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

[Thekla]

Beamishboy - do you know the theology behind the statements ?

for example, the phrase "higher than the angels" refers to the creation of humans as including both the physical and noetic creation; we "summarize" all of creation. It is for this reason that we are called "priests" -- it is the role of the priest to praise and offer all things back to God in thanks. In this sense, following Christ who is King of the angels, in completion in Him we also become "higher than the angels". The hymn that you cite summarizes the goal or skopos of Christian life - it finds in the Theotokos a model of the Christian calling.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

In so far as your views on the Blessed Theotokos are not tied into some problems with the Catholics, your main difficulty is an inability to distinguish between veneration and worship; we have been through this many times elsewhere, and you refuse, as you have with me, to accept what others tell you they hold, insisting you know better than they do themselves. Why, in that case, you should expect anyone to believe what you say about what you hold is a question none of us can answer.

At the risk of once more reviving your mother-fixation and your Roman fever, let me make a final attempt to delineate for you exactly why my Church holds and why.

We start with what it says in my signature. She is to be called blessed. So we would read, in contradiction to the infallible reading of the Beamishboy, Luke 1:48-49 thusly:

"...behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name." (Lk 1:48-49)

This is what it says in the Bible approved for public usage by your own Church, and it is in line with the way all the ECFs, the Liturgy and the Councils have interpreted this. Your own view comes from your desire to assert you know better; well, if you think you do, then you do, of course.



Our Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, venerates St. Mary more than any other personalities in the Bible, because God took flesh from her. Therefore, she became like a second heaven or a dwelling place for God. Now this, you will understand is allegorical and figurative language, so remain calm

Let us now take 'Theotokos'. This, as you know well, is a Greek word composed of two syllables: 'Theo' meaning 'God', and 'tokos' meaning 'bearer'; that is, 'she who bore God in her womb'. This theological term has its origins in the Bible, in the following places:

•The archangel Gabriel announced to St. Mary saying, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35).•Elizabeth said to St. Mary, "But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Lk 1:43).•Isaiah prophesied concerning St. Mary and said "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Emmanuel." (Is 7:14 and Mt 1:23).

You have never addressed my point about your own, understandably, juvenile error in assuming that the word 'happy' could be applied to a young virgin in 1st century Palestine who had conceived a child outside of marriage.

But it is a puerile comment. That young girl knew she was facing possible ostracisation. A young, unmarried teenager, pregnant by one not her betrothed is seldom, in life outside your castle, described as 'happy'; one in that Jewish society faced a real possibility of being 'put away' by her betrothed, and living a life of shame and marginalisation. To suppose that in such a situation, 'happiness' was the first thought in her head simply demonstrates your age.

We admire, venerate, honour her, because she underwent such a trial in obedience to God. We do so because she stood by, unquestioning to God's will when her beloved son suffered a horrible death reserved for the lowest criminal. You make a great deal of fuss about two very unpleasant things that happened to you, and you vent your bile on those who feel were in some way responsible. She suffered far worse things and accepted God's will.

If you, unlike the whole Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Lutheran Church and parts of your own Church, wish not to venerate her, and if you continue to confuse veneration with worship, then it is your business; but do take it to the proper forum - unless, that is, you are going to discuss what the ECFs have to say about the Blessed Theotokos - you know, those same ECFs who helped establish the canon of Scripture which you do accept.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Gwendolyn]

BB, do you see my posts when I post here? You've kind of been ignoring my comments in this thread...

Mary is not the mother of the Eternal God; He is the Alpha and the Omega. But inasmuch as JESUS IS GOD, Mary is the mother of God. Mary = Mother of Jesus = God = Mother of God. To deny that she is the mother of God is to deny that Jesus Himself is God, which is a very, very grave error.

The title isn't meant to elevate Mary. It is meant to emphasise the importance of the fact that Jesus is truly God and truly Man.

 

[beamishboy]

BB, do you see my posts when I post here? You've kind of been ignoring my comments in this thread...

Mary is not the mother of the Eternal God; He is the Alpha and the Omega. But inasmuch as JESUS IS GOD, Mary is the mother of God. Mary = Mother of Jesus = God = Mother of God. To deny that she is the mother of God is to deny that Jesus Himself is God, which is a very, very grave error.

