God as Mother.

[The Liturgist]

I'm Lutheran. We don't believe that the saints are with us in that way, but I could ask anyway.
This presence has been fairly constant. I understand the danger though. That's why it's hard for me to believe in apparitions, atonement theories, afterlife experiences and anything that is not demonstrable. This female presence is the strongest when I am praising God and it causes me to praise God. Like, I said, I have always associated it with Mary, primarily bc it causes me to say, 'Hail Mary! Full of grace!' But! I am also very sensitive to my environment, so it could simply be naturally induced by a sunny day, wind or something mundane.

Well like I said, if its not Mary, you don’t want it. Also, I have met many Lutherans of the Evangelical Catholic tradition who do believe the saints are with them in that way. And Martin Luther certainly believed in the veneration of Mary, and advocated the use of the Hail Mary, albeit without the petition for intercession in extremis. But some Lutherans have embraced the idea of the intercession of the saints.

There is no divine feminine.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Well like I said, if its not Mary, you don’t want it. There is no divine feminine.

Did Mary as Wisdom help create the world then? Since, she is Mediatrix of all graces, would that apply to creation as well? I know Mary is not eternal but the saints exist now in God's eternity. So I'm wondering, if in heaven the saints can go back to the beginning of time.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Well like I said, if its not Mary, you don’t want it. Also, I have met many Lutherans of the Evangelical Catholic tradition who do believe the saints are with them in that way. And Martin Luther certainly believed in the veneration of Mary, and advocated the use of the Hail Mary, albeit without the petition for intercession in extremis. But some Lutherans have embraced the idea of the intercession of the saints.

There is no divine feminine.

Martin Luther did?
Also, don't the Confessions forbid invocation?

 

[The Liturgist]

Did Mary as Wisdom help create the world then? Since, she is Mediatrix of all graces, would that apply to creation as well? I know Mary is not eternal but the saints exist now in God's eternity. So I'm wondering, if in heaven the saints can go back to the beginning of time.

So just to clarify, neither the Orthodox nor the Lutherans would be unanimously comfortable declaring the blessed virgin the Mediatrix of All Grace - that is more of a Roman Catholic idea. Now, Orthodox Palamist theology states that the saints do participate in the uncreated energies of God, so, the answer to your question might be, umm, possibly? But does it really matter? Isn’t it enough that God loves you, and Mary so loves God that she did bear in her womb and give birth to God the Son, and is a mother to His Church?

 

[The Liturgist]

Martin Luther did?

Yes, basically, the Hail Mary, but without the form “pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.”

Also, don't the Confessions forbid invocation?

I haven’t read the Book of Concord so I have no idea.

 

[TheWhat?]

I hate to say it, but seriously, modern christianity can be a like a game of operation. If you use the wrong word, with the wrong tense or the wrong vowel, you have to hide because ... theologians.

Here's the thing. She was present at my conversion. I didn't understand it. It's taken me quite some time to figure out what was going on.

If you think scary thoughts didn't cross my mind you'd be wrong. But, there is evil which I've had to struggle, hard, to get away from. This presence isn't like that. It/she never was. She was only ever compassionate.

 

[TheWhat?]

If you have that kind of care available like that, it's honestly better to be secretive about it and to stay out of church lol.

But I needed to discern.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you have that kind of care available like that, it's honestly better to be secretive about it and to stay out of church lol.

But I needed to discern.

That’s really not true, but is rather demonstrably in opposition to Scripture, which enjoins us to participate in the Body of Christ and to partake of the Eucharist and live in fellowship with other believers. I would urge you to reread John 6, Matthew 16, the Resurrection and Ascension narrative in the Gospel according to John, the Resurrection Narrative in the Gospel according to Luke, and also all of Acts, and 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and James, and the first chapter of Galatians as well.

I hate to say it, but seriously, modern christianity can be a like a game of operation. If you use the wrong word, with the wrong tense or the wrong vowel, you have to hide because ... theologians.

That is something I really take offense to, because firstly, I believe every Christian should endeavor to be a theologian, in that theology is simply knowledge of God, which is obtained through prayer. One of the Desert Fathers wrote “A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian.” The Eastern Orthodox church as @Thatgirloncfforums might recall venerates only three saints as theologians, because of the specific relationship between their knowledge of God as attained through prayer and the Church, namely, St. John the Beloved Disciple, St. Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian, who was of course known as one of the first prominent Hesychasts in the Athonite tradition.

