Hymns like this?

[Gxg (G²)]

That's neat the way you changed the subject there from what some individuals might have said to what a council found...and from the lyrics in this hymn to something much more benign, like Mary being the Mother of God which I not only didn't mention but don't have any problem with.

That's a false statement on your part unfortunately - seeing that the focus that other Orthodox on the thread have pointed out was ALWAYS within the Group - what the Church said on the matter. The Hymn from the original post is not discussed in terms of what some individuals might have said. It is discussed in regards to what the Church has said - with the early church repeatedly celebrating Mary, asking her for prayers and noting much of the same things that the hymn in the original post said.

And in regards to anyone else wondering on the history of the Church in the matter, one can investigate the following:

• Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us - Ancient Faith Radio

• There’s Something About Mary | Orthocath

• Why Study Mary….the Mother of God? | Orthocath

Father Bishop, Epiphanius of Salamis (4th Century) already noted the following: "Let Mary be held in honor, but let the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit alone be worshiped; let no one worship Mary" (Panarion 3.2:7). And yet, this early bishop has no trouble asking the intercession of the Mother of God....and this was not isolated - more discussed in the following:

• The Veneration of the Virgin Mary in the Orthodox Church

• Why Evangelicals Need Mary | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

• The Protestant Theotokos and I | OrthoCuban

• Intercession and Invocation of the Saints (and the Theotokos) | OrthoCuban

• Why do we call her the Theotokos? | OrthoCuban

Regardless of how much it is skipped around, you have yet to deal with what the commentators of the Early Church councils and leaders in the Church said on the matter. The Hymns on the Theotokos was one that praised and celebrated Mary - also asking prayer for her and done at the same time as the councils discussing who she was - more at The oldest hymn to the Theotokos

 

[Noxot]

I find it better to honor such a humble woman such as mary by simply being as she was towards God. if I was mary I would want no one to say one thing about me and so I will treat her as I want to be treated. i don't get praising anyone for anything (other than God) unless it serves some kind of purpose in helping someone become closer to God. I may rejoice when others do good but I never did understand the whole religions stuff that so many people practice. mary is certainly not better than anyone else from my perspective. God does not love her any less than he loves all others. I understand about loving people who are full of virtues and they ought to be listened to over some random person that has authority just because he has some kind of title in his name. for me there is no purpose to anything unless God is the one giving it purpose. I don't believe in honoring someone just because its a tradition. I believe in actively loving people and rejoicing in their character because they loved God.

if all I say are hymns and I am not with the hymn then there is no point to sing it. if I don't mean what i sing and I try to justify it because that is what the church does then how could I possibly be worshiping God in spirit and in truth?

i have rejoiced and sung along with countless angels and saints and I prefer to sing along with them than to pat each other on the back. there is a fine line to draw and only a persons inner condition of their heart will justify or condemn them before God.

some people find it acceptable to praise mary in this certain kind of manner. I do not and so i don't. i'm not going to attach myself to every iota of a thing labeled as church, i only desire fellowship with those who love God as opposed to those who are only outwardly religious but inside are raving wolves. obviously mary loves God and she is a very good example just as paul and john and the prophets and saints all are. I love mary because God loves mary. thank God for her example and out of all women God picked her...... and anyone else who wishes to give birth to his Son.

 

[Albion]

That's a false statement on your part unfortunately - seeing that the focus that other Orthodox on the thread have pointed out was ALWAYS within the Group - what the Church said on the matter. The Hymn from the original post is not discussed in terms of what some individuals might have said. It is discussed in regards to what the Church has said - with the early church repeatedly celebrating Mary, asking her for prayers and noting much of the same things that the hymn in the original post said.

None of this addresses what I wrote, so I'll just let it pass.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

None of this addresses what I wrote, so I'll just let it pass.

Not really concerned with what you do or don't let pass since nothing of what you said was relevant to discussion, as you never addressed what other Orthodox or Catholics have said when it comes to the context of the hymn within the practices of the Early Church/Church history and the Councils that showed how Mary was to be seen - no Orthodox or Catholic person has spoken outside of that background when it comes to the hymn. And thus, if you're going to make accusations on what others mean or what the hymn is about, one needs to be consistent in dealing with the background people came from.

Till you actually deal with what the Early Church noted, you're in disconnection with the practices of the Early Church when it comes to speaking against the hymn from the OP. Simple as that - so as said before, deal with it rather than skipping past what was others said in favor of arguing against what they didn't advocate. Regardless of how much it is skipped around, you have yet to deal with what the commentators of the Early Church councils and leaders in the Church said on the matter. The Hymns on the Theotokos was one that praised and celebrated Mary - also asking prayer for her and done at the same time as the councils discussing who she was - more at The oldest hymn to the Theotokos and Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us - Ancient Faith Radio


Beyond that, there's nothing more to discuss.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not really concerned with what you do or don't let pass since nothing of what you said was relevant to discussion, as you never addressed what other Orthodox or Catholics have said when it comes to the context of the hymn within the practices of the Early Church/Church history and the Councils that showed how Mary was to be seen - no Orthodox or Catholic person has spoken outside of that background when it comes to the hymn. And thus, if you're going to make accusations on what others mean or what the hymn is about, one needs to be consistent in dealing with the background people came from.

