-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?
- Thread starter simonthezealot
- Start date
- Status
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
Do you mean me, Montalban? Not only do you take liberty with my name, you offer examples of your selective memory.
Considering I asked you a number of times I find your post ridiculous. I asked about whether Mary was actually blessed, at all, and if carrying a child-Jesus is ordinary. I have asked this of you a number of times. I raised it a number of times before you got around to making that post, and I have since asked you again in post #1011. It took you days to get around to making any response in regards to the 'ordinariness' of Mary being the only person to bear Jesus. And even then your response didn't address that issue.
You replied to post #860, not #859. In that post of yours you claim I was too afraid to repeat my question when in fact I had in #859 WHICH YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO, which is what I've said you've done. Which you have done. Which you deny doing.
I had mentioned my question previously in post #840, and that you ignore it, and you ignored it!
In post #753 you repeated that there was nothing extraordinary about Mary
In post #722 you repeat where I'd accused you of not answering me. You claim in post #725 (in reply to #719) that I hadn't asked the question before. In fact I'd asked it before in post #682, #680, & earlier in #645. In post #685 you ignored the question about whether she'd done anything 'special'.
Did you attempt to answer it then? You made a 'just-so' statement that she hadn't done anything ordinary. I suppose your flippant response was an answer... ignoring she had given birth to God! She'd raised God. Sure God had used her, but did he do so without her participation?
In that post I also asked about the marriagble age, given that there's no prohibition specific to marrying a 10 year old, it must be, based on your sola-scriptura post, up to the individual to decide.
You're being dishonest. I asked you in a number of posts.
You have advertised here you have no desire for honest debate. The amount of times you have straw-manned people shows this (see my post #643, and your post #631 which was one of a series of yours straw-manning the Orthodox stance to Marian belief)... or more recently where you suggest the Anglican church holds to some beliefs because they are pro-Roman
You've not shown why your translation is more valid.
You've not dealt with sola-scriptura, other than to say that this basic doctrine of your faith is one you don't know much about.
My dear Monty,
Come on, cheer up. You sound as churlish as my grandpa. It's after all:
The beamishboy will ignore your nasty remarks and accusations. If you want the beamishboy to answer your questions, please give the questions directly. Make sure there is a question mark at the end of it. The beamishboy is not good at pulling out a question from a set of statements. I've experienced this before. People write a whole lot of statements and they claim the beamishboy does not answer them. How does one answer a statement that is not a question. So, give me a good old-fashioned question that has a question mark at the end of it and I'll give you an answer.
Please don't say at post #380 there was this question and at #957 there was a reply that was not right because at #1207 you had another question. It's easier to ask the question in your current post than search the thread for an old question.
The beamishboy is not upset that you denigrate one of his fans. His fans know him and his hospitality. The beamishboy believes in blessing even his non-fans so that they may be blessed/happy (but no veneration please).
Have a pleasant weekend, folksies!!!
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
BEAMISHBOY'S ANSWER TO MONTALBAN'S QUESTION
Now that you have a question with a question mark, the beamishboy will give you his answer. You must forgive the beamishboy if he is not good at deducing questions from a whole mess of statements. If it's a proper question, the beamishboy will answer fearlessly and in his usual knightly gallantry.
Giving birth to Jesus is of course extraordinary. If the beamishboy could appear at the scene where Mary has just given birth to Jesus and the beamishboy worships and prays to Jesus, that would be extraordinary too.
There are many extraordinary things. But they don't merit having idols of the person made, paraded round town, garlanded with flowers, knelt to, bowed to, prayed to, etc etc.
Upvote
0
Anglian
let us love one another, for love is of God
Dear Montalban,
To be fair, Beamishboy has effectively told us that he doesn't care what his own Church holds if it runs counter to his own eisegesis, so the rest of us can hardly complain when he takes a not dissimilar attitude to us.
He does provide an interesting example of why the Orthodox Church's use of Holy Tradition is essential, for only by reading the Holy Scriptures in the context out of which they emerged can real exegesis, and thus real spiritual growth, occur.
The illogic of accepting the book recognised and made canonical by the Church across the period from the Apostolic age to Nicaea, but rejecting the other evidences of the practices of that Church, speaks for itself. The same Fathers who recognised that even Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, which was, even then, thought by many not to be written by Paul himself, was nonetheless Apostolic; the same Fathers who recognised the same quality and the orthodoxy of the last two Johannine epistles, the second Petrine epistle and the epistles of St. James and St. Jude; and the same Fathers who rejected the various spurious Acta but recognised that Hermas, Barnabas and 1 Clement, were, though not Apostolic, worthy of reading for edification, these same Fathers also wrote movingly about the Blessed Theotokos.
