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

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

Possibly because some of our Protestant friends started in with their usual attacks on the Blessed Theotokos.

You may not focus on her, but I take it you, like St. Elizabeth, who is inspired by the Spirit, will obey the word of Scripture and call her 'blessed' - or is that against your tradition?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Were is the command to calle her blessed? I don't see it there. Elizabeth had no Ideah Mary was also carring a child. Mary knew she was but we don't read in scripture where Elizabeth did.[Q

Dear MamaZ,

If you read my signature you will see the answer to your question - and that St. Elizabeth knew St. Mary was pregnant.

Is it Protestant tradition to persist in error?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[WarriorAngel]

Why do I feel I am on the Mariology board

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=726

Mariology & Hagiography

Maybe because someone brought it up who opposes the idea of Mary being special.

Christian history - does involve Mary.
Its a sub-topic along the lines, i suppose.

Who really cares what the ECF's had to say? <~~I do.

Those same folks who don't care - are using the canon the ecf's put together.
So - isnt that ironic?

I mean you said you dont read them... but everytime you pick up scriptures, you are reading what they put together for scriptures...you are reading what you consider truth, but God entrusted to THEM... thru being led all those years [and continues onwards as such] to KNOW what scriptures meant - thru Tradition - or i hate to tell you this - they wouldnt have a clue what was correct or wrong.
See?

So do you care about their POV? Or not?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

Possibly because some of our Protestant friends started in with their usual attacks on the Blessed Theotokos.

You may not focus on her, but I take it you, like St. Elizabeth, who is inspired by the Spirit, will obey the word of Scripture and call her 'blessed' - or is that against your tradition?

Peace,

Anglian

I believe every post that has the Mary in it should be moved to Mariology. Thoughts?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Warrior Angel,

Good try

So do you care about their POV? Or not?

Bet I guess the right answer.

We have cited the plain word of Scripture, which MamaZ did not know, and which LLOJ will not respond to, and to which BB simply provides eisegesis.

Protestant tradition is to stiffen the neck and never admit to error; they are infallible personally, unlike the Pope, who is only so when he pronounces ex cathedra. Perhaps we are getting to the heart of the opposition to the Pope - there can, as they say in Highlander only be one.

They do, I think, have real issues with their misunderstanding of what your own Church teaches, but we have been down that road so many times, and they will just tell you what it is you believe whatever you say.

Again, Protestant personal infallibility.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

I believe every post that has the Mary in it should be moved to Mariology. Thoughts?

Dear LLOJ,

If certain folk did not have an obsession with trying to denigrate what they mistakenly feel others believe about the Blessed Theotokos, she would make as many appearances in this thread as she did in the NT.

Still don't have any answers about my new siggy. Any Protestant willing to obey the plain word of the Spirit speaking through St. Elizabeth, or are we all going to pretend St. Luke means something else?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

If certain folk did not have an obsession with trying to denigrate what they mistakenly feel others believe about the Blessed Theotokos, she would make as many appearances in this thread as she did in the NT.

Still don't have any answers about my new siggy. Any Protestant willing to obey the plain word of the Spirit speaking through St. Elizabeth, or are we all going to pretend St. Luke means something else?

Peace,

Anglian

What about the ECF's view of what is in my Siggy concerning the "rich-man/lazarus"?

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

I have some nice ECF material on this and will be happy to pass on the references.

Is it that hard to obey the plain word of the Scriptures and call the Mother of Our Lord 'blessed'?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

I have some nice ECF material on this and will be happy to pass on the references.

Is it that hard to obey the plain word of the Scriptures and call the Mother of Our Lord 'blessed'?

Peace,

Anglian

Greeting Anglian.Again, that belongs on the Mariology thread and since she is not the focus of my studies of the Scriptures and Bible, I do not dwell on her. Peace

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

I am sorry it is so hard for Protestants to admit the plain reading of the words of St. Luke, but since it is, I shall let it go.

It would have been nice if MamaZ could have found it in her to admit her error in saying St. Elizabeth did not know the Virgin was pregnant or where the word 'blessed' was used, but it is clearly next to impossible for those convinced of their own infallible reading to admit error.