Till you actually deal with what the Early Church noted, you're in disconnection with the practices of the Early Church when it comes to speaking against the hymn from the OP. Simple as that - so as said before, deal with it rather than skipping past what was others said in favor of arguing against what they didn't advocate. Regardless of how much it is skipped around, you have yet to deal with what the commentators of the Early Church councils and leaders in the Church said on the matter. The Hymns on the Theotokos was one that praised and celebrated Mary - also asking prayer for her and done at the same time as the councils discussing who she was - more at The oldest hymn to the Theotokos and Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us - Ancient Faith Radio


Beyond that, there's nothing more to discuss.

Nice! It is interesting to see how you have chosen to deadlock the conversation. It seems to me that you could succinctly address Albion's question without resorting to background information, as interesting as that information may be to you.

My question to you is do you trust Mary for your salvation?

 

[Albion]

Nice! It is interesting to see how you have chosen to deadlock the conversation. It seems to me that you could succinctly address Albion's question without resorting to background information, as interesting as that information may be to you.

My question to you is do you trust Mary for your salvation?

Yes, there was an attempt to sideline the discussion, but in a way he did answer the question by heaping up more evidence of where Catholics turn for the answers.

It's to other churchmen, especially the ones who, in the first five or so centuries did or said something that they can treat as definitive.

The idea that we might look to the word of God instead...well, that seems the furthest thing from our friend's mind, if we judge by his replies here. This doesn't mean he doesn't believe Scripture but it seems to say a lot about what he turns to with the most confidence--and thinks is such a winner that we'll have to agree too.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Nice! It is interesting to see how you have chosen to deadlock the conversation. It seems to me that you could succinctly address Albion's question without resorting to background information, as interesting as that information may be to you.

As it is, neither you nor Albion have in ANY way dealt with what the early Church - from the leaders to those who orchestrated the CHURCH councils - have already said on the issue. This is in addition to several false claims made on others (be it Orthodox or Catholic) claiming they are worshiping Mary because of supporting a hymn that attributes certain aspects to her - never mind that those same traits were said in multiple other hymns the Church condoned and NEVER saw as worship or her replacing God. You could easily have had a significant point if showing the history of the early Church (which CF itself is based on) by pointing out what others have said - but the only critique you gave was based on how you understand language today and why YOU are not guilty of sin. That's no different than what numerous folks have done on the UnOrthodox Forums in making their own theology.

If speaking on how Christ defined himself or how the scriptures were to be seen

As others have already said, you err every time you attempt to speak or claim things of others without actually dealing with the bottom line of how langauge was used in the early Church - in the same way people act foolishly in claiming the Apostles were in the place of God for being given power to forgive sins by Christ and said (John 20:21-22) even though it was said of Jesus "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21). But language Till you deal with that, you are skipping past the simple reality that neither of you are in line with the Church - and it's not really an issue for others to address since you chose to claim you knew more than them.

My question to you is do you trust Mary for your salvation?

Question already answered - and as said before, if you continue with the false claims, I would have to ask whether you know the consequences of bearing falsehood on others. Some of this has been discussed already in other places - noted in #193 when you asked the same silly question - and as others have said already:

Have you placed your faith in Mary to the point that you have asked her to grant you salvation?

Of course not. I feel that you're taking a simple wording concern and running with it to the point to where it sounds like we place Mary in the place of Jesus.

Do you - or do you not - trust the Church in what they already noted on Mary? Or are you trying to do your own thing?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, there was an attempt to sideline the discussion, but in a way he did answer the question by heaping up more evidence of where Catholics turn for the answer rs.

It's to other churchmen, especially the ones who, in the first five or so centuries did or said something that they can treat as definitive.

The idea that we might look to the word of God instead...well, that seems the furthest thing from our friend's mind, if we judge by his replies here. This doesn't mean he doesn't believe Scripture but it seems to say a lot about what he turns to with the most confidence--and thinks is such a winner that we'll have to agree too.

Another Diversion, unfortunately - as done earlier, seeing that Orthodox are NOT Catholics and even other Protestants have noted the issue. Just because you cannot give actual evidence for your answers based in what the Early Church (which Christianity developed from) said does not mean answers weren't given - you have again avoided showing where having hymns celebrating Mary or asking her for prayer (as the hymn in the OP was about) are in any way off according to the same Church that gave the Scriptures, Nicene Creed, Ecumenical Councils and everything else as the basis for being Orthodox.


You sideline addressing the issues every time you speak past that simple reality. Either one wishes to be in line with the Church - or they will continually pick & choose what parts they do or don't want to deal with.

And as said before, it is highly foolish speaking of looking to the Word of God when one already divorces themselves from the fact that God's Word did NOT evolve in a vaacum - nor was it ever separated from the people developing it who did the same practices you claim to not be in the Word. Your interpretation of the scriptures again goes counter to the Church who made/had the scriptures - if you actually love scripture, you'll love it within the context it was made in rather than doing it on your own terms. The replies by yourself thus far are a bit indicative of where one doesn't truly hold Scripture central since you already made several claims about Mary which were never based on what Scripture (or what believers did in the Middle East) actually did - and thus, we'll have to note that scripture really isn't the issue.

