresenting what he said - he's dealt with these verses, and you say he hasn't

You misrepresented me. I have never said Luke contradicted the word of God. I said Luke contradicted your Marian veneration. Luke shows that it's wrong. A foolish woman in a crowd tells Jesus that His mother is blessed and Jesus (as he has dismissed in other parts of Scriptures this overplay of his mother's importance) dismissed her with a simple - anyone who obeys him is blessed. What a blow to Marian veneration but of course you are blind to it.

You're not misrepresented either. You have to have Luke contradicting himself because in one passage he has Mary saying she'll be blessed and in another, according to you that she won't be.

That's error #2, claiming to have been misrepresented, and you haven't. You've invented a contradiction (sub-error 2(b) is claiming that you haven't)

That's two errors in a row.

The only way out for those steep in Mary veneration is to play down the very words of our Lord.

Back to repeating your first error. No one has done this.

Isn't Jesus' reply reminiscent of another remark of his? His mother and brothers came to take him home. His disciples told him they were at the door waiting for him. What did our Lord say? Blessed is his mother? Ho Ho Ho!!! NO!!! He says "Who is my mother, Who are my brothers?" Turning to his disciples, he says, Those who obey the will of my Father are my mother, my brothers and sisters.

Back to repeating your third by inventing another instance of contradiction

 

[Montalban]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

When you've finished telling everyone how clever you are, come and join in the debate

 

[Montalban]

I don't know much about sola scriptura and I've not heard of it before coming into CF. But all I know is that your cherished "tradition" flies in the face of scriptures, as I've stated above. Obviously, something is seriously wrong with your "tradition".

What a "tradition" adherent does is after he's settled as to what he's sold on, he'll then go round scriptures by stretching the interpretation in such a way that no reasonable, intelligent person can accept. Time was when it was more acceptable because people were illiterate and Protestantism which is based on literacy trumps "tradition" because it's contrary to scriptures.

To accept Anglian's interpretation of that Lukan passage, I'll first have to divest myself of all learning and literacy. The beamishboy will have to turn from a learned knight to an unlettered peasant. Sorry folksies, the beamishboy can't do that.

All you need do is invent a contradiction, then claim you haven't. Ooops, you've already done that.


Does it not say that Mary will be blessed througout the ages? Yes/No?

How then does this 'fly in the face of scripture'?

What other woman carried the Lord Jesus within her for 9 months? Does this not make her in any way special?

If you want further information on our idea of the Veneration of Mary check out this on-line book here

 

[beamishboy]

You know what I find astonishing? The fact that some people can take the words of a happy woman and turn it into dogma. Oh for crying out loud!!!

Mary was happy to find out that she was pregnant with Jesus. She runs to another woman and the two women indulge in women's talk. "Oh guess what!" says Mary. "I'm so happy. Everyone will call me blessed!" And some people actually take those words to be a command to call her blessed! I can't think how more silly one can get.

But then we have the serious words of Jesus that you ignore. Jesus pooh poohs what that loud woman in the crowd says about his mother being blessed and he turns his attention rather to those who obey God. Those are the blessed ones, he corrects her.

The same thing with his disciples who tell him his mother is looking for Him. "Who is my mother?" he asks. Turning away from his mother and brothers to his disciples, he says, "Those who obey me are my mother, my brothers and sisters".

My advice to people who claim to worship Jesus is that they should listen to Jesus' words and obey them. And please don't turn the ecstatic exclamation of two women into church dogma and at the same time ignore our Lord's serious words.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Montablan has dealt admirably with your misrepresentation of what I wrote, so there is no need for me to.

Holy Scripture itself shows how facile (and tinged with misogyny) your words here are:

Mary was happy to find out that she was pregnant with Jesus. She runs to another woman and the two women indulge in women's talk. "Oh guess what!" says Mary. "I'm so happy. Everyone will call me blessed!"

If you read what I quoted, or what St. Luke wrote, you will see that St. Elizabeth spoke after the Holy Spirit entered her. She spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit. You are at liberty now to add the Holy Spirit to the long list of those who do not agree with your private interpretation of Scripture. If the Spirit, speaking through St. Elizabeth says St. Mary will be called 'blessed', I obey the word of Scripture; what do you do? - argue with the Spirit Himself!

That Our Lord later said that all who call Him Lord are 'blessed' does not cancel out what the Archangel said or what the Holy Spirit said through St. Elizabeth. That He said all who obey His word are His family does not mean He disowned His own family.

The Orthodox Church has made no dogma out of the veneration of St. Mary, as you would know if you would care to read your own Archbishop's excellent book on icons of the Blessed Theotokos; but then you have already told us you disagree with him there (without actually reading his book).

