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

[JacktheCatholic]

People that are adverse to Catholic teachings on Mary and her assumption base their views on modernistic and relativistic thinking of today and do not take in to account the 2000 years of consistant teachings of Mary. It is the fact that we have 2000 years of constant and unchganged teachings like the Assumption of Mary that we must adhere to the ECFs. Otherwise what happens? We start to create a new teaching and one that is not the same as the Apostles. WHY?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

If someone could persuade the Beamishboy to take a tablet for his Roman fever, we could get back to discussing the Fathers; but he seems obsessed with the mother.

Peace,

Anglian

That is because he is vehemently anti-Catholic. He had this thread up on the GA board but it seems to have disappeared [I wonder if he copied it before they deleted it]

How to get a platoon of nuns headed by the Monsignor to come a-calling at your house. (

1 2 3 4 5)
beamishboy

16th July 2008 10:33 PM
by David Gould ​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I call that statement a lie. Prove it or withdraw it.

I have the support of many who have come before us and done all the work of proving. I can provide links such as the writings from 400AD and earlier. That is proof enough to leave my statement as it stands.

INSTEAD you prove that the Assumption of Mary is a lie or withdraw your statement. That, sir, is the appropriate action needed here.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

A further tablet against your Roman fever from the Orthodox wiki which further elaborates what we Orthodox mean.

Are you going to engage with these and answer my questions?



Peace,

Anglian

I am not talking about your interpretation of a non-biblical word "theotokos". I'm not in the least bothered by what it means.

What I'm saying is it is wrong of you to say I venerate Mary just because I admit that she was blessed/happy to bear Jesus. That cannot be the only thing in veneration. I do NOT bow to a photo or icon or idol. I do not kneel to them or say a prayer to or through them. I do not sing praises or say praises to Mary. I do not pray to Mary or even elevate her in any way. To continue to say I venerate her is incorrect.

If you must know the truth, I'd sooner smash a bust of Mary than bow to it. So, please stop saying that I venerate Mary.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Jack has provided a link.

Whilst we are asking questions and for withdrawals, some time back I reminded you you had made an allegation that I was concealing something about veneration; I asked you for proof (though I used politer language than you chose to use) or a retraction. Since you have failed to provide proof, how about a retraction? Or a response to the Theotokos material?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Dear Jack,

To be fair, he has already told us he doesn't give 'a toss' for what his Church says on this, or anything else which departs from the true faith as revealed to himself.

As in 'Highlander', the can be only one - B16 or B1.

Peace,

Anglian

Thanks for clarifying that.

However, I am using ECFs and support it as such. My statements are backed by teachings that have been around for 2000 years and we have textual proofs as such.

Now if someone does not support history and the facts associated with them then that is abitrary in a thread about the ECFs. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Thekla]

I am not talking about your interpretation of a non-biblical word "theotokos". I'm not in the least bothered by what it means.

What I'm saying is it is wrong of you to say I venerate Mary just because I admit that she was blessed/happy to bear Jesus. That cannot be the only thing in veneration. I do NOT bow to a photo or icon or idol. I do not kneel to them or say a prayer to or through them. I do not sing praises or say praises to Mary. I do not pray to Mary or even elevate her in any way. To continue to say I venerate her is incorrect.

If you must know the truth, I'd sooner smash a bust of Mary than bow to it. So, please stop saying that I venerate Mary.

if again I may ask: what is the typical Anglican way of including the body (an aspect of the whole being) in worship ? For example, do you make the sign of the cross, do great or small prostrations, genuflect etc ...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic There is much history on Mary being venerated all the way back to the Apostles themselves.

There is a 59 page thread on that topic

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7145764&page=59
Was Mary venerated by the Apostles?

 

[beamishboy]

I have the support of many who have come before us and done all the work of proving. I can provide links such as the writings from 400AD and earlier. That is proof enough to leave my statement as it stands.

INSTEAD you prove that the Assumption of Mary is a lie or withdraw your statement. That, sir, is the appropriate action needed here.

Preposterous! The onus is on the person who claims something has been practised since apostolic times to prove it. How can you come up with a practice and ask the other chap to prove that it is not something practised by the apostles? Check with any lawyer. You assert something comes from the apostles, you prove it.

At best, you can come up with copies of copies of copies of documents purportedly written in 400 AD. You can't go all the way to the apostles. The only writings that are available from the apostles are in the NT and it does not even have the slightest whisper of Mary's name apart from instances when it can't be helped. The epistles are totally silent about her. So please don't attribute to the apostles the veneration of someone they didn't even care to write about.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

if again I may ask: what is the typical Anglican way of including the body (an aspect of the whole being) in worship ? For example, do you make the sign of the cross, do great or small prostrations, genuflect etc ...