The issue is your own interpretation of Scripture not being dominant.

 

[Albion]

As it is, neither you nor Albion have in ANY way dealt with what the early Church - from the leaders to those who orchestrated the CHURCH councils - have already said on the issue.

First, the "those who orchestrated the CHURCH councils" were not alive until long after Christ's Ascension and the beginnings of the Church. Therefore, their testimony has a fairly low value when it comes to determining what's the Church's original attitude towards the Virgin as shown in prayer and song.

Second, you can't just generalize about this like most Catholics do. Find one ECF here and another there and something said in the second century and something else said at one point in the life of another person who lived centuries later than the first and...viola! Instant "Tradition." Sorry, no.

Third, we can "deal with" these churchmen if you'd like but we will not sweep under the rug a matter so important to the issue as the fact that you immediately turn to the words of a scattering of churchmen while the Word of God is conspicuously ignored. We will not be leveraged into using weak or invalid evidence to settle this is (if it were capable of being settled) while completely excluding that which we should, as Christians, turn to first of all.

But you know, I suspect, that the Scriptures do not support extreme venerations of any deceased human or attributing to the saints powers and authority that only God has.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

First, the "those who orchestrated the CHURCH councils" were not alive until long after Christ's Ascension and the beginnings of the Church. Therefore, their testimony has a fairly low value when it comes to determining what's the Church's original attitude towards the Virgin as shown in prayer and song.

Nothing in the comment has anything to do with what has actually been said of Church history - seeing that they did not have the scriptures either in the same way that we do TODAY...but of course, those things were developed in time alongside tradition. Even the FIRST century (had one actually dealt with history and what others said) noted where believers in the time of Christ already had no issue praying to others in asking for intercession - and the same goes with the Second century after Mary died.

You essentially argue in the same way others do in the UnOrthodox forum - but at least it's confirmed with the false claims.

Second, you can't just generalize about this like most Catholics do. Find one ECF here and another there and something said in the second century and something else said at one point in the life of another person who lived centuries later than the first and...viola! Instant "Tradition." Sorry, no.

Others already covered what the ECF already did on the matter - including the Liturgical practices of the 4th-6th century and earlier which showed the same dynamics. Moreover, trying to focus on Catholics is silly seeing that other Protestants have already noted the same reality and thus you're simply demonstrating where your own bias against Catholics is hindering from being objective in dealing with the facts.

Not my problem, of course. It's not even Anglican what you said and that's not a surprise, as your commentary goes counter to even what they claim on both tradition and the Church.

Third, we can "deal with" these churchmen if you'd like but we will not sweep under the rug a matter so important to the issue as the fact that you immediately turn to the words of a scattering of churchmen while the Word of God is conspicuously ignored. We will not be leveraged into using weak or invalid evidence to settle this is (if it were capable of being settled) while completely excluding that which we should, as Christians, turn to first of all.

But you know, I suspect, that the Scriptures do not support extreme venerations of any deceased human or attributing to the saints powers and authority that only God has.

Speaking in terms of "WE" is pointless, as you nor others represent everyone. Even if speaking from the perspective of where you claim connection (Anglican Communion), what you've said so far certainly doesn't reflect the Anglican Church fully on the issue since even THEY have spoken on the subject of veneration/asking prayers of Mary to NOT be wrong.

For reference:

• Unity Faith and Order - Dialogues - Anglican Roman Catholic ARCIC -Mary Grace and Hope in Christ

As said in Ask an Anglican: Something About Mary | The Conciliar Anglican (for brief excerpt):

The Catholic Revival that took place during the Oxford Movement helped to re-establish Marian piety within Anglicanism. Anglican spiritual manuals were produced containing the prayers of the Angelus and other similar Marian devotions. Groups like the Society of Mary were established. Pilgrimage to the Marian shrine at Walsingham became popular amongst Anglicans once again. Many Evangelicals and other Anglicans were scandalized by this, of course, worrying that the same Marian idolatry that they see in Rome might be coming home to nest in the supposedly Reformed Church of England. There is room for disagreement about whether or not any particular element of the Marian revival goes too far.

But on an official level, does adoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary contradict both Scripture and the Anglican formularies? Not necessarily. Certainly the idea of referring to Mary as “Co-Redemptrix” is beyond the pale, but what about a simple prayer like the Hail Mary which is mostly scriptural and which asks the Blessed Mother to pray to her Son on our behalf? As I have written elsewhere, there is a great difference between invocation of saints and advocation of saints. The former involves making a saint into a kind of demi-god who must be appeased in order for you to find your car keys, sell your house, cure your cancer, or whatever it is that a particular saint is supposed to specialize in. The latter, however, is nothing more than what Christians do every day when we ask our friends and loved ones to pray for us. No one should ever be forced to ask a saint to offer a prayer, and all our official collects for various feasts are written directly to God accordingly, but there is also no Biblical warrant to anathematize the same.