If you use the wrong word, and people who are well catechized object, perhaps you should seek to understand the basis for their objection, rather than incorrectly labelling them as “Theologians!” from which one must run and seek cover as though the well-catechized are akin to a swarm of locusts. But being well catechized or even a scholar of divinity, or even having a Masters of Divinity or a Doctorate of Divinity, or a Masters or Doctorate in Theology, from great seminary like the divinity schools of Yale or Princeton or Nashotah House or St. Vladimir’s, does not make one a theologian, for theologia, that is to say, knowledge of God obtained through prayer, is accessible to and should be sought by every Christian.

And likewise, every Christian with the mental faculties to seek a high level of catechesis should seek such knowledge, because it is of great benefit to all aspects of life.

 

[TheWhat?]

That’s really not true, but is rather demonstrably in opposition to Scripture, which enjoins us to participate in the Body of Christ and to partake of the Eucharist and live in fellowship with other believers. I would urge you to reread John 6, Matthew 16, the Resurrection and Ascension narrative in the Gospel according to John, the Resurrection Narrative in the Gospel according to Luke, and also all of Acts, and 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and James, and the first chapter of Galatians as well.

Yes, I was just thinking about this. In fact, during this discernment process, it became clear to me that this "angel" (if we can call her that) is more active at certain times following a blessing, believe it or not, from the Pope. Spiritual communion is Catholic. And not only that, the EO Cherubic hymn which states ...

We, who mystically represent the Cherubim,
And chant the thrice-holy hymn to the Life-giving Trinity,
Let us set aside the cares of life
That we may receive the King of all,
Who comes invisibly escorted by the Divine Hosts.
​

... became much more relevant to me. I've been receiving spiritual communion for years. That what was happening became clearer to me was nothing short of a miracle. The angels administer the Eucharist.



In fact, it may be of necessity that I am apart from the church because everyone around me tends to go a little crazy at times for various reasons. It's possibly related to judgment. In any case, I've observed that my presence can be destructive to communities.

That is something I really take offense to, because firstly, I believe every Christian should endeavor to be a theologian, in that theology is simply knowledge of God, which is obtained through prayer. One of the Desert Fathers wrote “A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian.” The Eastern Orthodox church as @Thatgirloncfforums might recall venerates only three saints as theologians, because of the specific relationship between their knowledge of God as attained through prayer and the Church, namely, St. John the Beloved Disciple, St. Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian, who was of course known as one of the first prominent Hesychasts in the Athonite tradition.

If you use the wrong word, and people who are well catechized object, perhaps you should seek to understand the basis for their objection, rather than incorrectly labelling them as “Theologians!” from which one must run and seek cover as though the well-catechized are akin to a swarm of locusts. But being well catechized or even a scholar of divinity, or even having a Masters of Divinity or a Doctorate of Divinity, or a Masters or Doctorate in Theology, from great seminary like the divinity schools of Yale or Princeton or Nashotah House or St. Vladimir’s, does not make one a theologian, for theologia, that is to say, knowledge of God obtained through prayer, is accessible to and should be sought by every Christian.

And likewise, every Christian with the mental faculties to seek a high level of catechesis should seek such knowledge, because it is of great benefit to all aspects of life.

Well, sometimes, a lot of the time, it's not helpful. That's all I'm saying.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, sometimes, a lot of the time, it's not helpful. That's all I'm saying.

So when have you ever had a pack of angry doctors of divinity descending on you from the gothic spires of Nashotah House or Yale Divinity School or Princeton or Oxford? Or the onion domes of St. Vladimir’s or St. Tikhon’s or Holy Cross? Because if that hasn’t happened, I am not sure you can talk about it.

I myself actually have managed to annoy multiple scholars of divinity but it required a very considerable amount of effort and a very controversial paper which had to be peer reviewed in a journal. In general, it is not an easy task to get the attention of “theologians” popularly defined. People on internet forums do not count.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then why do so many have a problem with the 'feminization' of the Church?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "feminization of the Church". Because two very different things come to mind for me.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[The Liturgist]

In fact, it may be of necessity that I am apart from the church because everyone around me tends to go a little crazy at times for various reasons. It's possibly related to judgment. In any case, I've observed that my presence can be destructive to communities.