If he does, then he is more Catholic than I am.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Your own communion celebrates the Assumption of the Virgin

Assumption in Anglicanism

The Prayer Books of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada mark August 15 as the "Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary". Anglo-Catholics often observe the feast day under the same name as Roman Catholics.
In the Episcopal Church, August 15 is observed as the commemoration "Of the Blessed Virgin Mary", and the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statement on the Virgin Mary assigns a place for both the Dormition and the Assumption in Anglican devotion{{Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ}}.

and, as we have seen, many in it venerate the Blessed Theotokos in a manner similar to Roman Catholics.

Your lack of interest in the history of your own Faith explains much, and is rather sad. But if you do not understand what the title Theotokos means or why it is important, how do you understand (as far as one can) the doctrine of the Incarnation?

I remain puzzled at the people here who criticise things they have never read and don't understand. I guess the really can be 'only one' for you - but how can you be sure it is not the one who stares out from your mirror?

peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic I have the support of many who have come before us and done all the work of proving. I can provide links such as the writings from 400AD and earlier. That is proof enough to leave my statement as it stands.

INSTEAD you prove that the Assumption of Mary is a lie or withdraw your statement. That, sir, is the appropriate action needed here.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6712549&page=20
The Assumption Of The Blessed Virgin

 

[Anglian]

If the Theotokos cannot stop Beamishboy derailing this thread with his mother-fixation, I wonder if an appeal to the 'Beamishtokos' might work?



Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

if again I may ask: what is the typical Anglican way of including the body (an aspect of the whole being) in worship ? For example, do you make the sign of the cross, do great or small prostrations, genuflect etc ...

Sign of the cross is made to ourselves, not a statue. It's for us to remember our baptism. You genuflect to God.

Just as we bow to Jesus whenever we say the Creed and we come to the part on Jesus. We altar boys do that. My vicar says that is to remind us that Jesus is God. There was a time when some people didn't believe Jesus to be God so when we bow, people will know that we are bowing to Jesus as God. That's OK of course. That's more than OK. It's not a bow to a statue or picture. It's a confession that Jesus is God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If the Theotokos cannot stop Beamishboy derailing this thread with his mother-fixation, I wonder if an appeal to the 'Beamishtokos' might work?



Anglian

There does appear to be a fixation/obsession with the mary on this thread for some reason

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There is a 59 page thread on that topic

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7145764&page=59
Was Mary venerated by the Apostles?

Great thread!

We could incorporate much from there, over here.

 

[Anglian]

It's not a bow to a statue or picture. It's a confession that Jesus is God.

Which is exactly what Orthodox and Catholics have been telling you they do.

Stop smashing statues, take the tablets and understand that what you say here is what some extreme Protestants would call 'worship'. They'd be as wrong about you are you are about those you so freely criticise.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Sign of the cross is made to ourselves, not a statue. It's for us to remember our baptism. You genuflect to God.

Just as we bow to Jesus whenever we say the Creed and we come to the part on Jesus. We altar boys do that. My vicar says that is to remind us that Jesus is God. There was a time when some people didn't believe Jesus to be God so when we bow, people will know that we are bowing to Jesus as God. That's OK of course. That's more than OK. It's not a bow to a statue or picture. It's a confession that Jesus is God.

who said we (OO, EO) make the sign of the cross to Mary

our worship involves the body a great deal; likewise our veneration involves the body but less so.

it seems your conclusions are drawn per our practice by wresting them out of context and misinterpreting them; this hardly bodes well for you if you choose for your future a career in foreign service

 

[Anglian]

Dear Thekla,

He clearly belongs to that school of British diplomacy which believe that the way to deal with foreigners is to shout very loudly and tell them what you think they think.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Preposterous! The onus is on the person who claims something has been practised since apostolic times to prove it. How can you come up with a practice and ask the other chap to prove that it is not something practised by the apostles? Check with any lawyer. You assert something comes from the apostles, you prove it.

At best, you can come up with copies of copies of copies of documents purportedly written in 400 AD. You can't go all the way to the apostles. The only writings that are available from the apostles are in the NT and it does not even have the slightest whisper of Mary's name apart from instances when it can't be helped. The epistles are totally silent about her. So please don't attribute to the apostles the veneration of someone they didn't even care to write about.

The proofs are there. And many proofs they are. The site has many threads which support the veneration of Mary and which LLoJ has already posted a link.

I suggest that Beamishboy do some further reading on this topic since there seems to much Beamishboy is unaware of.

I am also interested in the Anglican church and it's view on this since we have seen where the Anglican church gives Mary a special honor too.