• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,841
1,331
✟514,625.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by Tzaousios
So, by this line, everyone should become iconoclasts and drag out their icons of Christ and the saints and set about defacing them, urinating on them, and defecating on them, all things which the historical iconoclasts did?

That's disgusting.

Why Simon? Why is it disgusting?
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Can people come to absolute truth from God's Word? Yes. But let's not forget that according to Scripture, Scripture alone is by no means the totality of God's Word.

In fact, only "graphe" refers to Scripture; "logos" is not Scripture, and of course Logos is Christ.




In my view one of the most troubling aspects of sola-scriptura is it creates a class system from day one. Those who can read. Those who can afford a Bible. Those who have a Bible translated into their own language (which 1/3 of the world's language groups of about 340 million people do not have even today).

:) agree. And also elevates the intellect above the spiritual heart.


Fortunately, the "we" Christ invites to His banquet is not just an exclusive group. And he did not foresake or abandon them in their pursuit of absolute truth by leaving them Scripture alone as the way to come to know him.

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,841
1,331
✟514,625.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
In fact, only "graphe" refers to Scripture; "logos" is not Scripture, and of course Logos is Christ.

Interestingly enough, the term "logos" is also used to refer to the church (Acts 6:7, Acts 12:24) and the "word of God" as spoken, in oral form by the apostles (Acts 4:31, Acts 13:5, Acts 13:7, Acts 13:46, Philippians 1:14, Hebrews 13:7).

It is never used to refer to the written Scriptures.

However, as Catholics we would indeed consider Scriptures to be the written word of God, just not the totality of the word of God. I'm guessing the Orthodox would have the same view.

What is most interesting about that is since Scripture refers to itself as the "graphe" and never as the "logos", my conclusion is that it is by Sacred Tradition that Scripture is considered to be part of the "logos", the written word of God. It is not something one can derive from Scripture alone.



:) agree. And also elevates the intellect above the spiritual heart.

And puts people in the position of elevating their own intellect above that of their fellow Christians, which leads to strife, dissension and far away from the unity Christ prayed for. As evidenced on these boards every day.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Interestingly enough, the term "logos" is also used to refer to the church (Acts 6:7, Acts 12:24) and the "word of God" as spoken, in oral form by the apostles (Acts 4:31, Acts 13:5, Acts 13:7, Acts 13:46, Philippians 1:14, Hebrews 13:7).

It is never used to refer to the written Scriptures.

:)

Logos has a "wholeness" about the term - speech (as in a speech or talk given to an audience), where it is not only what is said but the disposition of the speaker, the purpose of the speech, the theme, the way in which the ideas are presented, etc.

However, as Catholics we would indeed consider Scriptures to be the written word of God, just not the totality of the word of God. I'm guessing the Orthodox would have the same view.

:thumbsup:

What is most interesting about that is since Scripture refers to itself as the "graphe" and never as the "logos", my conclusion is that it is by Sacred Tradition that Scripture is considered to be part of the "logos", the written word of God. It is not something one can derive from Scripture alone.

I think yes.




And puts people in the position of elevating their own intellect above that of their fellow Christians, which leads to strife, dissension and far away from the unity Christ prayed for. As evidenced on these boards every day.

