Is there salvation without Mary?

[The Liturgist]

I have, & all that pops up concerning the Mary=perpetual virgin theory is RC stuff.

Oh? Because that’s not what pops up on my end...

Indeed while doing a quick Google I found this beautiful image:

This icon of the Mother of God with our Savior in His infancy is in a Methodist church. Which is to say, Protestant. John Wesley asserted that Mary remained a “Pure and unspotted virgin”, a doctrine consistent with the views of the Early Church going back to the Second Century. Indeed, the doctrine, in terms of a dogmatic definition, is more of Greek Orthodox origin, insofar as it was promoted by Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa and established at the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Constantinople (the 3rd and 5th ecumenical councils in Eastern Orthodox Christianity), but this simply reflects the status of the Greek church as the defender of the Apostolic Faith, since the Roman church basically didn’t do anything much until Bishop Leo I and Pope St. Gregory the Great, who is venerated by the Eastern Orthodox as St. Gregory Diologos, and is doctrinally more Orthodox than Roman Catholic.

 

[The Liturgist]

But Scripture plainly stated Mary had at least 6 more children. That's the bottom line.

No, it doesn’t. If it did, then Wycliffe, Luther, Wesley, Cranmer and Calvin would not have defended the doctrine of perpetual virginity, nor would the early Church fathers.

If there were any LEGITIMATE jewish writings saying Joe was a widower, the RCC would've been hawking it for hundreds of years. The "mary was a perpetual virgin" doctrine is false, as is the doctrine she was "assumed" into heaven.

Neither doctrine is false. The absence of relics of the Theotokos, which is remarkable considering the large number of authentic and miracle-working relics we have of the Apostles, St. John the Baptist and other early Christians, proves that her body was taken up into Heaven. Which is appropriate, because if St. Elias and St. Enoch deserved this, then surely so too did the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And regarding a document saying Joseph was a widower, there is the second century Protoevangelion of James, which, while not scripture, accurately reflects the belief of the Eastern Orthodox Christians and I assume the Roman Catholics concerning Mary.

St. Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria who defined our 27 book New Testament canon and who was responsible for the defeat of Arius at the Council of Ephesus, also believed in her perpetual virginity.

 

[prodromos]

But Scripture plainly stated Mary had at least 6 more children. That's the bottom line.

Except that Scripture nowhere calls them Mary's children, so Scripture doesn't "plainly state" what you claim. It is a conclusion that you have drawn that is inconsistent with the Scriptures for the reasons I have given previously in this thread.

 

[Albion]

In the case of Anglicanism, that’s a falsehood, based on Article VI of the 39 Articles,...

In fact, the situation is EXACTLY as I stated it in my post.

 

[The Liturgist]

I only accept the 66 books of the Protestant canon.

You are of course free to accept whatever books you like, but note that it isn’t the Protestant Canon but the Canon of the Masoretic Text, which is the defective 9th century Jewish version of the Tanakh, which is greatly inferior to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the 3rd century BC which is vastly superior to the Masoretic text in terms of clarity, spiritual content (compare the Septuagint version of Esther with the Masoretic, or Psalm 95 in the Septuagint with the corresponding Psalm 96 in the Masoretic - note the versification is different). A good, freely available traditional language translation of the Septuagint is the Lancelot Brenton translation.

 

[The Liturgist]

In fact, the situation is EXACTLY as I stated it in my post.

Not according to Article VI.

 

[Albion]

Yes, according to Article VI.

The Article describes them as books that are not canonical. And as for some other importance, I stated it right from the Article--

"And the other Books*...the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine."

*The Apocryphal books are then named.

 

[prodromos]

She knew she was talking to an angel, not a man. And, as virgins didn't become pregnant, it was quite-natural for her to have asked.

Gabriel didn't give a specific time frame in which she would conceive, just that in the near future she would. A young woman, betrothed to be married, intending on having children with her future husband, would not ask such a question.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, according to Article VI.

Clearly we have a radically different interpretation of what Article VI says, but on this issue I am just going to side with the High Church and Anglo Catholic groups and bask in the splendour of all the Books read in the services of the Church of England..

 

[The Liturgist]

No, it's not false. If it's offensive, I don't care; truth is TRUTH & I won't deny it to keep from offending someone.
I consider many of those so-called Christians as quasi-pseudo Christians. If that offends someone, again, I don't care.

