Queen of Heaven?

[The Liturgist]

maybe you can provide a link to his views?

I believe that Acts 1 provides the pretext for how bishops are chosen even today, and of all, the pope. So the pope holds an apostolic role.

Certainly it applies at least as far as how bishops are chosen. The Roman Church to be fair did somewhat modify the process in the case of the Pope through the restriction of the bishops who can serve as papal electors to those who have been made Cardinals, and also it is a fact that in the Roman church the Pope alone enjoys an autonomy which all Orthodox and many Anglican bishops have, in that as a rule the presiding bishops of Orthodox and Anglican jurisdictions tend to serve in the role of primus inter pares, which also historically was the role of the Pope of Rome in both the Western church and the larger church, as denoted under canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea, and Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

 

[The Liturgist]

The NT is not a product of a church, but a product of (inspired) apostles.

Who as pointed out by our friends @FenderTL5 and @MarkRohfrietsch acted within and on behalf of the Church, whom they had been appointed by Christ our true God to lead.

 

[trophy33]

...contradict the idea that there is one obvious interpretation of scripture that everyone should be able to agree on just based upon the text itself.

How is this idea relevant to our topic about Mary? And its not my (or protestant) idea, anyway.

Rather, the reason why we have the Nicene Creed and other symbols of faith is to provide a canonical interpretation for our canon of Scripture, which is also extra-scriptural insofar as neither the New Testament nor the Old contain within their pages an index enumerating all the other books variously considered canonical by different Christian denominations. Indeed, even where we all agree, namely the 27 book New Testament, this is in fact an instance of Church Tradition.

So, you begin with "its difficult to agree about the text" and then you argue that there are creeds that are agreements about how to interpret the text... Fine with me, as long as those creeds are simple, reasonable and faithful to Scriptures.

 

[trophy33]

Who as pointed out by our friends @FenderTL5 and @MarkRohfrietsch acted within and on behalf of the Church, whom they had been appointed by Christ our true God to lead.

Apostles told the church what to do. Not the church to apostles. If we agree on that, we do not have to juggle with "apostles and church" anymore.

 

[The Liturgist]

You have it exactly reversed and wrong. It is a failure to recognize the Authority of the Church, especially when in council, that has spawned the many errors and divisions in the Church.

Indeed, at a minimum everyone should be able to agree on the first three councils, and also the essential doctrine of the fifth, sixth and seventh councils, and the principle of both Ephesus and Chalcedon, held by Chalcedonians and Oriental Orthodox alike, that our Lord Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, having become incarnate without his human nature or his uncreated divine nature in hypostatic union being subject to change, confusion, separation or division.

Interestingly the contemporary Assyrians also affirm this principle, so it is my prayer that reunification of the three Eastern communions might soon happen, since there really is no longer any real doctrinal division (although there are a few pro-Nestorian nutters who exist in the fringes of the Assyrian church, who try to claim that iconoclasm is an Assyrian doctrine, when it is not, indeed, the canons of the Church require the icon of Christ not made by hands to be present on the altar, and there is an effort in the Assyrian church to phase this in over the next few years).

 

[The Liturgist]

So, you begin with "its impossible to agree about the text" and then you argue that there are Creeds that are agreements about how to interpret the text... Fine with me, as long as those Creeds are simple and faithful to Scriptures.

The Creeds however are not a part of the text but external to it, which is my point, in that the Nicene Creed represents a definitive, authoritative statement of the Apostolic Faith which guides our interpretation of Scripture, which it is also compatible with as a matter of point, in that it does flow from a correct reading of Scripture. But insofar as it itself was considered for inclusion in Scripture by the same people who composed it, such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who also was responsible for our 27 book New Testament canon, since it was not written by the Apostles, but was rather introduced to combat the heresies such as Arianism which had sprouted as diabolical weeds seeking to choke the faithful fruit on the vine of Christ’s vineyard since the repose of St. John the Beloved Disciple and the martyrdom of his peers among the Twelve and St. Paul and nearly all of the Seventy, including his brother St. James the Great.

 

[The Liturgist]

Apostles told the church what to do. Not the church to apostles. If we agree on that, we do not have to juggle with "apostles and church" anymore.

The Apostles were the hierarchy of the Church. There is no distinction between the Church and the Apostles, because, to paraphrase St. Ignatius of Antioch, where the Apostles were, there was the Church. Everyone regardless of whether or not they adhere to an Episcopal, Presbyterian or Congregational polity should be able to agree on that fundamental principle.

 

[The Liturgist]

Even five is too many.

Indeed. It is an extreme tragedy that there even exist the divisions between the churches of antiquity, although at least in the case of the EO/OO divide, this is increasingly fading into history where it matters, in Egypt and Syria, as the imperative of pan-Orthodox unity and the realization that the Oriental Orthodox are different from the Monophysites led by Eutyches and John Philoponus et al, has prevailed upon most of the bishops of both the EO and OO churches in the region, with the unfortunate exception of a few holdouts largely among the Greeks and Ethiopians.