Those with an obsession on this last issue (and I fear there are some protestants who appear to have such a thing) have, perforce, to perform an act of mental legerdemain if they are to deny veneration. They have to argue that only what was in the Book before it was even recognised as a canon, that counts, not what was also being written which helped the Church to recognise it as the canon, nor yet any of the liturgies from the early Church.
Then, when confronted with the passage from St. Luke in my signature as the evidence for why we called the Theotokos 'blessed', they cite another passage which, whilst saying it does not contradict the earlier passage, in some way in their mind nonetheless cancels it out. It is not a very edifying performance to watch, not least since it involves effectively claiming that their own personal, private revelation counts for more than that of any other Christian, alive or in repose.
The evidence in the early Church Fathers that St. Mary was venerated is overwhelming. The evidence that the ECFs helped protect us from wrong beliefs on the Trinity and the Incarnation, and that the Cyrilline explanation of the necessity of the use of the title 'Theotokos' to guard against a Nestorian understanding, is all overwhelming. But as we have seen, so often protestant knowledge stops with the death of St. John, and apart from a misunderstanding of the role of St. Constantine(which is always amusing to read), they appear to know little, except some anti-Roman Catholic stuff, until their own upheaval which they, self-admiringly, call a reformation.
There are, I know, many Anglicans and many Lutherans (and I am sure others from the reformed churches of the Faith) who venerate the Blessed Theotokos. I recommended, many moons ago, an excellent little book on Icons of the Virgin by his own archbishop to the Beamishboy, but since it does not accord with his way of thinking, he has never read it. Martin Luther, Calvin and John Wesley, all wrote stoutly in defence of the tradition of St. Mary's perpetual virginity.
Those (and Wesley was certainly one, as were Luther and Calvin) steeped in the works of the Fathers, even when they have disagreed with the path taken by the Western Church and felt the need to part from it, have respected the traditions associated with St, Mary.
Those who take another view would seem to be part of a modern western mindset in which tradition must, per se, be dead and therefore discardable, and in which the only right canon is that one's own intellect supplies. Since we are all sinners, we can none of us be surprised that relying upon our own efforts so often produces what it does by way of misreading, misunderstanding and pride.
It may be, as is claimed from time to time, that the personal interpretation is from the Holy Spirit, but since that claim is so often accompanied by the refusal to accept the same claim when advanced by others, there seems little reason any of us should be much troubled by it.
Given how little any of our interlocutors here know about the Orthodox Church, and how much some of them have honed their polemic against Catholicism, it occasions no surprise they sometimes lump us together. I'm still waiting for the Beamishboy to retract the charge he made many posts ago that what I wrote about veneration in the Orthodox tradition was concealing the truth.
We hear much from him about the faults of others, but he is young. Like some in his Church, he thinks his type of Churchmanship is the only correct one; fortunately he has an archbishop who is wiser and whose Christian charity and love seem to be helping that troubled Church, bringing people together through love, rather than driving them out by claiming they shouldn't be there in the first place.
But then Dr. Williams is a man steeped in the Fathers, who has written excellent books about the Arian controversy, and whose Christian praxis does not involve swinging swords about or threatening to smash statues.
I was recently in a beautiful English Church in the Suffolk countryside, where even the burial effigies had been vandalised by English iconoclasts in the sixteenth century; a sad example of the lengths to which some have gone, and will go, to impose their view of the Faith on others.
We escape with but glancing blows, and should remember that there are more Anglicans like Dr. Williams than there are who side with the Beamishboy, whose vicar, after all, seems to be telling him that Anglo-Catholics were planted in his Church by the devil.
I feel we should be patient with the Beamishboy. He is a very intelligent young man, but like many such at his age, overly prideful of his own prowess (which is considerable in any case) and reluctant ever to admit error (a fault hardly confined to him); his personal experiences have, with a push here and there from his vicar, left him with an abiding hatred for the Roman Church; I pray that he will realise that even he should obey Our Lord's injunctions about loving your enemies.
When he does that, he will truly be following the book he reads. When he reads the ECFs he will see how much we all owe to them.
Peace,
Anglian
To be fair, Beamishboy has effectively told us that he doesn't care what his own Church holds if it runs counter to his own eisegesis, so the rest of us can hardly complain when he takes a not dissimilar attitude to us.