​

There are plenty of other Anglicans besides this throughout the Anglican Church noting the matter of where it was never unscriptural to celebrate Mary or have hymns to her.

Thus, the argument you made trying to pigeon-hole Catholics as the main ones doing it doesn't even work - and thus it seems rather obvious that you're on own in some regards. Moreover, claiming "weak or invalid evidence" is pointless when you've not even addressed what the Evidence is....or even dealt with several other hymns from that era, as well as addressed what the Church Fathers already said on the matter.

You speak on veneration - yet #195 (as well as #197 and #201 and #193 alongside #102
) was one place among many where you already addressed in noting the false claim that having supernatural abilities is not the same as saying one has the same abilities as God.

we can "deal with" these churchmen if you'd like but we will not sweep under the rug a matter so important to the issue as the fact that you immediately turn to the words of a scattering of churchmen while the Word of God is conspicuously ignored.

I repeat -you have done another diversion (as generally happens when you don't get your way) - Another Diversion, unfortunately - as done earlier, seeing that Orthodox are NOT Catholics and even other Protestants have noted the issue. Just because you cannot give actual evidence for your answers based in what the Early Church (which Christianity developed from) said does not mean answers weren't given - you have again avoided showing where having hymns celebrating Mary or asking her for prayer (as the hymn in the OP was about) are in any way off according to the same Church that gave the Scriptures, Nicene Creed, Ecumenical Councils and everything else as the basis for being Orthodox.


You sideline addressing the issues every time you speak past that simple reality. Either one wishes to be in line with the Church - or they will continually pick & choose what parts they do or don't want to deal with.

And as said before, it is highly foolish speaking of looking to the Word of God when one already divorces themselves from the fact that God's Word did NOT evolve in a vaacum - nor was it ever separated from the people developing it who did the same practices you claim to not be in the Word. As it is, the Word of God was already discussed earlier had one actually read. To speak past that is promote falsehood - as well as a lack of understanding that disagreeing with you in noting what the Church Fathers/Early Church said is not the same as disagreeing with Scripture - as it is, Scripture did not exist in a vacuum or come out of nowhere since the Early Church (the Fathers - including early Jewish Fathers in the first century ) also debated/helped to cannonize what was to be scripture - as noted best by Fr. James Bernstein in Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?


Your interpretation of the scriptures again goes counter to the Church who made/had the scriptures - if you actually love scripture, you'll love it within the context it was made in rather than doing it on your own terms. The replies by yourself thus far are a bit indicative of where one doesn't truly hold Scripture central since you already made several claims about Mary which were never based on what Scripture (or what believers did in the Middle East) actually did - and thus, we'll have to note that scripture really isn't the issue.

The issue is your own interpretation of Scripture not being dominant.

 

[Albion]

What are you trying for--that old "I'm rubber, you're glue..." thing that worked so well in the fifth grade?

We stand on the word of God in deciding if it's proper to engage in acts of devotion that mimic the worship of God and which attribute to saints the power and authority of God.

If you have an argument against that from Scripture, present it. Some scattered "he said...and he was a bishop" kind of argument from long after the start of the Christian era is no substitute for the Bible's guidance. It wouldn't carry the day even if we were discussing ordinary historical events.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What are you trying for--that old "I'm rubber, you're glue..." think that worked so well in the fifth grade.

We stand on the word of God in deciding if it's proper to engage in acts of devotion that mimic the worship of God and which attribute to saints the power and authority of God.

If you have an argument against that from Scripture, present it. Some scattered "he said...and he was a bishop" kind of argument from long after the start of the Christian era is no substitute for the Bible's guidance. It wouldn't carry the day even if we were discussing ordinary historical events.

Sarcasm generally tends to be weak response to actually dealing with facts when one cannot. As said before, harping on claiming one stands on the Word of God has ZERO to do with actually showing where you aligned yourself with the Word of God - or the people who made it...and thus far, you've again been divorced from how the same Church who made the scriptures interpreted them.

Thus, one can save the bravado - and actually start dealing with scripture. If not, then stop wasting people's time since it's not really a focus for you as much as being right. That happens enough in the Un Orthodox sections - and it's no surprise for it to happen here. Others already gave their responses based on scripture - and others already shared on the matter before. Thus, I don't really intend to do so again when you neither deal with it nor are concerned.

 

[Albion]

As said before, harping on claiming one stands on the Word of God has ZERO to do with actually showing where you aligned yourself with the Word of God - or the people who made it...and thus far, you've again been divorced from how the same Church who made the scriptures interpreted them.

I'm sorry, but denominational loyalty will never win out over the Word of God when it comes to doctrinal inquiries like this one. To say, in effect, "I'll go with what my church tells me" is a non-starter IMO. So long as you make that your #1 AND ONLY evidence about how we ought to approach God and/or the "saints" there really is no way to resolve things.