The only authority you appear to accept is that of your own private reading of Scripture. As has been pointed out before, you offer no reason why anyone should accept your words, which is why it appears as though you think you speak with personal infallibility. Simply offering your own private reading and saying: ;'this is how it must be read' is not exegesis, it is eisegesis.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

You know what I find astonishing? The fact that some people can take the words of a happy woman and turn it into dogma. Oh for crying out loud!!!

Not just a happy woman. Not only is there the verse about the Angel blessing her but again you assume that all our beliefs are based on the Bible. I'd wish you'd stop misrepresenting Holy Tradition. You've done it in every post.

Mary was happy to find out that she was pregnant with Jesus. She runs to another woman and the two women indulge in women's talk. "Oh guess what!" says Mary. "I'm so happy. Everyone will call me blessed!" And some people actually take those words to be a command to call her blessed! I can't think how more silly one can get.

How silly? To carry the Lord within her? Yes, I suppose it happens so often that she is making too much of it.

But then we have the serious words of Jesus that you ignore.

That's it for me. You simply return to this other error - no one has ignored them. No one. Get back to me if you want a serious discussion

 

[Montalban]

The only authority you appear to accept is that of your own private reading of Scripture. As has been pointed out before, you offer no reason why anyone should accept your words, which is why it appears as though you think you speak with personal infallibility. Simply offering your own private reading and saying: ;'this is how it must be read' is not exegesis, it is eisegesis.

Indeed. He's now down-playing the fact that only one person ever has beared the Lord within her.

So when the Angel blesses her, she calls herself blessed, etc. all of this is somehow conflicted with Jesus' own words who set the Angel right.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

You have an excellent way with Beamishboy. The plain words of Scripture have the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Elizabeth saying that St. Mary is 'blessed'. He then takes the later passage to read that Christ must be disowning His earthly mother by saying everyone who obeys Him is His mother. His mastery of eisegesis shows how important it is to base one's reading of Holy Scripture on the tradition of which it is such an important part.

His own Archbishop, in an excellent little book on icons of the Virgin, explains this Marian tradition very well, but Beamishboy disagrees with his own archbishop, as he would appear to do with all who fail to acknowledge his infallible misreading of the Scriptures.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

Anglian,

I'm afraid that the cult of 'self' (the sin of pride that first affected Adam - where one was tempted to 'know' God through one's own brilliance) affects a great many people, not just the young teen gentlefellow we see here.

It is the price of the success of Protestantism - where Martin Luther, throwing away the words of Paul (calling for Chrisitan unity of faith) declared everyone a Pope; armed with the Bible and guided by the Holy Spirit.

The result is that everyone who comes to a conclusion (albeit it different from that of their neighbours) is equally enamoured by the allure that God lured them alone to this conclusion. Therefore they're right, because they have faith that God must have guided them to that conclusion that they're right.

 

[beamishboy]

You two can continue to scratch each other's back if that's what thrills you but you can't change the words of scriptures.

A woman in the crowd shouts to Jesus that "blessed is the woman who gave thee suckle" (as it appears in one version). If there had been Anglian and Montalban in the crowd then, the two of you would have readily assented to her declaration and recited your Hail Mary's devoutly. But what did Jesus do?

Oh no, my dearies, he did not agree with her. He employs a style he normally does when dealing with Pharisees in answer to their questions. Ie. he takes their words and apply them elsewhere. He did it here. He said, Rather, blessed are those who obey His Father.

He employs the same admirable technique when his mother and brothers had come to take him home. Elsewhere in the gospel, it was written that they even thought he had gone insane. How did he react when told His mother and brothers were waiting at the door? Did he rush to the door and tell his disciples to venerate his mother? If Anglian and montalban were there in our Lord's midst, I have no doubt they would have gone over to venerate her in person (not just an icon). Oh no, my dearies, again, our Lord, without even receiving his mother and brothers, asked, "who is my mother and who are my brothers?" Turning to his disciples (still no mention of him receiving his mother or opening the door to her), he says those who obey him are his mother and brothers and sisters. Notice, he didn't say they are LIKE his mother, etc. Those who obey him ARE his mother, brothers and sisters.

Sorry, folksies. You can't change those words in the Bible. They remain in the Bible for all times. You can insult the beamishboy but the beamishboy shrugs off all insults. Come on, the beamishboy is a valiant knight. He presents the words of the Gospel to you and if you don't accept them, he'll just shake the dust of his stirrups and gallop off into the sunset.

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

No one has ever claimed anyone is 'bound' to what the ECFs say; simply that they may be read with edification.

Have you ever read them? If not, how can you have a valid opinion on them? One of the ways in which the books in the NT were recognised as being Inspired was the number of times they were cited by the ECFs in the second and third century.

You posit, despite explanations to the contrary, a false dichotomy between Tradition and the Word of the Scriptures; they are part of the same process by which we understand the will of God. Listening to ourselves, we understand what we wish; listening to the full Tradition of the Church founded by Christ, we understand what Christ wishes us to understand.