If I were you I would seek to work on that in consultation with the presbyter of whatever church you wanted to affiliate to, because if you are having an adverse impact on communities, I think, and my goal here is purely to help you, that that could actually be a red flag that you should pay attention to and seek to rectify. It could be you are experiencing a number of unpleasant spiritual discomforts that are interfering with your ability to fellowship with Christians.

Now, regarding the Cherubic hymn, as a scholar of the liturgy, I regret to say you seem to be misinterpreting it; the hymn does not refer to spiritual communion but to the angelic ministry of those serving the Eucharistic liturgy. Spiritual communion as a concept is not something a healthy Christian should by any means rely on, in the small number of churches which believe in it (I think just the Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, and possibly some Anglo Catholics) interpret it as something made available for people who are being prevented by illness or persecution or other circumstances which amount to force majeure from attending mass and partaking of the Eucharist directly, which is always preferable.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What if the Word or Sacraments evoke feelings?

Feelings are natural. I am often moved to tears by the Lord's Supper, by the prayers and hymns of the Church. They just aren't dependable as a spiritual metric of any kind.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TheWhat?]

If I were you I would seek to work on that in consultation with the presbyter of whatever church you wanted to affiliate to, because if you are having an adverse impact on communities, I think, and my goal here is purely to help you, that that could actually be a red flag that you should pay attention to and seek to rectify. It could be you are experiencing a number of unpleasant spiritual discomforts that are interfering with your ability to fellowship with Christians.

I was just thinking about this as well. Everyone has their own version of catechesis, and everyone is divided. My goal, my pursuit, has been to unearth and to adopt the original beliefs of the singular, ancient christian church. I find bits and pieces in various branches, and the sad result is, through the division of said branches, oftentimes people from various corners of christianity turn on me. It's their own divisiveness, however, in these cases. In your case it's already beginning.

Fortunately, though, in America at least, we have freedom of religion.

Now, regarding the Cherubic hymn, as a scholar of the liturgy, I regret to say you seem to be misinterpreting it; the hymn does not refer to spiritual communion but to the angelic ministry of those serving the Eucharistic liturgy. Spiritual communion as a concept is not something a healthy Christian should by any means rely on, in the small number of churches which believe in it (I think just the Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, and possibly some Anglo Catholics) interpret it as something made available for people who are being prevented by illness or persecution or other circumstances which amount to force majeure from attending mass and partaking of the Eucharist directly, which is always preferable.

I'm afraid not. It states quite literally that the Eucharist is escorted by the Divine Hosts. Catholics have comparable beliefs concerning angels and the Eucharist, although this one stood out to me for its clarity.

Times are different than they were when the epistles were written. There is no way for a christian to follow some commands due to the fact that christianity has been divided and at war with itself for a very, very long time. Allow me freedom of religion and I'll allow you freedom of your religion. It's a fair trade.

 

[TheWhat?]

Feelings are natural. I am often moved to tears by the Lord's Supper, by the prayers and hymns of the Church. They just aren't dependable as a spiritual metric of any kind.

-CryptoLutheran

According to empiricism, and my reading of scripture, they are sense perception.

And it is true to my experience. Without spirituality, there are some things of the faith which are simply inaccessible. It is a philosophical movement intended to oppose all things spiritual which tells us otherwise

 

[ViaCrucis]

According to empiricism, and my reading of scripture, they are sense perception.

And it is true to my experience. Without spirituality, there are some things of the faith which are simply inaccessible. It is a philosophical movement intended to oppose all things spiritual which tells us otherwise

Perception is all we have with which to engage the external world around us. We should, however, be fully aware of the limitations and shortcomings of our perception.

And when it comes to matters of faith, we shouldn't let our perceptions, senses, feelings, or even our reason be the final determining factor--but rather God's word. God promises, we receive those promises through faith.

Neither empiricism nor rationalism can get us from the events on Good Friday to the empty tomb on Sunday morning. It's folly to those without faith, only by faith can we receive these things and believe in them.