 

[trophy33]

The Apostles were the hierarchy of the Church. There is no distinction between the Church and the Apostles, because, to paraphrase St. Ignatius of Antioch, where the Apostles were, there was the Church. Everyone regardless of whether or not they adhere to an Episcopal, Presbyterian or Congregational polity should be able to agree on that fundamental principle.

What do you mean no distinction? If there was no distinction, we would not have two words. Church is the body of believers, apostles are specific people personally sent by Christ to establish His church.

 

[trophy33]

The Creeds however are not a part of the text but external to it, which is my point, in that the Nicene Creed represents a definitive, authoritative statement of the Apostolic Faith which guides our interpretation of Scripture, which it is also compatible with as a matter of point, in that it does flow from a correct reading of Scripture. But insofar as it itself was considered for inclusion in Scripture by the same people who composed it, such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who also was responsible for our 27 book New Testament canon, since it was not written by the Apostles, but was rather introduced to combat the heresies such as Arianism which had sprouted as diabolical weeds seeking to choke the faithful fruit on the vine of Christ’s vineyard since the repose of St. John the Beloved Disciple and the martyrdom of his peers among the Twelve and St. Paul and nearly all of the Seventy, including his brother St. James the Great.

Too much text, I am not sure what you want to say. Can you concise your thoughts, regarding the context about Mary?

 

[trophy33]

Indeed. It is an extreme tragedy that there even exist the divisions between the churches of antiquity, although at least in the case of the EO/OO divide, this is increasingly fading into history where it matters, in Egypt and Syria, as the imperative of pan-Orthodox unity and the realization that the Oriental Orthodox are different from the Monophysites led by Eutyches and John Philoponus et al, has prevailed upon most of the bishops of both the EO and OO churches in the region, with the unfortunate exception of a few holdouts largely among the Greeks and Ethiopians.

Actually, protestant denominations are very friendly and it is no "extreme tragedy". I visited many and was welcome in all. The only denominations I am not welcome are the "churches of antiquity" which, in their pride, exclude non-members from many of their ceremonies and communities.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually, protestant denominations are very friendly and it is no "extreme tragedy". I visited many and was welcome in all. The only denominations I am not welcome are the "churches of antiquity" which, in their pride, exclude non-members from many of their ceremonies and communities.

I myself have substantial experience with Protestantism as indeed I have worked as a minister within a major Protestant tradition, so I am extremely familiar with the fact that the major Protestant denominations are not greatly different from each other.

However, this also somewhat misses the point. The real problem is the proliferation of fundamentalist churches which are actually not at all friendly, but rather hostile to each other, which you probably have not encountered in the Czech Republic, except perhaps among occasional American missionaries some of them might send (some of them do not practice missionary work as they rather absurdly consider it to be unscriptural, for example, some of the more extreme Reformed Fundamentalist churches and also groups like some of the Plymouth Brethren in the UK, which are known for their deep suspicion of outsiders, and also many of the Mennonite and Anabaptist denominations, and related groups such as the Amish, in the US. And there are a large number of such groups, basically, very small denominations that are hostile to outsiders to the point where they function as cults.

But even if we consider the major Protestant denominations which agree on most points with each other and indeed actually with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics*, which is the raison d’etre for the Traditional Theology subforum, that being the commonality between the liturgical Protestants, the Orthodox, and the Catholics, it is still extremely unfortunate that a state of full communion does not exist between them. For example, even among Lutherans, one cannot be a member of WELS and partake of the Eucharist at an LCMS church, or vice versa. Indeed WELS is somewhat notorious as they will not even pray with members of other churches except for, if I recall, a small number of Lutheran churches with a somewhat Reformed theology that are in precise doctrinal agreement with them, which is in contrast to the LCMS which is somewhat more open to ecumenical relations.


*and here is a fun fact: the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates as saints St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who are also the founders of the Moravian denomination, at least in part (although the Moravians of today, in the US at least, are most influenced by the doctrines of the German pietist Nikolaus Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorf, the Count of Zinzendorf, who settled a surviving remnant of Moravians on his lands in Saxony to escape persecution by the Austrians.

 

[The Liturgist]

What do you mean no distinction? If there was no distinction, we would not have two words. Church is the body of believers, apostles are specific people personally sent by Christ to establish His church.

Forgive me, I meant to type “Separation” rather than “Distinction.”

 

[The Liturgist]

Too much text, I am not sure what you want to say. Can you concise your thoughts, regarding the context about Mary?

I am sorry, but you will have to accept the famed apology Pascal once wrote for having to write a long letter as he did not have time to compose a short one.