Well, the CF.com Statement of Faith defines them, and myself, as Christians.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Joe had a prior wife. And Scripture doesn't call them anything but Jesus' siblings. Not once is another mother even hinted at for them by the slightest implication, nor in any other known legitimate Jewish writings.

The doctrine "Mary was a perpetual virgin" is horse feathers.

Not according to John Wycliffe, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley or Thomas Cranmer. Nor according to Athanasius, who actually gave us the New Testament as we know it today, or Gregory of Nyssa, or Ambrose of Milan, or Augustine of Hippo, or Cyril of Alexandria, or indeed, of any Early Church Father.

In retrospect Athanasius should probably have included the Protoevangelion of James with the Shepherd of Hermas among books which could be read non-liturgically, in an extra-ecclesial setting, for catechesis and edification.

 

[prodromos]

Clearly we have a radically different interpretation of what Article VI says, but on this issue I am just going to side with the High Church and Anglo Catholic groups and bask in the splendour of all the Books read in the services of the Church of England..

"Read in the context of the liturgy" is what defines which books are canonical.

 

[Albion]

Clearly we have a radically different interpretation of what Article VI says, but on this issue I am just going to side with the High Church and Anglo Catholic groups and bask in the splendour of all the Books read in the services of the Church of England..

Yes, well, there are rebels and revisionists in many denominations, but it's
somewhat surprising to have them referred to in this case as the standard bearers of Anglican doctrine.

 

[The Liturgist]

If there were any LEGITIMATE jewish writings saying Joe was a widower,

Why do you keep referring to Joseph, the guardian of our Lord in His infancy and childhood, as “Joe”? It’s not scriptural, it is not his name, and it is anachronistic. I mean, we don’t call the Apostle Peter “Pete” or the Apostle Matthew “Matt” or the Apostle Thomas “Tom”, or James the Just “Jim” or “Jake.”

 

[The Liturgist]

"Read in the context of the liturgy" is what defines which books are canonical.

Indeed so, and since the Anglican church reads those books in the liturgy, and since Article VI does not declare them to be non-scriptural, but rather establishes that they are to be read for edification but not as the basis of doctrine, they are canonical.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, well, there are rebels and revisionists in many denominations, but it's
somewhat surprising to have them referred to in this case as the standard bearers of Anglican doctrine. I wonder if the Old Believers are now the official Russian Orthodox Church and the Society of St. Pius X the real Roman Catholics, too.

Well, numerically, High Churchmen, Broad Churchmen, Liberal Catholics and Anglo Catholics vastly outnumber the Low Church and Evangelical Anglicans. And this is even more the case among Continuing Anglicanism, which is mostly Anglo Catholic, albeit with a few Low Church jurisdiction.

And, Old Believers have been largely reconciled to the Moscow Patriarchate since the 19th century, the Edinovertsy, and many others, such as the Lipovans, joined other Eastern Orthodox churches, of Romania, Constantinople and Georgia, among others. And the two hierarchies that remain independent of the Moscow Patriarchate are still objectively Russian Orthodox in belief and worship. And St. Seraphim of Sarov was more likely than not an Old Believer, since he used a motified Lestovka for his prayer rule.

The Old Believers (except for the priestless ones, such as the Pomortsy):are almost exactly akin to the Continuing Anglicans, or the SSPX, in that a change was made to the liturgy by Patriarch Nikon, that was equivalent to the 1979 BCP or the Novus Ordo Missae, which was forced on the Old Believers, the difference being the Czar put Old Believers to death. Fortunately, no Continuing Anglicans or rebel Episcopalians who still use the 1928 BCP were executed. And since Pope Francis is uncanonically reversing Summorum Pontificum, and the Roman Church lacks a method of efficiently deposing a Pope whose theology is gravely defective, like Francis, the SSPX will once again be important.

However, Anglo Catholics, High Churchmen, Liberal Catholics and Broad Churchmen represent the majority of the members of the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the ECUSA, and most other jurisdictions in the Anglican Communion, with a few notable exceptions, like the Church of Ireland and the Archdiocese of Sydney.

 

[Albion]

Well, numerically, High Churchmen, Broad Churchmen, Liberal Catholics and Anglo Catholics vastly outnumber the Low Church and Evangelical Anglicans.