Agreed :)
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟35,153.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Please don't tell me you are going to take the word "cult" and try to press it into the service of your rhetoric. No, I did not mean "cult" in terms of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jone's Kool Aid Drinkers, etc.
I'm not a rockhead, I responded insomuch as that you knew Auggies view of Mary was not in line with Catholicism as we know it.
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟35,153.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you provide the direct quotation, in context? From what I can remember, no, he would say the the Church is the mother of all Christians. Mary is a traditional illustration of this.
I gave you the book and address within the book. And HERE i went and got it for you.
And here you turn around and suggest that he had a different point of view without citation or suggestion.:doh:Now do me the respect of providing the citation for your rebuttal.
Augustine sees John 19:26-27 as a passage about faithfulness to parents and John caring for Mary, not a passage about Mary being the spiritual mother of all Christians in the sense Roman Catholics suggest:
"This, without a doubt, was the hour whereof Jesus, when about to turn the water into wine, had said to His mother, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.' This hour, therefore, He had foretold, which at that time had not yet arrived, when it should be His to acknowledge her at the point of death, and with reference to which He had been born as a mortal man. At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His human infirmity; but now, when in the midst of human sufferings, He commended with human affection the mother by whom He had become man. For then, He who had created Mary became known in His power; but now, that which Mary had brought forth was hanging on the cross. A passage, therefore, of a moral character is here inserted. The good Teacher does what He thereby reminds us ought to be done, and by His own example instructed His disciples that care for their parents ought to be a matter of concern to pious children: as if that tree to which the members of the dying One were affixed were the very chair of office from which the Master was imparting instruction. From this wholesome doctrine it was that the Apostle Paul had learned what he taughtt in turn, when he said, 'But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.' And what are so much home concerns to any one, as parents to children, or children to parents? Of this most wholesome precept, therefore, the very Master of the saints set the example from Himself, when, not as God for the hand-maid whom He had created and governed, but as a man for the mother, of whom He had been created, and whom He was now leaving behind, He provided in some measure another son in place of Himself. And why He did so, He indicates in the words that follow: for the evangelist says, 'And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own,' speaking of himself. In this way, indeed, he usually refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved: who certainly loved them all, but him beyond the others, and with a closer familiarity, so that He even made him lean upon His bosom at supper; in order, I believe, in this way to commend the more highly the divine excellence of this very gospel, which He was thereafter to preach through his instrumentality. But what was this 'his own,' unto which John took the mother of the Lord? For he was not outside the circle of those who said unto Him, 'Lo, we have left all, and followed Thee.' No, but on that same occasion he had also heard the words, Every one that hath forsaken these things for my sake, shall receive an hundred times as much in this world. That disciple, therefore, had an hundredfold more than he had cast away, whereunto to receive the mother of Him who had graciously bestowed it all. But it was in that society that the blessed John had received an hundredfold, where no one called anything his own, but they had all things in common; even as it is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. For the apostles were as if having nothing, and yet possessing all things How was it, then, that the disciple and servant received unto his own the mother of his Lord and Master, where no one called anything his own? Or, seeing we read a little further on in the same book, 'For as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of them, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need,' are we not to understand that such distribution was made to this disciple of what was needful, that there was also added to it the portion of the blessed Mary, as if she were his mother; and ought we not the rather so to take the words, 'From that hour the disciple took her unto his own,' that everything necessary for her was entrusted to his care? He received her, therefore, not unto his own lands, for he had none of his own; but to his own dutiful services, the discharge of which, by a special dispensation, was entrusted to himself." (Tractates on John, 119:1-3)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟35,153.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Citation, in context.
On the queen the ark and the assumption.

"'Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting place' (ver. 8). He saith unto the Lord sleeping, 'Arise.' Ye know already who slept, and who rose again. ...'Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctification:' that is, Arise, that the ark of Thy sanctification, which Thou hast sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, hath been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Thy Body, that they who believe not may handle." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 132:8)
Notice that Augustine mentions Mary, saying that Christ's body was "born of Mary". Thus, it can't be argued that Augustine wasn't thinking of Mary at the time that he wrote. He *was* thinking of her, but he didn't view her as the ark. He didn't even mention a Marian interpretation as a secondary possibility. The only alternative he mentions to seeing the church as the ark is seeing Christ's flesh as the ark.
Is the queen in Psalm 45:9-14 Mary, and is the passage alluding to the Assumption of Mary? Pope Pius XII approvingly cites Roman Catholics who interpreted the passage that way:

"Treating of this subject, they [Roman Catholic theologians and preachers] also describe her [Mary] as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer [Psalm 45:9-14]." (Munificentissimus Deus)
But Augustine sees the queen as the church, not Mary, and he says nothing about an assumption of Mary:
"For all the souls that have been born through their preaching and evangelizing are 'daughters of kings:' and the Churches, as the daughters of Apostles, are daughters of kings....Behold, Rome, Carthage, and several other cities are the daughters of kings, and yet have they 'made glad the King in His honour:' and all these make up one single Queen....'Upon Thy right hand did stand the Queen' (ver. 9). She which stands on the left is no Queen. For there will be one standing on 'the left' also, to whom it will be said, 'Go into everlasting fire.' But she shall stand on the right hand, to whom it will be said, 'Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' On Thy right hand did stand the Queen, 'in a vesture of gold, clothed about with divers colours.' What is the vesture of this Queen? It is one both precious, and also of divers colours: it is the mysteries of doctrine in all the various tongues: one African, one Syrian, one Greek, one Hebrew, one this, and one that; it is these languages that produce the divers colours of this vesture. But just as all the divers colours of the vesture blend together in the one vesture, so do all the languages in one and the same faith....The Prophet addresses this Queen (for he delights in singing to her), and moreover each one of us, provided, however, we know where we are, and endeavour to belong to that body [the church], and do belong to it in faith and hope, being united in the membership of Christ. For it is us whom he addresses, saying, 'Hearken, O daughter, and behold'" (Expositions on the Psalms, 45:21-23)
 
Upvote 0

JesusFreak78

Reformed Baptist
Feb 11, 2005
4,296
1,530
47
Minnesota, USA
✟42,855.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
To this day I have not seen a single icon who has represented Christ as Isaiah 53 or anything that will justify John 1:1 or Collosians 1:15-20, which means you violate the second commandment (Exodus 20:4), which again means you make a god in your own image.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
To this day I have not seen a single icon who has represented Christ as Isaiah 53 or anything that will justify John 1:1 or Collosians 1:15-20, which means you violate the second commandment (Exodus 20:4), which again means you make a god in your own image.

