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.
We don't.
(I don't think the Protoevangelion is considered even an "ECF piece".)
First by comparison with what was received/always taught. Then, if the disagreement remains and is spreading, through a Council of all of the bishops (each having one vote). Then at the next Council, the earlier Council is either approved or rejected.
Some of Origen is "accepted", but some of his writings are condemned. Mostly, he worked on the first "parallel Bible", lining up all the different available versions.
A lot of what Origen taught was overidden. The Church, as before, judges by what was always taught and also "mindset"; what is called the "mind of the Church", the character - it's Christ centerdness. We have no infallible Pope.
After a while of reading the ECFs, you notice that they mention an earlier author (usually an ECF) and continue discussing that idea. They usually only mention the last author to state the idea, but you can generally follow teachings back to very early on this way. The earliest speak of what they have received.
So it is a pick and choose sort of thing, but based on a standard. Some writings are accepted, some discarded (or condemned), some kept but not as dogma or doctrine.
Just using what Standing Up is showing, thats what I am interested in.
No way is an ECFs word equal to God - Scripture is called the "Crown of Tradition" (and the Gospels are sort of like the "Crown" of Scripture). If an ECF is wrong, he's wrong. They're just human. But we recognize the Holy Spirit working in and through people, and and of course the working of the Holy Spirit is for the benefit of the whole (as in Paul's letter to the Corinthians).
The Protevangelion is not considered as Scripture (or even like an ECF). And the ECFs vary in opinions on many matters. As long as these matters do not negatively affect salvation, or are clearly wrong in some way, then they can be used for study, etc.
Never equal to Scripture (we kiss the Gospels, but no other book).
So some things are relevant, some important, some interesting, and some dangerous (like some of Origen's teachings). The dangerous writings are "tossed out".
Actually, Augustine is a good example. He is considered a Saint because of his deep repentance, some of his writings are considered interesting, some beneficial, and some are not accepted at all. His teaching on Original Sin, for example, is not accepted - it is thought to be not in Scripture and a new teaching (not received).
Thanks Thelka, you explained that very well (and easy for me to read) because you know me (lol) Ok I do sometimes forget you and the RC differ, I come to a site that offered the Protevangelion of James on a church fathers CD, and sometimes its hard to tell which is which.
I havent read any of them, so I dont know, however I am curious as to when certain doctrines began and finding their originations.
Thanks for that, you were very helpful
GotchaI'd hate to weed through all of them to be truthful Ive just never been inclined to I guess.
Thanks
I don't blame you
I read Scripture every day; I like to read, so when I want to read about Christ I might in addition pick up an ECf or a "spiritual elder". (Paul's writings are sort of the first of the spiritual elder letters - advice on living the Christian life, often in response to a question, or trouble, or as encouragement.)
Actually, sometimes the writings explain in a way that make something in Scripture just "pop out" or make sense in a way that is so simple, so straightforward. Although the ECFs sound complicated some times - usually when they are responding to a heresy - but at the core the teachings we have are so simple, they "fly" or "lift" the heaviness away. I think things that point to Christ are that way - they sit in the heart with an ease that shows all the stuff in the heart that's a mess. They are "light". Like He says, "My yoke is good/purposeful and my burden is light."
(I love that passage - in Greek, the word for good sounds like the word Christ, and the word for light sounds like the word for deer. So I always think of this, from the Psalms there - "He makes my feet like deer feet, and sets me upon my high places." )
Now I personally prefer when God does that popping thing directly "to me" which is probrobly why Im not partial to secondhand (or should I say, thirdhand?) pops as you say
I know what your saying though, I (personally) am not geared to work that way, I cant understand the way certain people speak, and alot of mens wordiness in their wisdom of words or eloquence (those sorta things) hinders me (not helps me). But I always receive more directly and through those who minister more directly in the way they might handle his words (without all that).
But everyones different I think.
I agree that it is spurious.
EO hold its ideals as part of the liturgy, apparently, according to OrthodoxyUSA.
These infancy gospels were highly popular in the day, apparently. The cult of virginity among young woman was also common. Mimiking Mary as the Perpetual Virigin through vows fo chastity, even for married women, was a pragmatic means to offer a woman a modicum of freedom from family and raising children. In our age of birth control, it is a fading part of Christian culture, but at the times of these nativity gospels, this kind of icon of the Virgin Mary had its appeal for women.
Scripturally speaking, there is no reason to believe this about Mary virginity. The Protevengelium of James, and stories like Joseph the Carpenter created a mythic justification for this kind of behavior, a pre-feminist 'biology is not destiny' revolt against motherhood, ironically with Mother Mary, ever Virgin, become the iconic figure for this.
The works are spurious, and if they are not then the Pope is very fallible indeed for declaring that they are.
Accordingly, the dogma that derives from these kind of pseudoepigraphia are also spurious, and therefore , the Church is very fallible indeed, for making these works a part of their liturgy.