The title isn't meant to elevate Mary. It is meant to emphasise the importance of the fact that Jesus is truly God and truly Man.

Hi Veritas,

Sorry if I appear to have ignored you. It's not intended. I'll answer you now.

Although you say calling Mary the Mother of God is not meant to elevate her, we Protestants have seen her elevated before our very eyes. Naturally, we are very wary of anything that non-Protestants come up with concerning Mary. We look upon the whole thing as if non-Protestants have a weakness when it comes to Mary.

But calling her Mother of God does have the effect of elevating her. For example if I am a grocer who served Jesus' family in Bethlehem, it's one thing to call me Jesus' grocer but it's another to call me God's grocer. You see my point?

Let's say I'm an undertaker (you guys call it mortician). I'm the chap who embalmed Jesus. I can say, yes, I was Jesus' embalmer or mortician after the crucifixion. But if I call myself God's mortician, it becomes mildly blasphemous. Do you know what I mean.

But we don't deny that Jesus is 100% God, or as the creed tells us, He is very God. But we still would not call Mary the Mother of God. You may not agree but it's very clear to me Mary has been elevated beyond what is biblically right (IMO) and calling her Mother of God does not reduce that elevation.

 

[Secundulus]

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

​

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
​

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).
​

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. ​

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

 

[Secundulus]

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13

"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

 

[Secundulus]

The Protestants don't follow the original reformers in their beliefs on Mary. They don't follow the beliefs of the Apostolic Church. They don't follow the beliefs of the reformers. Whose beliefs are they following? Do they just make things up as they go along?

Surely the Holy Spirit is not confused and did not change his mind. If they believe Luther is wrong on this then how can there be any confidence that he was right about anything else?

 

[Rick Otto]

BB, do you see my posts when I post here? You've kind of been ignoring my comments in this thread...

Mary is not the mother of the Eternal God; He is the Alpha and the Omega. But inasmuch as JESUS IS GOD, Mary is the mother of God. Mary = Mother of Jesus = God = Mother of God. To deny that she is the mother of God is to deny that Jesus Himself is God, which is a very, very grave error.

The title isn't meant to elevate Mary. It is meant to emphasise the importance of the fact that Jesus is truly God and truly Man.

I don't like feeling ignored either, so I'll disagree with you as well. (lol)
The Law of Unintended Consequences is being ignored here, I think.
Jesus is God is an entirely different theological proposition than to say God is Mary's Son. To say Jesus is Mary's son is not the same thing. We agree that Jesus was human as well as divine, and we agree that God always existed, so maybe you can see how the unintended consequence of assigning divine power to Mary is a predictable result of calling her God's mother?
And not to simply pound on you, but your mathmatical notation reads (however unintentionaly) that Mary = God.
Maybe this:
God (X) = Jesus(Y)
therefore
The Mother of Y = The Mother of X
But even then there is an implicit difference between X&Y even tho they are equal, else why the different names.
"Know'm sayin'?"

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Secundulus;The Protestants don't follow the original reformers in their beliefs on Mary. They don't follow the beliefs of the Apostolic Church. They don't follow the beliefs of the reformers. Whose beliefs are they following? Do they just make things up as they go along?

Some do.
Some just follow Jesus.

Surely the Holy Spirit is not confused and did not change his mind.

You're confidence is inspiring.

If they believe Luther is wrong on this then how can there be any confidence that he was right about anything else?

If he ate peas with a knife, do we have to do that to?

 

[beamishboy]

The Protestants don't follow the original reformers in their beliefs on Mary. They don't follow the beliefs of the Apostolic Church. They don't follow the beliefs of the reformers. Whose beliefs are they following? Do they just make things up as they go along?

Surely the Holy Spirit is not confused and did not change his mind. If they believe Luther is wrong on this then how can there be any confidence that he was right about anything else?

It amazes me that you guys find it so hard to accept that we don't follow men at all. Luther was wrong in bits, right in bits, like all men. We just follow the infallible Word of God. Is that so hard?

You'll have a better picture if you look at some of our arguments in this thread. I'm only a boy but look how closely I stick to the word of God in my posts in the thread:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268596&page=3

 

[Secundulus]

We just follow the infallible Word of God. Is that so hard?