But then, if you have not read any of the ECFs, I am puzzled about what you base your views of their worth upon. The idea that one can learn nothing from St. Basil is astonishing, but if you reject this part of our common heritage, so be it. No one was ever required to grow in wisdom, it is offered, and it will be rejected, even as the cornerstone of the temple was.

Peace,

Anglian

I have read some of them yes..

 

[JacktheCatholic]

you will see that St. Elizabeth spoke after the Holy Spirit entered her. She spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit. You are at liberty now to add the Holy Spirit to the long list of those who do not agree with your private interpretation of Scripture. If the Spirit, speaking through St. Elizabeth says St. Mary will be called 'blessed', I obey the word of Scripture

I like how you point out the part of the Holy Spirit filling the person speaking. It is also said that at that moment John was filled with the Holy Spirit at that moment in the womb. Maybe this also helped John to become the Elijah Jesus speaks of?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You may put your eisegesis against the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Elizabeth, but it avails naught.

No where does Our Lord say that in accepting us as His family He repudiates His earthly mother and brothers. If you are suggesting that in the passage you cite Our Lord is contradicting the working of the Holy Spirit in St. Elizabeth, then say so, and explain how Scripture can contradict itself.

On the one hand, the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Elizabeth as recorded by St. Luke; on the other, your own private revelation. I'll stay with the plain word of Scripture and call St. Mary 'blessed'.

By the way, the Orthodox do not recite 'Hail Mary's'; if you are going to make jibes, at least make them accurate. Better still, would be to follow the way of Our Lord, who had neither castle, nor charger, nor sword, but preached the forgiveness of sins repented of, and who told us to love our enemies, and disdained not the illiterate peasant.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Well Jesus being who He is said that everyone that hears and does the will of the father are blessed. So here I see Jesus putting into order the truth that we all stand on equal ground and not one higher than the other for we are all saved by Grace through faith and not of ourselves but a gift from God. Only one is exaulted above any other and His name is Jesus..

 

[Anglian]

Well Jesus being who He is said that everyone that hears and does the will of the father are blessed. So here I see Jesus putting into order the truth that we all stand on equal ground and not one higher than the other for we are all saved by Grace through faith and not of ourselves but a gift from God. Only one is exaulted above any other and His name is Jesus..

Dear MamaZ,

You must take your interpretation up with St. Luke, who records the words spoken by St. Elizabeth when the Holy Spirit had entered into her.

It is not part of our Tradition to contradict the direct words of the Holy Spirit, or to claim, by implication, that one part of Holy Scripture contradicts another.

The Holy Spirit said St. Mary would be called 'blessed' and was right, of course, because we called her 'blessed'; of course, if you are right and we should not call her 'blessed', the Holy Spirit would have spoken in error, for no one would have called her 'blessed'. The Holy Spirit or you and the Beamishboy, which is most likely to err?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[katherine2001]

Not to mention that if Jesus had repudiated His mother, He would not have been sinless since He would have broken the commandment to honor His parents (and Mary was in every way His mother--she was not just a tube He passed through). I would also argue that He didn't repudiate His mother since He loved and was concerned enough with her wellbeing after His death that He made sure she was taken care of (assigning her to the Apostle John's care).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not to mention that if Jesus had repudiated His mother, He would not have been sinless since He would have broken the commandment to honor His parents (and Mary was in every way His mother--she was not just a tube He passed through). I would also argue that He didn't repudiate His mother since He loved and was concerned enough with her wellbeing after His death that He made sure she was taken care of (assigning her to the Apostle John's care).

Greetings. Why is the Catholic denomination still trying to put forth more Mary dogmas and how do the Orthodox view this? Thanks

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6895541&page=43
Cardinals Hoping for a 5th Marian Dogma

To Declare Mary as Mother of Humanity

ROME, FEB. 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Five cardinals have sent a letter inviting prelates worldwide to join them in petitioning Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma they said would "proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary.".....

 

[Anglian]

Dear Katherine,

What a very good set of points. Again, you rightly illustrate the danger of taking one passage of Scripture and reading it by the flickering candle of one's own illumination; the light of the Church's Holy Tradition illuminates far more widely than our sinful selves can hope to do unaided.

So, we have St. Luke, describing how the Holy Spirit inspired St. Elizabeth to call the Theotokos 'blessed'; we have Our Lord being sinless; and on the other side we have an argument that He dishonoured His blessed mother in public, thus breaking one of the Commandments.

A hard one for sure, the Holy Spirit, St. Luke, St. Elizabeth, the Blessed Theotokos herself on one side of the argument, and on the other a private protestant revelation which, if seriously held, would mean Scripture contradicting itself and Our Lord breaking a commandment; not very hard to see where one comes down - squarely where the Tradition of the Church brings one - on the foundation of rock.

Peace,

Anglian