He does provide an interesting example of why the Orthodox Church's use of Holy Tradition is essential, for only by reading the Holy Scriptures in the context out of which they emerged can real exegesis, and thus real spiritual growth, occur.
The illogic of accepting the book recognised and made canonical by the Church across the period from the Apostolic age to Nicaea, but rejecting the other evidences of the practices of that Church, speaks for itself. The same Fathers who recognised that even Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, which was, even then, thought by many not to be written by Paul himself, was nonetheless Apostolic; the same Fathers who recognised the same quality and the orthodoxy of the last two Johannine epistles, the second Petrine epistle and the epistles of St. James and St. Jude; and the same Fathers who rejected the various spurious Acta but recognised that Hermas, Barnabas and 1 Clement, were, though not Apostolic, worthy of reading for edification, these same Fathers also wrote movingly about the Blessed Theotokos.
Those with an obsession on this last issue (and I fear there are some protestants who appear to have such a thing) have, perforce, to perform an act of mental legerdemain if they are to deny veneration. They have to argue that only what was in the Book before it was even recognised as a canon, that counts, not what was also being written which helped the Church to recognise it as the canon, nor yet any of the liturgies from the early Church.
Then, when confronted with the passage from St. Luke in my signature as the evidence for why we called the Theotokos 'blessed', they cite another passage which, whilst saying it does not contradict the earlier passage, in some way in their mind nonetheless cancels it out. It is not a very edifying performance to watch, not least since it involves effectively claiming that their own personal, private revelation counts for more than that of any other Christian, alive or in repose.
The evidence in the early Church Fathers that St. Mary was venerated is overwhelming. The evidence that the ECFs helped protect us from wrong beliefs on the Trinity and the Incarnation, and that the Cyrilline explanation of the necessity of the use of the title 'Theotokos' to guard against a Nestorian understanding, is all overwhelming. But as we have seen, so often protestant knowledge stops with the death of St. John, and apart from a misunderstanding of the role of St. Constantine(which is always amusing to read), they appear to know little, except some anti-Roman Catholic stuff, until their own upheaval which they, self-admiringly, call a reformation.
There are, I know, many Anglicans and many Lutherans (and I am sure others from the reformed churches of the Faith) who venerate the Blessed Theotokos. I recommended, many moons ago, an excellent little book on Icons of the Virgin by his own archbishop to the Beamishboy, but since it does not accord with his way of thinking, he has never read it. Martin Luther, Calvin and John Wesley, all wrote stoutly in defence of the tradition of St. Mary's perpetual virginity.
Those (and Wesley was certainly one, as were Luther and Calvin) steeped in the works of the Fathers, even when they have disagreed with the path taken by the Western Church and felt the need to part from it, have respected the traditions associated with St, Mary.
Those who take another view would seem to be part of a modern western mindset in which tradition must, per se, be dead and therefore discardable, and in which the only right canon is that one's own intellect supplies. Since we are all sinners, we can none of us be surprised that relying upon our own efforts so often produces what it does by way of misreading, misunderstanding and pride.
It may be, as is claimed from time to time, that the personal interpretation is from the Holy Spirit, but since that claim is so often accompanied by the refusal to accept the same claim when advanced by others, there seems little reason any of us should be much troubled by it.
Given how little any of our interlocutors here know about the Orthodox Church, and how much some of them have honed their polemic against Catholicism, it occasions no surprise they sometimes lump us together. I'm still waiting for the Beamishboy to retract the charge he made many posts ago that what I wrote about veneration in the Orthodox tradition was concealing the truth.
We hear much from him about the faults of others, but he is young. Like some in his Church, he thinks his type of Churchmanship is the only correct one; fortunately he has an archbishop who is wiser and whose Christian charity and love seem to be helping that troubled Church, bringing people together through love, rather than driving them out by claiming they shouldn't be there in the first place.
But then Dr. Williams is a man steeped in the Fathers, who has written excellent books about the Arian controversy, and whose Christian praxis does not involve swinging swords about or threatening to smash statues.
I was recently in a beautiful English Church in the Suffolk countryside, where even the burial effigies had been vandalised by English iconoclasts in the sixteenth century; a sad example of the lengths to which some have gone, and will go, to impose their view of the Faith on others.
We escape with but glancing blows, and should remember that there are more Anglicans like Dr. Williams than there are who side with the Beamishboy, whose vicar, after all, seems to be telling him that Anglo-Catholics were planted in his Church by the devil.