But you can always say that you dodged a bullet, debate wise, by not having to use the Bible to defend the practice that the thread pointed to, right?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm sorry, but denominational loyalty will never win out over the Word of God when it comes to doctrinal inquiries like this one. To say, in effect, "I'll go with what my church tells me" is a non-starter IMO. So long as you make that your #1 AND ONLY evidence about how we ought to approach God and/or the "saints" there really is no way to resolve things.

But you can always say that you dodged a bullet, debate wise, by not having to use the Bible to defend the practice that the thread pointed to, right?

As said before, You already divorced yourself from the Word of God the moment you ignored the tradition that God's Word developed in. If one already avoids evidence as it concerns the Word/Scripture, they have little basis speaking on the issue since they already show it's not a priority - and in your case, you've done just that. It's no different than the Mormons or anyone in Un Orthodox theology section making scripture whatever it is they think it is rather than seeing how it was historically understood when it was developed - you address the text of Scripture without seeing the CONTEXT it was made it. Otherwise, you create a con.

Simple as that.

As it is, speaking on the Word is a bit humorous on your part (IMHO) when you went counter to it at several places - and it's not surprising, especially considering the repeated mantra of anti-Catholic claims made against anyone (be it Orthodox or Anglican or other Protestant) disagreeing with your view. It has happened before, in example, when people claim to represent an organization but have connections to other groups which do not represent the Scripture (like Free Masonry - known for being highly Anti-Catholic, despite the other unbiblical things they do which are incompatible with Christianity itself - and I know you've been very adamant, as noted here and here among other places, in supporting them regardless of where others noted it being counter to Biblical Christiantiy and the Word of God has to be twisted or avoided on several levels to support it, from universalism to other problems as other Orthodox and Protestants noted already to you as well as to several others ... so I'm not surprised).

Even if saying one speaks as an Anglican on the matter, that is not something that has shown to line up since Anglicans DO NOT have the stance you have when it comes to the Word of God or Mary. As said earlier, for reference:

• Unity Faith and Order - Dialogues - Anglican Roman Catholic ARCIC -Mary Grace and Hope in Christ

And again, as said in Ask an Anglican: Something About Mary | The Conciliar Anglican (for brief excerpt):

The Catholic Revival that took place during the Oxford Movement helped to re-establish Marian piety within Anglicanism. Anglican spiritual manuals were produced containing the prayers of the Angelus and other similar Marian devotions. Groups like the Society of Mary were established. Pilgrimage to the Marian shrine at Walsingham became popular amongst Anglicans once again. Many Evangelicals and other Anglicans were scandalized by this, of course, worrying that the same Marian idolatry that they see in Rome might be coming home to nest in the supposedly Reformed Church of England. There is room for disagreement about whether or not any particular element of the Marian revival goes too far.

But on an official level, does adoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary contradict both Scripture and the Anglican formularies? Not necessarily. Certainly the idea of referring to Mary as “Co-Redemptrix” is beyond the pale, but what about a simple prayer like the Hail Mary which is mostly scriptural and which asks the Blessed Mother to pray to her Son on our behalf? As I have written elsewhere, there is a great difference between invocation of saints and advocation of saints. The former involves making a saint into a kind of demi-god who must be appeased in order for you to find your car keys, sell your house, cure your cancer, or whatever it is that a particular saint is supposed to specialize in. The latter, however, is nothing more than what Christians do every day when we ask our friends and loved ones to pray for us. No one should ever be forced to ask a saint to offer a prayer, and all our official collects for various feasts are written directly to God accordingly, but there is also no Biblical warrant to anathematize the same.

​

There are plenty of other Anglicans besides this throughout the Anglican Church noting the matter of where it was never unscriptural to celebrate Mary or have hymns to her.

But you can always say that you dodged a bullet, debate wise, by not having to use the Bible to defend the practice that the thread pointed to, right?

People have no problem using the Word of God - this was already noted to you before when it came to a couple of false arguments you brought up on the Word of God because others disagreed with your definition of the canon (as I've done before noting that Oral History was a key facet of Jewish culture, even before the 1st Century ...or noting where Liturgy itself in the Eastern tradition is FULL of scriptural focus) - but of course, just as Anglicans have said (alongside other Protestants or Orthodox, etc.) the Bible alone was never the standard when it came to interpretation. A basic in hermenutics - and the "Sola Scriptura" stance you've advocated isn't what the Bible actually says of itself. Again, the idea that the Bible alone is the primary authority for faith and morals is not taught in the Bible...and likewise, the idea that the Bible is to be the sole source of authority for the Christian is not taught in the Bible. The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition...and thee Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition, but to set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. For that will always go back to the Scriptures being based solely on people's opinions - and that does not honor the scripture, more pointed out here in Sola Scriptura | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge and here:

• Ancient Christian Witness: Speaking Of Sola Scriptura

• Ancient Christian Witness: Sola Scriptura

• Ancient Christian Witness: Sola Scriptura & the Canons of scripture

• Ancient Christian Witness: Differences in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura

• Ancient Christian Witness: Can we trust the Early Christians? And did they see Scripture as the sole standard of doctrine?