Without the external word, neither you nor I would know anything of Christ or His Gospel, or believe in Him as our Lord and Savior. No amount of philosophy, spirituality, or reason bridges that gap between the rational world and the beautiful absurd truth of the Gospel. How can they believe unless they hear, and how can they hear unless one is sent to preach, "how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news"; and so "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". God works through the external word, the external and visible Means of Grace: Word and Sacrament. So that it is the Spirit Himself who works and creates faith in us, by which we believe the unbelievable truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TheWhat?]

Perception is all we have with which to engage the external world around us. We should, however, be fully aware of the limitations and shortcomings of our perception.

This is an epistemological issue. Sense perception is all we have as a basis for anything we can call knowledge unless we wish to rely on a Platonic-like rationalism or fall into solipsism. As an empiricist, I feel that I am safer for it, because it's the senses which inform us that our interpretations are incongruent with the world of the senses. It's when one steps away from that system that one's thoughts can lead them into an alternative reality.

And when it comes to matters of faith, we shouldn't let our perceptions, senses, feelings, or even our reason be the final determining factor--but rather God's word. God promises, we receive those promises through faith.

And to me, faith is sense perception, as it was to a few of the fathers, and in scripture.

Neither empiricism nor rationalism can get us from the events on Good Friday to the empty tomb on Sunday morning. It's folly to those without faith, only by faith can we receive these things and believe in them.

This is your addition. You should check your assumptions.

Without the external word, neither you nor I would know anything of Christ or His Gospel, or believe in Him as our Lord and Savior. No amount of philosophy, spirituality, or reason bridges that gap between the rational world and the beautiful absurd truth of the Gospel. How can they believe unless they hear, and how can they hear unless one is sent to preach, "how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news"; and so "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". God works through the external word, the external and visible Means of Grace: Word and Sacrament. So that it is the Spirit Himself who works and creates faith in us, by which we believe the unbelievable truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

How do we receive it? Through the senses. How is it understood rationally? By the mind, another sense to Hume, and through experience, received through the senses. How is it understood spiritually? Through faith, through the heart, through the senses.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That’s an unsubstantiated assertion which is not found in Patristic, Greek or Syrian theology, despite the fact that Greek or Syrian theology is the only place we might expect to find it (due to the neutral grammatical gender of Spirit in Greek and the female gender of Spirit in Syriac; in Latin the grammatical gender of the Spirit is male). There is no basis for saying that the unique image and likeness of women came from the Holy Spirit.

Rather, I think it would be much more accurate to say there is no unique likeness or image of women but rather both men and women are created equally in the image of God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Women are then blessed, as created beings, with femininity, and men, with masculinity, “for He created them male and female” but our genders are secondary characteristics; men and women have one common human nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, put on in the Incarnation.

That's correct too.

I was just looking from the angle how Male and Female are different with the question "where in Trinity God did they come from?

Such a question would not have occurred in earlier ages I'd imagine. A blind spot as it were.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Agreed. Everything that 'is' comes from God since he is existence itself. That's been my contention I believe, from the beginning (OP). I'm not attempting to insert a goddess into the Godhead. God is neither male nor female, except in his humanity via the 2nd person.

That's correct too.

I was just looking from the angle how Male and Female are different with the question "where in Trinity God did they come from?

Such a question would not have occurred in earlier ages I'd imagine. A blind spot as it were.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

What you call empirism(sp?), I call practical theology. Theology has to relate to us as well as God. That's part of what the Incarnation is about: God coming down to our level, to be seen, touched, felt. Otherwise, we are just spirit-minds afloat somewhere in the ethereal realms. God cannot be grasp in such a way.

This is an epistemological issue. Sense perception is all we have as a basis for anything we can call knowledge unless we wish to rely on a Platonic-like rationalism or fall into solipsism. As an empiricist, I feel that I am safer for it, because it's the senses which inform us that our interpretations are incongruent with the world of the senses. It's when one steps away from that system that one's thoughts can lead them into an alternative reality.



And to me, faith is sense perception, as it was to a few of the fathers, and in scripture.



This is your addition. You should check your assumptions.



How do we receive it? Through the senses. How is it understood rationally? By the mind, another sense to Hume, and through experience, received through the senses. How is it understood spiritually? Through faith, through the heart, through the senses.