Swell, but the discussion was about the official standards of Anglicanism and the Articles of Religion in particular.

I really don't care what the imitation Catholics say or do since they are all in favor of whatever Rome says and does except that they won't actually follow through and convert to Roman Catholicism since that would mean they'd have to start obeying ecclesiastical authority for a change.

 

[robycop3]

LOL what? You do realize that for the year to change from 360 days to 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes and 45 seconds, there would have to be a massive acceleration, which would increase the distance of the Earth from the Sun, and this accelerational force would likely destroy everything on the planet, and there is no archaeological or scientific evidence to support this idea? And yet you accuse us of having doctrinal errors!

Not one of the early church fathers mentions such an event; they were under the belief, which was as accurate as one could get in the first century BC, when the Coptic Calendar and the derivative Julian calendar were adopted (which are still used by the persecuted Christians in Egpyt, Ethiopia, Israel and Palestine, and Jordan, as well as by the Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian and Serbian Orthodox Christians, who were so horrifically persecuted by the communists, and later in the case of the Serbian Orthodox Christians, in Kosovo by Albanian Muslims, a persecution which continues even at present, and also by the Greek Orthodox monasteries on Mount Athos).

Sir, virtually every known ancient calendar, not just the Jewish one, was for 360 days. Those people were very conscious of the date, as, being agricultural, they had to know the exact time when to plant, etc. They determined the date by watching the long shadows cast at sunrise & sunset, having the summer & winter solstice points marked.

The cataclysm occurred in the 700s BC during hezekiah's reign, when the sun appeared to move retrograde, sending the sundial shadow 10 degrees backward. After then, there were several years of confusion before the solstices were re-determined & the old marks showing where their shadows fell had to be determined anew.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sir, virtually every known ancient calendar, not just the Jewish one, was for 360 days. Those people were very conscious of the date, as, being agricultural, they had to know the exact time when to plant, etc. They determined the date by watching the long shadows cast at sunrise & sunset, having the summer & winter solstice points marked.

Those are lunar calendars, not solar calendars.

The cataclysm occurred in the 700s BC during hezekiah's reign, when the sun appeared to move retrograde, sending the sundial shadow 10 degrees backward. After then, there were several years of confusion before the solstices were re-determined & the old marks showing where their shadows fell had to be determined anew.

Nonsense! There is no archaeological or historical evidence of such a thing. That’s what makes the incident under St. Hezekiah a holy miracle.

 

[The Liturgist]

Swell, but the discussion was about the official standards of Anglicanism and the Articles of Religion in particular.

I really don't care what the imitation Catholics say or do since they are all in favor of whatever Rome says and does except that they won't actually follow through and convert to Roman Catholicism since that would mean they'd have to start obeying ecclesiastical authority for a change.

Anglo-Catholics are not “imitation Catholics” or Anglo-Papalists. They desire to continue the traditional worship of the historically autonomous and autocephalous Church of England. And they represent the best of Anglicanism. They did as much, if not more, to help the poor of London in the late 19th century than the Salvation Army, while observing all of the liturgies required by the Christian Church and enduring unlawful imprisonment for wearing a chasuble, which is explicitly allowed by the Ornaments Rubric. Their work was exceptional, and I see no historical record of any low church Anglicans bothering to do what they did to help the poor. It is no coincidence that the most Anglo Catholic parishes in Greater London, such All Saints Margaret Street and St. Magnus the Martyr, are located in what was at the time a horrible slum, or in a place easily accessible by the poor, respectively.

It is because of that that subsequent revisions of the BCP, such as the 1928 and 1979 American books, the 1929 Scottish BCP, and the 1928 Deposited Book (which a majority of Anglicans in Parliament voted for, but it was stopped by an alliance between the low church minority and Presbyterian and other non-Conformist MPs in what amounted to an anti-Catholic act), and the 1962 Canadian book, have all been headed in a more Anglo-Catholic direction. Also one of the most Anglo Catholic BCP editions is the 1938 Melanesian BCP, which is exquisite.

Anglo Catholicism also gave us the Benedictine Order of the Holy Cross, which produced one of the great Liturgical scholars of all time, Dom Gregory Dix, who I think was properly critical of Cranmer’s deeply flawed sacramental theology.