I feel we should be patient with the Beamishboy. He is a very intelligent young man, but like many such at his age, overly prideful of his own prowess (which is considerable in any case) and reluctant ever to admit error (a fault hardly confined to him); his personal experiences have, with a push here and there from his vicar, left him with an abiding hatred for the Roman Church; I pray that he will realise that even he should obey Our Lord's injunctions about loving your enemies.
When he does that, he will truly be following the book he reads. When he reads the ECFs he will see how much we all owe to them.
Peace,
Anglian
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
As I say, you're dishonest. I point out where you ignored my question, as you challenged me to do. And you still won't admit your wrong. And then you have the temrity to 'invite' me to ask you questions.
You feel the need to advertise yourself this way, that's up to you.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
That's you wishing to continue your dishonesty in the face of the evidence I've cited.
No other woman on earth has ever done this. She will be called blessed throughout the ages because of this.
Sorry that you now have to heap straw-man onto your errors. We don't make idols to Mary. We make icons. We make icons BECAUSE people are special.
I suppose that if you support a football team you won't wear the colours of that team for fear of being accused of idolatory. You'd accuse people with posters of rock/sport stars on their walls as idolators.
Actually, of course you wouldn't. Even you aren't that stupid. And yet you condemn people who have icons of far greater persons than rock stars and sports persons. You condemn them as worshipping the icons - as a person worships idols. How very interesting at 13 you are able to recontstruct Orthodox veneration into this.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
Yes, for days Beamishboy has been giving us this verse to 'cancel-out' the other and then to happily declare that they don't contradict.
One clearly says "blessed througout the ages" and, if we accept his interpretation of the other, it says not to call her blessed.
But then added to his mess is that he changes 'blessed' to 'happy'. So he can't even make up his mind what it in fact says, because if it says "They will call me happy, throughout the ages", then his other Lucan verse doesn't have anything to do with it.
But then Beamishboy is now taken to talking about himself in third person. How one can be so confused and so young is truly amazing.
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
My dear Anglian,
The beamishboy is 13 years 7 months old in chronological age but in maturity, he is 30 years old. I have evidence of this from the many posts in which people declare I'm older than my age. I have all these posts in pdf format.
When you talk about my experiences, I think you are referring to my 10-year-old friend who was molested by an RC priest and when he complained, he was persecuted by the entire church, after which they sent the priest to South America and they continued to persecute him until he died - many of us believe he killed himself. Of course this area is of great concern to me and if you think the current pope is different, please read what the guardian has to say about the current pope's guidelines to cover up paedophile cases by priests: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
But my stand against the RC church is purely theological. Marian veneration is against biblical teachings, whether it's the OT or NT. If at all there is such a drastic change in this taboo area in the Jewish religion, it would have been explained in the Bible the way we are told in the NT that we are not bound by kosher food, or the law on circumcision, etc. Marian veneration does not really mean saying with Luke that she was blessed when she bore Jesus. Really, Anglian, I cannot believe that's all there is to it.
Of course I do have a strong distaste for the RC church after what happened to my friend and it's not appeased by the pope's belief in protecting only his priests as can be seen in that article. But I'm able to divorce the veneration of Mary from the wrongs of the RC church with respect to young children whom their priests abuse.
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
My dear Monty,
Therein lies your ignorance of what the word "blessed" means. As I have explained in my earlier post which you have obviously missed, there are two words in Greek which are similarly translated "blessed" in English. When Mary says "All generations shall call me blessed..", she used a different word from what was used by Elizabeth earlier. Mary used the word "makariso" (as I've said earlier, my omicron will look like omega and epsilon like eta because it's too troublesome to go into the greek alphabet). In the Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, "makariso" is given the meaning of "to call or consider blessed, happy, fortunate".
I believe it's men who for centuries after the apostles, slowly engineer and doctor the word "blessed" to acquire a different meaning. It's become a word with a loaded meaning which it did not bear in the original Greek in the time of the NT.
It's not only now that the beamishboy talks about himself in this manner. You don't have to treat it like it's such a phenomenon. All my friends do it. It's more for fun and to build a character for ourselves that can do all kinds of things. Everyone does it. Only those who are really grumpy and irascible object to something so innocuous as the beamishboy talking about himself, his horse, his sword and his Castle.
Even you are invited to the beamishboy's Castle of Truth. I won't toss you into the shark-infested moat. I'll be truly hospitable. Hehe.
Upvote
0
M
MamaZ
Guest
Well I can find through the written scriptures all I need to know.