If this is so, why do most Protestants reject Jesus saying, this is my body, this is my blood. Do they really follow the scriptures or do they follow the traditions of Zwingli.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You write:

we Protestants have seen her elevated before our very eyes. Naturally, we are very wary of anything that non-Protestants come up with concerning MaryWe look upon the whole thing as if non-Protestants have a weakness when it comes to Mary ... We just follow the infallible Word of God.

Who, exactly, does this 'we' consist of?

As Secundulus shows, it does not include the founders of the reform movement; neither does it include your own Church, since many of its clergy also venerate St. Mary.

So, the Orthodox Church; the Catholic Church; parts of the Anglican Church (including your archbishop), Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, all these are wrong and do not follow the infallible word ... of whom? Beamishboy or God, and do you know the difference?

Your claim that your faction of one Church is the only one following the Infallible word of God, and that the rest of us are wrong is founded upon exactly what? Nothing but your own reading of the Scriptures.

I have asked before, and shall again: for us, Holy Tradition provides a balance against the natural errors of our sinful nature, and an assurance that we are not simply reading from Scripture what we wish; what assurance can you offer that your reading is not just that of your own sinful nature?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

If this is so, why do most Protestants reject Jesus saying, this is my body, this is my blood. Do they really follow the scriptures or do they follow the traditions of Zwingli.

The same reason why RCs and Orthodox don't eat the vine, the gate, etc just because Jesus says "I am the vine," and "I am the gate".

No, we don't follow traditions whether of Zwingli or anybody else.

 

[Rick Otto]

If this is so, why do most Protestants reject Jesus saying, this is my body, this is my blood. Do they really follow the scriptures or do they follow the traditions of Zwingli.

Who can speak for most Protestants? Maybe you should ask them.
Being able to identify metaphor isn't rejection.
Why are you so acerbic? Did you have a bad expereience with a Protestant?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If this is so, why do most Protestants reject Jesus saying, this is my body, this is my blood. Do they really follow the scriptures or do they follow the traditions of Zwingli.

Greeting S.
How come you aren't Catholic or Orthodox if you agree with all their traditions and doctrines?

John 18:15 Followed yet to the Jesus, Simon Peter and the other disciple, the yet disciple was known to the Chief-priest and he together-came to the Jesus into the court/aulhn <833> of the Chief-priest,

Reve 11:2 and the court/aulhn <833>, the-one with-out of-the Sanctuary, be Casting-Out out-side, and not her you should be measuring, that she was given to the nations.

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

 

[Rick Otto]

Who, exactly, does this 'we' consist of?

How 'bout me & the boy? Is that enough "we" for ya, Ang?
...do you know the difference?

Dude, that is rude.
It is possible to disagree without slapping faces.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How 'bout me & the boy? Is that enough "we" for ya, Ang?
...do you know the difference?

Dude, that is rude.
It is possible to disagree without slapping faces.

That is what was presumed when I brought up this thread and one on whether they are also considered a Denomination of which I concur with.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7021264&page=6
Question. Can Orthodox also be considered Protestants?

 

[Secundulus]

Greeting S.
How come you aren't Catholic or Orthodox if you agree with all their traditions and doctrines?

I think I have explained this before. If all works out, the entire Traditional Anglican Communion will be in communion with Rome by the end of this year. (Don't hold me to that timeline)

I agree with everything that is in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church just as every one of our Bishops also agrees.

 

[Rick Otto]

your main difficulty is an inability to distinguish between veneration and worship;

Au contraire, mon frer. Your "main difficulty" is that you can't admit they are one & the same with differences of degree that are based on subjective intent of the worshipper as anyone who can google "worship" in the Catholic Encyclopedia which will elucidate the latria/dulia distinction & even offer another distinction (such is the sophistication of Latin) "hyper-dulia" reservered for you Mary worshippers.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think I have explained this before. If all works out, the entire Traditional Anglican Communion will be in communion with Rome by the end of this year. (Don't hold me to that timeline)

I agree with everything that is in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church just as every one of our Bishops also agrees.

Greetings. Then you will make a fine Catholic