Well, we none of us like to do that, and we are all sinners, so I shall let that go too. If you read back, you'll see that the concentration of the Blessed Theotokos did not come from the Orthodox or the Catholics.

I fail to understand the Protestant obsession with trying to denigrate the Blessed Theotokos, it sounds very Freudian.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Gwendolyn]

Clearly, what Mary said in Scripture is false. Generations won't call her blessed; indeed, they aren't calling her blessed at all. She isn't blessed. Not according to this thread.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Warrior Angel,

This may help explain to some here why we defend the Blessed Theotokos.

In his epistle to the Philippians (chapter 4) St. Ignatius tells us this of Satan

He fights along with the Jews to a denial of the cross,
and with the Gentiles to the calumniating of Mary, who are heretical in​

holding that Christ possessed a mere phantasmal body.

Since his day even more denigration of her has taken place, and since she is to be called 'blessed' and is the mother of Our Lord, we shall defend her if she is attacked.

The Epistle to St. John which was later attributed to him, but is probably sixth century, shows us how the Church regarded the Blessed Theotokos at about the same time she was canonising Scripture:

She is the lady of our
new religion and repentance, and the handmaid among the faithful of all
works of piety. She is indeed devoted to the humble, and she humbles
herself more devotedly than the devoted, and is wonderfully magnified by
all, while at the same time she suffers detraction from the Scribes and
Pharisees. Besides these points, many relate to us numerous other things
regarding her. We do not, however, go so far as to believe all in every
particular; nor do we mention such to thee. But, as we are informed by
those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an
angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. And such
reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to
desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and​

most sacred marvel.

Those who wish to take up their own (mis)understandings of what the Catholic Church teaches about her can do so on the appropriate thread.

Here we are trying to see whether anyone cares what the ECFs wrote, and we do. Those who don't don't seem to have read many of them, and don't care too. Fine - but why have such strong opinions, and why drag the Blessed Theotokos in so often?

Let us call her 'blessed' and follow the plain word of the Scriptures. Those who choose not to do so will stick with their tradition; we will stick with our own one. I hope we can now return to the ECFs!

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Clearly, what Mary said in Scripture is false. Generations won't call her blessed; indeed, they aren't calling her blessed at all. She isn't blessed. Not according to this thread.

Does here being called blessed also imply she is a mediator? I saw this thread here and it already reached a 1000 posts.
And hey!!! There is my bro Chris-Bot

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6935450
Rejection of Mary as your mediator

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Rejection of Mary as your mediator (2)"




ChrisBot

Version 7.0 Beta
6

 

[Gwendolyn]

Does here being called blessed also imply she is a mediator?

No... ? Odd question.

And Anglian, I think the epistle to the Philippians is rebuking the mentioned Gentiles primarily for being gnostics and saying that Christ isn't God... not so much that they are degrading His mother. It was this sentiment that led the Christians to come out and define this - Calling Mary "Mother of God" isn't saying Mary is so great and whatnot; instead, the title speaks of the divinity of Christ. Because Jesus = the Christ = God. Saying that Mary is "merely" the mother of the "earthly" Jesus also effectively tries to separate Christ's divine nature from His human one, thereby rendering him subordinate and altogether separate from God.

That's what I got out of reading the epistle, anyway. The problem isn't that Mary is being degraded in and of herself, so much as the problem is that degrading Mary in that manner also degrades Christ and denies His divinity and unity with the Father.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And more importantly, I do not call Simon a "co-redeemer with Christ". That's really terrible!!! It tops the list actually.

Kind of scary your facination with Simon...

Anyhow, I was thinking about your posts regarding veneration and such. It sounds like you are completely against venerating anything except God. Maybe I am not reading your posts correctly?

Whatever the case I decided to look up some information on the Anglican church and how they see Mary. I found churches named for Mary, such as "St Mary the Virgin". Yes, I even found where the Anglican church has restored ceremonies previously abolished by King Henry VIII because Henry feared for further rebellion, such as "Our Lady of Walsingham".