Other than that, there is magical thinking that denies, denies, denies.
A books lack of placement in the canon really only means that it's not canon. It's not necesarily a mark against what you find in the book. I think it's fairly obvious that it was pseudoepigraphical. Maybe written a little later than the books that did make it in the canon. It's lack of canonicity may have nothing whatsoever to do with it's teachings. A text written in the 2nd century still attests to a second century belief. Such a belief may or may not be true or inline with the mainstream of the Church teachings.
Thanks Thelka, since I dont know much of the church fathers, do certain churches believe they are all without error?
For instance if Origen would disagree or others somehow on a point another book (say the protoevangelium of James) or what Standing Up is showing, how is that handled if the church seems to go in the direction otherwise? I ask that only because I dont understand how the whole church fathers (and what they believed) comes into play (or is taught downward). Well, since (for instance) if not going by scripture. How might a disagreement (such as one Origen might have had) with a point of PoJ then "churched out" so to speak? By that are their beliefs valued to a point where the church considers and halts, or is it a pick and chose type thing, or would the church override what they might have taught?
Just using what Standing Up is showing, thats what I am interested in.
I mean I know they can just say, "the protoevangelium of James is spurious" (and add though that doesnt make everything 100% untrue) I understand. However if a church father points out an error he doesnt agree with specifically in it, would His word be equal to Gods in a sense? Well, given Gods words just dont say (just leaving room for speculation). Since the POJ is considered spurious (already) and some of those considered church fathers come out and say what might be, how is that taken into consideration overall if at all?
Is it blown off? considered? held relevant? Equal to the words of God, Hows that work?
It seems like the early Christian writers commenting on the subject assumed the same as the modern reader does.
The prophecy of Psalms is additional proof.-snip-.
Well, the PoJ specifically contradicts Scripture. In fact, PoJ rails against one of the holiest Traditions of Mary. NO PAIN in childbirth.
The PoJ has midwives helping Mary, indicating pain, weakness. Scripture has her wrapping the Child, indicating no pain.
(I fixed the link in the OP, if folks want to know the point Aquinas made. IOW, the PoJ contradicts scripture. The PoJ is rejected because it suggests a HUGE DOCTRINAL ERROR.)
PS. I am not saying I agree with Aquinas (I don't), but I am trying to explain his POV.
-snip-Nary a one believes in it on other than a distant intellectual level!! Nary a one of us!! It is not just me then that you have a problem with. It is jsut a doctrine for you too, a writing on a paper, and nothing like an actual way of life.
Other than 'because my chruch says so, people have talked themselves blue in the face, without even once proclaiming the model of Perpetual Vriginity as something that has any meaning to them at all.
I can truthfully say that I don't believe this dogma, but more than that, I can say that I don't much believe in it, whatever the sex life of the Virgin Mary might have been all about.
I don't see the dogma as having produced much good fruits actually, and nothing I have read here by the traditonalist ahve done much to convince me others. Whether or not you proclaim the doctrine/dogma, you don'tbelieve in it either.
How is the correlation made between midwives and pain ?
Pain management/coaching is a role the midwife can play, but is hardly the whole of it. (Friend of midwife, 3x recipient of midwife's care.)
Nor does pain or not pain have anything to do with wrapping one's child at birth.
Read the OP. If Aquinas and SU and many others in the thread can make the connection, surely you are able too.
Objection 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
Reply to Objection 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
Look, you aren't going to agree, but try not to ask such apparent questions. How is the correlation made? Read the link. It's there in black and white.
IF that were the official position, I suspect none would have even a tiny bit of an issue with it (CERTAINLY not me!). I'm not even sure I disagree with you. But it's de fide dogma. A whole other enchilada.
Wow. That's all I have to say about that.... wow!
People have been burned at the stake for less than that, for issues less than de fide dogma.
I left the RCC because I couldn't say "I am CERTAIN to the highest level possible that __________ is a matter of highest importance possible for all persons of the Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter that impacts the eternal salvation of souls!" I didn't deny it, I didn't even disagree with it, in a couple of cases, I even saw it as most likely - but because I couldn't (in good conscience) say that later, I was "not Catholic" Again, people have been dispatched to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for a whole lot less than what you've posted concerning issues a whole lot less in status than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Things must be VERY different in the EOC... Ah, but a discussion for another day and thread.
BTW, your statement is like that of MANY Lutherans.... Perhaps Lutherans and Orthodox are more alike in other things, too?
IF you are referring to Luke (and not this false, rejected "protoevangelium") then I disagree with you (respectfully). I think ALL THE WORLD agrees with what it says. It's not hard. Read the words. All of them are very common Greek words. We all agree on what it says.
Wow. I'm just stunned.
It's far MORE, far far MORE than doctrine. It's de fide DOGMA (at least in the RCC).
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?