For My Jesus is God indeed.. He is the Christ the messiah and came to earth as Prophecied about in the Scriptures. Mary is indeed the Christ bearer.. As was also prophecied about..
Upvote
0
M
MamaZ
Guest
Who said it wasn't? For this was prophecied about and the prophecy fulfilled.
God is Faithful to His word. God is a miracle worker His scripture is yea and amen.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
If you keep calling me this I will report you. You have no right taking liberties with my name.
So the word means to be considered blessed. Great.
As far as I can find makariso is a boy's name. It appears in Luke, but not where you wish it
μακάριος is the word you're after, but according to my concordance it is the similar word μακαρίζω (transliterated as makarizō
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold , from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed 3106 .
Which in the "outline of Biblical use" gives the meaning as to pronounce blessed
Given the context of the Angel calling her εὐλογέω and Elizabeth calling her εὐλογέω your change of emphasis to 'happy' is a novel thing, based as it is on you basing it on you.
And then, I have also noted that if it means 'happy' then your refutation where you cite Jesus' words later in Luke don't account for it. For he's not saying Don't call Mary "HAPPY". So you can't even support your own argument there, on top of the fact you invent him rebuking her, when he's talking to other people. You simply pile error onto error. And that's with you having him rebuke her for some thing that still remains only in your fantasy world.
Based on you believing it so.
The only time "Count me happy" comes up is in Jam 5:11
Luke 1:48
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed
New International Version
King James Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
New Century Version
Wycliffe New Testament
Today's New International Version
etc.
NOT HAPPY!
You talking about yourself like this in no way adds to the debate. It only adds to your aura of arrogance given the mulitude of versions that don't have your 'happy' interpretation. The fact you reject your own chuch is amazing - especially when you invent 'pro-Roman' reasons.
All you continue to do is offer your own opinion
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
Well I can find through the written scriptures all I need to know.
And so you go again. You have not shown where it says that all you need is in the Bible.
Upvote
0
Secundulus
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by beamishboy said:
Quite a novel philosophy. Solo Scriptura when one doesn't trust the scripture.
Upvote
0
Anglian
let us love one another, for love is of God
Dear Beamishboy,
When asked for evidence to support your insinuation that I am not telling you the truth about how the Orthodox practice the veneration of the Blessed Theotokos, you offer this:
If you have evidence for your assertion that I am not telling the truth, offer it, or behave as an honourable knight would, and apologise.
Your views are just that, your views. You offer in support of them nothing that you have not constructed in your own ingenious mind. For the Orthodox Holy Tradition is a living and dynamic whole, in which the Scriptures are read within the tradition which produced them and with the Fathers, the Saints and the Liturgies which all help ensure, as far as is possible in this world, that we do not err by simply listening to our own interpretation of the Bible; what is your guard against this temptation to pride?
Peace,
Anglian
When asked for evidence to support your insinuation that I am not telling you the truth about how the Orthodox practice the veneration of the Blessed Theotokos, you offer this:
Now this is going to come as something of a shock to you, but your opinion is not actually evidence as the rest of the world defines it.
If you have evidence for your assertion that I am not telling the truth, offer it, or behave as an honourable knight would, and apologise.
Your views are just that, your views. You offer in support of them nothing that you have not constructed in your own ingenious mind. For the Orthodox Holy Tradition is a living and dynamic whole, in which the Scriptures are read within the tradition which produced them and with the Fathers, the Saints and the Liturgies which all help ensure, as far as is possible in this world, that we do not err by simply listening to our own interpretation of the Bible; what is your guard against this temptation to pride?
Peace,
Anglian
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
My dear Anglian,
The beamishboy is never prideful and I'm more than happy to apologise if you were hurt by what I said. I've been told that old people are usually more easily hurt by things that are said even if a younger person had no intention of being hurtful.
Anyway, I really believe that you have left out some details of veneration not because you meant to mislead but it's just second nature to you - you're so used to the idea of veneration that you don't understand that the entire idea is repugnant to us. It's not merely saying that Mary was blessed because she bore Jesus - which was what you said - remember, you told me that I venerated Mary and naturally, that set me off.
Contrary to what some of you have said against the beamishboy (and I'm not stamping my feet and demanding an apology probably because I'm more mature than some people; hehe), I obtain my facts from real sources.