So it seems that the Anglican church is reverting back to their Catholic roots. I am not surprised with all the Anglicans that have been converting back to Catholicism. On a side note the priests that are being ordained from Anglican orders are introducing many more married priests.

But a couple of things I found intersting about "Our Lady of Walsingham", so let me quote a couple things from the source:

Father Alfred Hope Patten OSA, appointed as the Church of England Vicar of Walsingham in 1921, ignited Anglican interest in the pre-Reformation pilgrimage. It was his idea to create a new statue of Our Lady of Walsingham based on the image depicted on the seal of the medieval priory. In 1922, this statue was set up in the Parish Church of St Mary and regular pilgrimage devotion followed. From the first night that the statue was placed there, people gathered around it to pray, asking Mary to join her powerful prayer with theirs...

...Today there are two shrines of Our Lady of Walsingham. The Roman Catholic shrine, centred around the Slipper Chapel, was established by Leo XIII in 1897. The Church of England shrine is centred around the rebuilt Holy House built in 1931 and expanded in 1938. There is frequently an ecumenical dimension to Catholic pilgrimages to Walsingham, with pilgrims arriving at the Slipper Chapel and then walking to the replica of the Holy House at the Anglican Shrine.
In the United States, the National Shrine to Our Lady of Walsingham for the Episcopal Church is located in Grace Church, Sheboygan, Wisconsin.

Picture of our Anglican brothers and sisters venerating Mary.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Epistle to St. John which was later attributed to him, but is probably sixth century, shows us how the Church regarded the Blessed Theotokos at about the same time she was canonising Scripture

“Liturgy of St. Chrysostom” (so called), where it is said: “We offer to Thee this reasonable service for those who have fallen asleep in faith,…patriarchs, apostles, evangelists, martyrs,…and every just one made perfect in the faith: especially our all-holy, undefiled, most blessed Lady, Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary,” etc. But she, they tell us, was assumed into glory, like Christ Himself, and reigns with Him as “Queen of Angels,” etc. See Elucidation II. p. 569.

LINK

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Does here being called blessed also imply she is a mediator?

Just as Paul calls himself father even though Jesus says no one shall call himself father, so too do others mediate even though Jesus is the sole mediator between The Father and us.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Does here being called blessed also imply she is a mediator? I saw this thread here and it already reached a 1000 posts.
And hey!!! There is my bro Chris-Bot

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6935450
Rejection of Mary as your mediator

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Rejection of Mary as your mediator (2)"




ChrisBot

Version 7.0 Beta
6

AGAIN - co-mediatrix means she was the helper of bringing us the Mediator. Giving birth to Him. He Who reconciles the world to the Father. That is what Mediator means.

Perhaps instead of making comments when in ignorance to a topic, please ask courteously. Will answer...if i am around.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Speaking of the ecf's and the Theotokos.

The Second Nicea Council said this:

Anathema to those who do these:

(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.
(16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc.
(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc.
(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc.
(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!
[Then follows the prohibition of the making or teaching any other faith, and the penalties for disobedience. After this follow the acclamations.]
The divine Kings Constantine and Leo said: Let the holy and ecumenical synod say, if with the consent of all the most holy bishops the definition just read has been set forth.
The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry! You have destroyed the heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur [&#956;&#945;&#957;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#961;, John Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded, and worshipper of wood! Anathema to George, his associate, to the falsifier of the doctrine of the Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an evil name and Saracen opinions! To the betrayer of Christ and the enemy of the Empire, to the teacher of impiety, the perverter of Scripture, Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these three!

 

[Gwendolyn]

Unfortunately, what our Christian ancestors believed is of no consequence to many of the people who have posted here. Neither is it important how our Christian ancestors interpreted the Scriptures. From what people here have said, it would seem that the only thing that is important is how we, NOW, interpret the Scriptures.

I don't understand that line of reasoning. If they believe our Christian ancestors were definitely wrong, what is keeping us from being wrong? We are 1500+ years away from the Patristic period! If there is no way to really, definitively tell of we are truly being led by the Spirit or being led by our own misunderstandings... then I think we're up the creek without a paddle.