 

[PeterDona]

Here seems to be some short English summary, translated from German: Hus' De Ecclesia - John Hus

There are also some influential thoughts about (Danish) church in the book The Moment by Soren Kierkegaard. And of course, Luther, Komenský and others.

hm hm if the first paragraph reflects truth, I would probably not be catholic either. It seems that the RCC was becoming pretty secteric / cultic, aspiring to have authority over men. That does not look healthy.

But tbh, a smaller part of my conversion to catholicism is to get away from all the secterism and cultism that I have almost invariably found in evangelical churches. It appears that every church is led by some monster who controls the sheep.

One of my friends really went into Kierkegaard, but I never caught the fascination.

 

[trophy33]

It appears that every church is led by some monster who controls the sheep.

I do not have such experience in protestant churches here in Europe. Every protestant church I have attended was open to discussion, welcoming and friendly. They have their specific official theology about various things, but do not force it.

RCC, SDA and Jehovists are rather closed communities lead by some "infallible" leaders, but protestants are not. I do not know how it is in eastern orthodox churches, but supposing they are composed mainly of Russian or Ukrainian speaking members, these communities are isolated as a default.

 

[trophy33]

hm hm if the first paragraph reflects truth, I would probably not be catholic either. It seems that the RCC was becoming pretty secteric / cultic, aspiring to have authority over men. That does not look healthy.

Yeah. Jan Hus was burned at the stake for his teachings.

 

[trophy33]

I myself have substantial experience with Protestantism as indeed I have worked as a minister within a major Protestant tradition, so I am extremely familiar with the fact that the major Protestant denominations are not greatly different from each other.

However, this also somewhat misses the point. The real problem is the proliferation of fundamentalist churches which are actually not at all friendly, but rather hostile to each other, which you probably have not encountered in the Czech Republic, except perhaps among occasional American missionaries some of them might send (some of them do not practice missionary work as they rather absurdly consider it to be unscriptural, for example, some of the more extreme Reformed Fundamentalist churches and also groups like some of the Plymouth Brethren in the UK, which are known for their deep suspicion of outsiders, and also many of the Mennonite and Anabaptist denominations, and related groups such as the Amish, in the US. And there are a large number of such groups, basically, very small denominations that are hostile to outsiders to the point where they function as cults.

But even if we consider the major Protestant denominations which agree on most points with each other and indeed actually with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics*, which is the raison d’etre for the Traditional Theology subforum, that being the commonality between the liturgical Protestants, the Orthodox, and the Catholics, it is still extremely unfortunate that a state of full communion does not exist between them. For example, even among Lutherans, one cannot be a member of WELS and partake of the Eucharist at an LCMS church, or vice versa. Indeed WELS is somewhat notorious as they will not even pray with members of other churches except for, if I recall, a small number of Lutheran churches with a somewhat Reformed theology that are in precise doctrinal agreement with them, which is in contrast to the LCMS which is somewhat more open to ecumenical relations.


*and here is a fun fact: the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates as saints St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who are also the founders of the Moravian denomination, at least in part (although the Moravians of today, in the US at least, are most influenced by the doctrines of the German pietist Nikolaus Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorf, the Count of Zinzendorf, who settled a surviving remnant of Moravians on his lands in Saxony to escape persecution by the Austrians.

The only US (or even Australian) originated churches I can think of were some pentecostal/charismatic churches, SDA and Jehova Witnesses. But thats not probably what you mean by fundamentalist churches.

Regarding Plymouth Brethren, I think the Christian Assemblies (In Czech rep: Křesťanské sbory, in Germany: Evangelisch-Freikirchlichen Gemeinden, or Freie Brüder) follow up on those in some way, but its perhaps a loose following, absorbing various local reformation traditions.

I am not familiar with LCMS and WELS. Anyway, I think that protestants are not even welcome to visit the RCC service or communities, not to say to participate in the Lord's Supper, so from my point of view, the RCC is the most closed denomination.

 

[PeterDona]

I am not familiar with LCMS and WELS. Anyway, I think that protestants are not even welcome to visit the RCC service or communities, not to say to participate in the Lord's Supper, so from my point of view, the RCC is the most closed denomination.

I just looked it up. WELS is a Wisconsin evangelical lutheran something.

Actually, the first 3 times I was at a catholic church I partook in the Lord's Supper. I was not yet aware that I was not supposed to until being converted. And I did have the required understanding, that it was really Jesus Christ that i was receiving, so I do not really know that I sinned. At least not with respect to 1 cor 11:27.

I think you are welcome to an RCC service. You just have to wear an orange suit, and when you enter the building you must shout "unclean" repeatedly, so that they are aware.

 

[PeterDona]

RCC, SDA and Jehovists are rather closed communities lead by some "infallible" leaders,

With respect to RCC, my experience is much different.

Maybe my question should be, do you dislike the teachings of the RCC because you consider it to be a cultish society?