Could you explain ?

Icons do not depict the pre-incarnate Logos, they depict only what can be seen.
 
Upvote 0

JesusFreak78

Reformed Baptist
Feb 11, 2005
4,296
1,530
47
Minnesota, USA
✟42,855.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Could you explain ?

Icons do not depict the pre-incarnate Logos, they depict only what can be seen.

Just to take Isaiah 53:2 it says Jesus had no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Hi, and all the icons I have seen makes Jesus looks much more attractive than that.
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟35,153.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As well the epic failure of the inability to match what the Colossian description describes.
That was a point I made earlier how can art ever attempt to depict His Godliness, His manhood yes His divinity, never.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Just to take Isaiah 53:2 it says Jesus had no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Hi, and all the icons I have seen makes Jesus looks much more attractive than that.

Attractiveness is a matter of taste.

But icons do not aim to depict only the physical per se, but the spiritual, or the spiritualized physical. Thus they are highly stylized (note the features, the elongation, the symbolic use of color), to point the viewer towards the spiritual reality of what is depicted over the ephemeral (physical) existence.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
As well the epic failure of the inability to match what the Colossian description describes.
That was a point I made earlier how can art ever attempt to depict His Godliness, His manhood yes His divinity, never.

This is why God the Father is not to be depicted, and the Holy Spirit can only be depicted as He is described in Scripture as "seen" (as a dove, as tongues of flame).
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,841
1,331
✟514,625.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
yes thank you.

back to the topic

I'd still like to know exactly why you found the destruction of the icons 'disgusting'? Was it that they were destroyed at all? The manner in which they were treated? And why was it 'disgusting'?
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟35,153.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is why God the Father is not to be depicted, and the Holy Spirit can only be depicted as He is described in Scripture as "seen" (as a dove, as tongues of flame).
EO has icons depicting the Father in both the OT and NT icon of the Trinity if I am not mistaken.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
EO has icons depicting the Father in both the OT and NT icon of the Trinity if I am not mistaken.

Depicting the Father is not "canonical"; there are also icons depicting the "Ancient of Days", what was seen by Daniel (7:9).

The "Hospitality of Abraham" icons depict what Abraham saw - three angels. These are a "typos" of the Trinity, not the Trinity.
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟34,229.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I gave you the book and address within the book. And HERE i went and got it for you.
And here you turn around and suggest that he had a different point of view without citation or suggestion.:doh:Now do me the respect of providing the citation for your rebuttal.

This part of the discussion is moot because I told you that Augustine views the Church as the mother of all Christians. Mary is used as a type and illustration of this. How is this point not borne out in this passage and others? Thus, there is no rebuttal, other than the fact that I pointed out that it is an anachronism to attribute later dogmas to Augustine.

Besides, the burden of proof of a negative is not on me. You should know this.

simonthezealot said:
Notice that Augustine mentions Mary, saying that Christ's body was "born of Mary". Thus, it can't be argued that Augustine wasn't thinking of Mary at the time that he wrote. He *was* thinking of her, but he didn't view her as the ark. He didn't even mention a Marian interpretation as a secondary possibility. The only alternative he mentions to seeing the church as the ark is seeing Christ's flesh as the ark.

Okay, so it can be interpreted in the context of this passage. Do you know for a fact that Augustine does not imply or actually employ the Mary-Ark analogy in any of his other writings? It does not matter either way to me, but the burden is on you to examine his entire corpus in order to make such a definitive statement.

simonthezealot said:
Is the queen in Psalm 45:9-14 Mary, and is the passage alluding to the Assumption of Mary? Pope Pius XII approvingly cites Roman Catholics who interpreted the passage that way:

Which is the reason why I pointed out that it is anachronistic to attribute later doctrines and dogma to Augustine. What is the problem, here?

simonthezealot said:
But Augustine sees the queen as the church, not Mary, and he says nothing about an assumption of Mary:

Is this not what I said above, that Augustine tends to see THE CHURCH as the queen and the mother of Christians? Again, what is the problem?

simonthezealot said:
Where is that so-called sacramental grace?

Seriously, as a bishop of the Church, he was charged with guarding and administering the sacraments. You do not need me to document every instance for you, even though the burden of proving a negative is not on me. If he believed the sacraments were mere memorials, why did he send out Roman soldiers to arrest Donatist bishops and Circumcellions who defied him and continued to administer the sacraments?

Besides, I do not expect you to acknowledge it, since your entire reason for reading Augustine is to read proto-Protestantism/Calvinism into his writings and plunder him for cherry-pickings to support your apologetic.
 
Upvote 0