​

Scriptures developed in a context and were to be seen in a setting - the Church - and there has always been a way to see them. Even other Anglican Ministers such as N.T Wright have pointed out this simple reality - more shared in How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright - and others have noted it as well when it comes to the concept of PRIMA scriptural...the model that the Early Church advocated


As said before, the Orthodox Church sees the Bible as inspired by God and authoritative...even though Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15wrote, “Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" - something he repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 consistent with what Christ noted when it came to his comments on examples( John 13:15 ) when it came to being cautious of any tradition that goes against things the Lord desired/noted in the name of honoring God (Matthew 15:5-7).

And when it comes to the issue, there's nothing unbiblical with saying it's wrong to ask others such as Mary or the Saints for prayer - they did those things in the Early Church.

Again, Claiming others did not address the Word of God is as baseless as saying you are in connection with the Early Church. For
others already shared in #195 (as well as #197 and #201 and #193 alongside #102
) on the issue of what Scripture said. Talking on the Word of God while ignoring the Early Church Councils and what the vast consensus of the Bishops/leaders in the Church said (when they made scripture) is inconsistent with claiming to defend Scripture - for Scripture did not exist in a vacuum or come out of nowhere since the Early Church (the Fathers - including early Jewish Fathers in the first century ) also debated/helped to cannonize what was to be scripture - as noted best by Fr. James Bernstein in Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, there was an attempt to sideline the discussion, but in a way he did answer the question by heaping up more evidence of where Catholics turn for the answers.

It's to other churchmen, especially the ones who, in the first five or so centuries did or said something that they can treat as definitive.

The idea that we might look to the word of God instead...well, that seems the furthest thing from our friend's mind, if we judge by his replies here. This doesn't mean he doesn't believe Scripture but it seems to say a lot about what he turns to with the most confidence--and thinks is such a winner that we'll have to agree too.

The difficulty with your position, such as it is, is that one can readily find various "churchmen" within the first five centuries who postulated virtually every variety of understanding of issues that we can imagine. As Albion has rightly pointed out, many people pick and choose among their writings and "voila" we have Tradition which is used to trump Holy Scripture.

Although I know that you are quite adept at this technique, it does not pass muster with myself. Perhaps you should present your claims to your friends at TAW where they can admire your depth of scholarship.

 

[bbbbbbb]

As it is, neither you nor Albion have in ANY way dealt with what the early Church - from the leaders to those who orchestrated the CHURCH councils - have already said on the issue. This is in addition to several false claims made on others (be it Orthodox or Catholic) claiming they are worshiping Mary because of supporting a hymn that attributes certain aspects to her - never mind that those same traits were said in multiple other hymns the Church condoned and NEVER saw as worship or her replacing God. You could easily have had a significant point if showing the history of the early Church (which CF itself is based on) by pointing out what others have said - but the only critique you gave was based on how you understand language today and why YOU are not guilty of sin. That's no different than what numerous folks have done on the UnOrthodox Forums in making their own theology.

If speaking on how Christ defined himself or how the scriptures were to be seen

As others have already said, you err every time you attempt to speak or claim things of others without actually dealing with the bottom line of how langauge was used in the early Church - in the same way people act foolishly in claiming the Apostles were in the place of God for being given power to forgive sins by Christ and said (John 20:21-22) even though it was said of Jesus "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21). But language Till you deal with that, you are skipping past the simple reality that neither of you are in line with the Church - and it's not really an issue for others to address since you chose to claim you knew more than them.

Question already answered - and as said before, if you continue with the false claims, I would have to ask whether you know the consequences of bearing falsehood on others. Some of this has been discussed already in other places - noted in #193 when you asked the same silly question - and as others have said already:
Do you - or do you not - trust the Church in what they already noted on Mary? Or are you trying to do your own thing?

I did not realize that you are the same individual as George who started this thread. Thus I asked you the question, assuming that you were another person. I apologize for the confusion.

If the Church decided that Mary is a supernatural being who dispenses eternal salvation to mankind, then, of course, I would disagree with the Church. Likewise, when a particular Church determined that one's salvation depends upon believing in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, I disagree with that Church.

I am not a member of your Church or that other Church, so their determinations do not control my Church's doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for the response. However, I think you missed my question which was, as follows:

My question to you is do you trust Mary for your salvation?

No, but wasn't it Gxg to whom you posed that question, not me??

 

[Albion]

As said before, You already divorced yourself from the Word of God the moment you ignored the tradition that God's Word developed in.

Well, that's nothing more than your opinion and quite a generalized accusation at that. In what way have I done so--in your opinion? Is it just that I don't belong to the same church you do?

What's more, I don't see how you can determine that, one way or the other, unless you REFER TO SCRIPTURE. Are you ready to do that yet?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, that's nothing more than your opinion and quite a generalized accusation at that. In what way have I done so--in your opinion? Is it just that I don't belong to the same church you do?

What's more, I don't see how you can determine that, one way or the other, unless you REFER TO SCRIPTURE. Are you ready to do that yet?

