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.
They often confirm and support right understanding of what the apostles taughtThis prompts another question. What do the ECFs teach that's so different from what the apostles teach?
Not exactly, but you explained it better than most on this forum.What I've put together is starting in the 4th century there was Arianism and Nestorianism and whatever else, offering variations of Christ being human and God. And for whatever reason to combat this great emphasis was placed upon Mary. The queen of heaven, perpetual virgin, immaculate conception etc, is all supposed to confirm the hypostatic union of Christ being 100% human and 100% God.
I think that they did, and that is why the gospels, Revelation, and the letters all point to Blessed Mary as the Queen mother of the Lond Jesus Christ. Holy Tradition teaches this.Jesus and the Apostles did not teach that Mary was Queen of heaven, nor a perpetual virgin.
No, because I didn't quote your post.Was that supposed to somehow have something to do with my post?
No.Is there some alternative to God when it comes to revealed, truths of the Christian faith?
King or Queen of ________ means ruling authority and power. That's where the misunderstanding is. That's why when Elizabeth II became the monarch, her mother's title became Queen Mother.Not exactly, but you explained it better than most on this forum.
The reason the title Mother of God was given to Mary is because of her Son's divinity. She is Mother of God by virtue of her Son's divinity, not by virtue of herself.
The title Queen of Heaven is given to her by virtue of her Son's Kingship. She is not Queen by her own merits.
ECF can be misleading. Some were church leaders in the 4th-5th century. When considering the US is 247 years old, the 4th-5th century of the US is pretty far away.Her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception are not new idea. The ECF certainly believed in these 2 ideas and were accepted by most up to and after the Protestant heresy.
Needless to say just because people in the church were correct about legitimate manuscripts being legitimate, doesn't automatically mean people in the church were correct about everything else. Also I don't see Matthew declaring that Mary was immaculately conceived, but I do see where he clearly declares that Joseph consummated his marriage to Mary after Jesus was born (Matt 1:25).Remember, the same Church that declared Matthew's gospel inspired text declared Mary immaculately conceived.
If that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.I think that they did, and that is why the gospels, Revelation, and the letters all point to Blessed Mary as the Queen mother of the Lond Jesus Christ. Holy Tradition teaches this.
Again, if that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.Yes he did.
That statement is erroneous; the debate takes place because of mistaken interpretations from some Protestants.If that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.
That statement is erroneous; the debate takes place because of mistaken interpretations from some Protestants.If that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.
That statement is erroneous; the debate takes place because of mistaken interpretations from some Protestants.Again, if that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.
You are thinking of contemporary ideas. In the Davidic Kingdom the Queen was the Mother. She had no authority except what was given by the King.King or Queen of ________ means ruling authority
It points to the fact that the rejection of the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception are recent novel ideas that stay from Church teaching.ECF can be misleading
Ah, typical protestant thinking. I'll believe only what I think is correct. How does it feel to be infallible?Needless to say just because people in the church were correct about legitimate manuscripts being legitimate, doesn't automatically mean people in the church were correct about everything else
Um, the gospels are about Jesus.Also I don't see Matthew declaring that Mary was immaculately conceived
Really?Yes he did.
Um, yes you did.No, because I didn't quote your post.
And you know that how? You were there when the unwritten teachings/traditions were handed down? (2 Thess 2:15)No.
That's the point; Jesus, who is God, did not teach the doctrines associated with Mary.
I see references to the queen mother, but not the Queen of Israel.You are thinking of contemporary ideas. In the Davidic Kingdom the Queen was the Mother. She had no authority except what was given by the King.
That's because Christians decided to go back to what the original church taught.It points to the fact that the rejection of the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception are recent novel ideas that stay from Church teaching.
"but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus." Matthew 1:25 RSV Catholic EditionAh, typical protestant thinking. I'll believe only what I think is correct. How does it feel to be infallible?
Um, the gospels are about Jesus.
She is Queen of whatever He is King of by virtue of being His mother. Stop thinking in modern day terms of king and queen. The Queen in Biblical times is the Mother of the King.I see references to the queen mother, but not the Queen of Israel.
Then you would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception.That's because Christians decided to go back to what the original church taught.
This reminds me of Maxwell Smart. The old gun in the hat trick. The until argument has been defeated so many times on this forum. You can believe novel ideas or follow the ECF."but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus." Matthew 1:25 RSV Catholic Edition
I looked through the old testament. The mother of the king is referred to as the "queen mother" in Chronicles and Kings etc. The only "queen of" is the queen of Sheba.She is Queen of whatever He is King of by virtue of being His mother. Stop thinking in modern day terms of king and queen. The Queen in Biblical times is the Mother of the King.
I've yet to see any evidence that Jesus, the Apostles or Apostolic Fathers taught that.Then you would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception.
I'm just going by what Matthew the Apostle clearly wrote. That Joseph consummated his marriage to his wife Mary after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25This reminds me of Maxwell Smart. The old gun in the hat trick. The until argument has been defeated so many times on this forum. You can believe novel ideas or follow the ECF.
Let's see what St Jerome says
Jerome, cont. Hevlid. 8: Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, “That which is born in her, &c.” He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?
Jerome: From the words, “her first-born Son,” some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother.
My apologies - I was thinking of another post which I quoted.Um, yes you did.
Obviously I wasn't there - so I've read the Gospels, like everybody else.And you know that how? You were there when the unwritten teachings/traditions were handed down? (2 Thess 2:15)
Alright. My understanding is that the writings were compiled based on whether or not they were considered inspired, correct, orthodox, etc, but not that they necessarily exhaustive in their teachings.My apologies - I was thinking of another post which I quoted.
Obviously I wasn't there - so I've read the Gospels, like everybody else.
My understanding is that when the NT was compiled only the documents that were faithful to the Apostles' teaching were included.
As there is nothing to say that Jesus regarded his mother as the queen of heaven and a perpetual virgin, nor that the early church taught this, we can conclude that it wasn't a doctrine.
Alright. My understanding is that the writings were compiled based on whether or not they were considered inspired, correct, orthodox, etc, but not that they necessarily exhaustive in their teachings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?