My knowledge of the Orthodox Church and its understanding of Mary and veneration comes from a man who has a huge white Santa Claus beard called Dmitri. Yes, my good Anglian, that's the guy I get my info from. Hehe. In case you think I made it all up, here is his picture:
According to Dmitri, to venerate Mary, we must understand the nature of Mary. First she is the mother of all Christians. With respect, my dear Anglian, I do not accept that at all.
Next, she is to be referred as "Theotokos" or "mother of God". Again, with respect, I reject that. I will confine myself to what the Bible calls her, namely, the mother of our Lord or Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Next, this is what he says of veneration:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
Again, I reject that. I know nothing about Mary being more glorious without compare...
He then talks about the consequences of denying Mary a part of the Christian life - it'll lead to rejection of the resurrection, etc. I deny Mary a part of my life but I wholly embrace the resurrection.
With that, he says we are required to believe in Mary's sinlessness, that she had no other children and that we are "to remember her part in the history of the salvation of mankind." I believe it is heresy to say Mary was sinless and I believe on authority of the scriptures that she had other children and I do not at all accept that she had any part to play in the history of our salvation just as I do not accept that Mary's mother had any part to play for giving birth to Mary in the first place.
Finally, the acceptance of Mary as intercessor is another important feature in a Mary venerator but I reject it.
My dear Anglian, if you still insist that I'm wrong and choose to call me a venerator of Mary just because I accept that she was blessed to bear Jesus and you still maintain that you have laid down before me all the ingredients of Mary veneration, then I urge you to ask your priest if I can be considered (as you did) a Mary venerator when I don't accept all those things mentioned above. I'm sure your priest will agree that you are wrong here.
Even though I don't accept that I was wrong in saying that veneration is more than merely accepting that Mary was blessed because she bore Jesus, I will still apologise for offending you. You have mistakenly thought that I meant you WILFULLY concealed information. Perhaps in my haste, I had forgotten to say "inadvertently left out" but it doesn't matter. The beamishboy can draw his sword if the need arises but if a much older man wants an apology, the beamishboy will not withhold it.
A good website of Orthodox view on veneration is in this link:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/dmitri_veneration_mary.htm
Upvote
0
M
MamaZ
Guest
where do the Apostles teach this though? For I praise God for being faithful to His word. For all glory and Praise is due only unto God who created men from the very dust of the earth.
Upvote
0
Anglian
let us love one another, for love is of God
Dear Beamishboy,
Why you cite an Eastern Orthodox source for what my Church teaches, only you can know. That would be like me citing a Catholic source for what Anglicans believe; you are odd sometimes, you know.
You are so used to the Roman fever that you treat one Orthodox bishop as though he were the Pope. We don't hold with infallibility, and no Orthodox bishop speaks for other Orthodox - especially those they are not in communion with.
Perhaps you are a closet Nestorian, for you seem to espouse a Christology close to his heresy? Look into these things and you will realise the wisdom of the Church in guarding against false teaching.
The site you get your information from is a slightly odd one run by an Anglican convert to Orthodoxy, and it does not speak for me or my Church.
If you are sure you are right, so be it, but some engagement with what has been posted about the development of the doctrine of the Theotokos would be a welcome change from a reassertion of your own views - and attributions to me of views my Church does not hold.
Peace,
Anglian
Why you cite an Eastern Orthodox source for what my Church teaches, only you can know. That would be like me citing a Catholic source for what Anglicans believe; you are odd sometimes, you know.
You are so used to the Roman fever that you treat one Orthodox bishop as though he were the Pope. We don't hold with infallibility, and no Orthodox bishop speaks for other Orthodox - especially those they are not in communion with.
Who are the 'we' here? Clearly not all your fellow Anglicans to judge by Walsingham; do you just mean those with the mother-fixation? Why should 'we' be concerned with what you find repugnant? We are doing what countless generations have done; if you have a problem, get over it.
If your Church accepts the teaching of the third Council at Ephesus, as I understand it does, it accept the title of Theotokos for the reasons given many times; you have not engaged with those reasons, but they have been explained. Your rejection of them marks you off from the teaching of your own Church; again, that is your problem.
Perhaps you are a closet Nestorian, for you seem to espouse a Christology close to his heresy? Look into these things and you will realise the wisdom of the Church in guarding against false teaching.
The site you get your information from is a slightly odd one run by an Anglican convert to Orthodoxy, and it does not speak for me or my Church.
If you are sure you are right, so be it, but some engagement with what has been posted about the development of the doctrine of the Theotokos would be a welcome change from a reassertion of your own views - and attributions to me of views my Church does not hold.
Peace,
Anglian
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