Inconsequential, as it was already pointed out by several - and again, the rhetoric offered by yourself is inconsistent in the same way one would be off when claiming they stand on the Word of God and yet they advocate that Freemasonry is able to be meshed with Biblical Christianity, despite where it is anything but scriptural (i.e. the Unitarian Universalism present in it, the worship of Baphomet /demonic you realize the higher you go, the corruption in the Masonic temples, etc.) - and others already called you out on it before (as noted here, here, here, here and here and here/here among other places you've defended that which was not of Christ).

It'd be another false scenario raised if claiming people disagree because you don't belong to one's denomination. For as already said, others outside of the group I'm with have noted the same thing (Protestants included) when it comes to honoring the tradition within the Early Church - even other Anglicans have noted the issue directly when it comes to Church Tradition - more in The Patristic Anglican: The Role Of The Church Fathers In Anglicanism ...so again, your viewpoint hardly even represents the group you claim to represent. Again, it has already been noted in specifics where you didn't even represent what the Anglican Church has said on the matter of Mary - and as it concerns the scriptures, you already avoided where the same authors of Scripture/developers of the cannon and the actual practices of believers in the early centuries of the Church do not line up with your own interpretation of what scripture says.


At the end of the day, you've yet to deal with scripture - and the rhetoric has been argument via ignorance where one avoids where scripture already disagrees with them and then they still ask for "scriptural evidence." That games works on others new to it, but it's pointless and not going to support you in actually addressing the context of God's Word. Either you can deal with it - or you're wasting people's time. It's on you - and as said before, I really couldn't care less what you think on the matter since you already avoided dealing with what God said on the Word....it's the Early Church (who developed scripture) you need to either deal with - or quit playing around like you're qualified to reflect them. Again, Claiming others did not address the Word of God is as baseless as saying you are in connection with the Early Church. For
I as well as others already shared in #195 (as well as #197 and #201 and #193 alongside #102
) on the issue of what Scripture said. Talking on the Word of God while ignoring the Early Church Councils and what the vast consensus of the Bishops/leaders in the Church said (when they made scripture) is inconsistent with claiming to defend Scripture - for Scripture did not exist in a vacuum or come out of nowhere since the Early Church (the Fathers - including early Jewish Fathers in the first century ) also debated/helped to cannonize what was to be scripture - as noted best by Fr. James Bernstein in Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?

Basics in understanding Scripture start and end with knowing the author of a text, the practices he or she condoned, the practices of the Churches they built or wrote to - and the founder of Christianity in what he did or did not speak against. Nowhere in scripture or the Apostles was it ever condemned for people to look to Mary for intercession (as they already knew Christ was the one whom salvation was found in - even as he uses people) - nor was it wrong to note where the saints are all interceeding for us and we can ask them for prayer, knowing their prayers are simply going to Christ.

If you respond again, do not do so without dealing with the aforementioned issues - and if wishing to speak to me on Biblical Christianity, please do not attempt to do so unless first dealing with the problem of Freemasonry since it is inconsistent to do otherwise. If you cannot do those basic things, then there's really nothing for us to discuss and I would ask you to quit insisting on making commentary on what I say or demanding I respond to you. Shalom

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I did not realize that you are the same individual as George who started this thread. Thus I asked you the question, assuming that you were another person. I apologize for the confusion.

If the Church decided that Mary is a supernatural being who dispenses eternal salvation to mankind, then, of course, I would disagree with the Church. Likewise, when a particular Church determined that one's salvation depends upon believing in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, I disagree with that Church.

I am not a member of your Church or that other Church, so their determinations do not control my Church's doctrines.

No one said I was the same individual as the author of the OP. What was noted directly was that what I had said on the matter was exactly what he (as well as others) already said to you earlier - that you have little basis reading into a hymn without dealing with how the language was understood in that era....or placing your own definitions into it and accusing others of worshiping Mary.

And as it is, your question of "Do you believe in Mary for salvation" was a silly one to begin with since it shows where you don't read what others already said. When others already stated they trusted in Christ for salvation, it is redundant to ask "Do you trust in Mary for Salvation?" - just as it's silly for one to ask "Do you trust in your church members for salvation?" when asking them for prayer. Your question was already answered in S in other places - noted in #193 - and if you keep asking the question of others, it's dangerous ground since it's against the rules to question the salvation of others who trust in Christ.

The Church noting where Mary has been in an intercessory role in the Heavens (as the other saints) is not the same as saying she gives eternal salvation to mankind - and thus, deciding that the Church advocated that and then resisting it would be a false argument. or it'd be an action done in avoiding what the Church said on the matter. St. John of Damascus was one of the great church fathers and there are already 3 sermons of his on the Dormition of the Theotokos are on record:

• Monachos.net - John of Damascus, Homily 1 on the Dormition of the Theotokos[/QUOTE]

One does not speak on what the Church is wrong on when they are already unaware of what the Church was about - or not able to show where their OWN stance is solely how Christ/the Church saw things. And I've yet to see where either you or others ever had a dominant view in the Church - it is essentially one individual claiming everyone else (but him and those agreeing) is right on God's Word after thousands of years....and that's how cults get started.

Attributing aspects to Mary that are supernatural is not the same as saying she has the same place as God. Saints teleported (even though Christ was the FIRST to do so in being able to transcend physical boundaries) - Saints traveled in time....saints did many other things besides that which others felt were God's alone - but they only did so because of being connected into God. It's the same with Mary.

And if you really were consistent in protest, I ask again - how is it that you avoid where the Apostles were in the place of God for being given power to forgive sins by Christ when Jesus said (John 20:21-22) even though it was said of Jesus "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21)? More was shared on that elsewhere in the thread entitled What sin leads unto death? Can we pray for others to be forgiven?

I am not a member of your Church or that other Church, so their determinations do not control my Church's doctrines.

Nonetheless, your Church's doctrines do not matter when trying to use scriptures that were never developed IN your church - they were developed in the Church you disagree with, with them being seen within the context of the Church you do not adhere to.

And thus, you are trying to use scriptures that never came from you and yet trying to tell others whom the scriptures came from on how to see it - thus making your doctrines on the same level as what many have done in the cults.

The difficulty with your position, such as it is, is that one can readily find various "churchmen" within the first five centuries who postulated virtually every variety of understanding of issues that we can imagine. As Albion has rightly pointed out, many people pick and choose among their writings and "voila" we have Tradition which is used to trump Holy Scripture.

Various church men with differing opinions on certain issues was never the same as it concerns where there was both DOGMA and CONSENSUS with regards to Church Practices. This is where the Church Councils come in and the consistent practices of the Early Church - and from Athanasisus to Origen, Tertullian and multiple others, they ALL had no issue (Bishops included) with having hymns dedicated to celebrating Mary/asking her for prayer - just as they all had no issue with the concepts of Real Presence when it came to the Eucharist. which was celebrated

Anyone picking and choosing doesn't understand the concept of the Church Councils or Church practice - and that's a basic when it comes to understanding the reality of tradition. But as it is, whether it be with Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East or Catholic, across differing traditions to the early church there has been consistent consensus when it comes to the celebration of Mary - and the approval of hymns such as what the OP talked on.

Early venerations to Mary can be seen on the catacombs of the early Christian martyrs as early as the 1st century - with there being depictions of Mary with the Divien Son of Christ.

​

St. Irenaeus of Lyon who was a great defender of Christian orthodoxy established Mary as the New Eve who participates with Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, becoming through her obedience the "cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race"..and he also noted that she was an "Advocate," or interceding helper, for Eve and for her salvation. In addition to that, Gregory Thaumaturgis depicted Mary interceding for those on earth from her position in Heaven. St. Ephraem directly addressed the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons - with it also being the case that direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of St. Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). We can also see that by the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St. Ambrose, as well as by St. Epiphanius. There are many more besides that when it comes to seeing and dealing with the actual practices of the Early Church..

As said before,
According to St. Irenaeus, the Blessed Virgin helped in the process of our salvation:

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed," inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race" (Against the Heresies III:22:4).
​

For that, she will always be honored - but that has little to do with assuming she's on the same level as Christ.

As other Orthodox have noted:

Orthodox believe that the Virgin Mary needed to be redeemed from sin with the rest of mankind and that Redemption comes solely through the Sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross, that is through God. The work of Redemption cannot in any way be that of a creature but solely comes from the Creator.

....I don't think the Blessed Virgin Mary would appreciate her being elevated to the same or close to the level of her Son. I'm sure she is more humble than that even in heaven. She plays a pivotal role in asking our Lord to bestow graces but bestowing graces of her own accord - I don't think so. I do think she can influence her Son though (witnessed the changing of water to wine at Canaan.) Can she dispense grace? Not without the Son. Does she dispense grace. I'm sure that with the Son she may have.​

Although I know that you are quite adept at this technique, it does not pass muster with myself. Perhaps you should present your claims to your friends at TAW where they can admire your depth of scholarship.

Ad-hominem (specifically, argument via emotion) does little to actually address the Word of God for what it says. No one said they were concerned with what does or doesn't pass muster with you - seeing that the Word of God was not ever in focus to begin with when you did You've already done the same thing Mormons do when claiming anything historically verified that counters them is not dealing with scripture - and then making arguments claiming they will not be swayed.

Truth is Truth - facts are facts - and those concerned on the matter will address them. Those who don't will not - and then tend to find any type of argument they can throw against it, like assuming that pointing out the historical background of a text is the same as just throwing out "scholarship" (red-herring). By your logic, you already sought to do the same technique you tried to inconsistently argue against the moment you spoke on "The Word of God" - trying to accuse others on what it says and trying to reference. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

But regardless, no one cares whether or not you feel swayed since you already avoided the sway of scripture in favor of rhetoric claiming to love God's Word. Anything that has been written is done solely for lurkers/others wishing to deal with the facts and not just opinions - and claiming "Well, I believe scripture doesn't support that!!!" or trying a high-card move of claiming anyone disagreeing with you as disagreeing with Scripture is not the same as dealing with SCRIPTURE - period. Others, from TAW to GT to the Apostolic Section and elsewhere, have noted the same things being pointed out here - and thus, the arguments you offer won't go anywhere just as it is with arguing against what God's Word has always said.