really not praying to Mary???

[Smileyill]

There was this little thing called the Cross , the grave and the Resurrection that changed all that

Indeed, and it did change much. However, nowhere does it question that story. Unless you hold that everything Christ didn't reaffirm was eliminated.

In which case tithing was eliminated too.

 

[Oblio]

Then you don't understand the ramifications of the Resurrection. Those who are in Christ, remain in Christ and are in communion with Him, and their prayers on our behalf avail much. None of this applies to Saul, who died before the Resurrection, nor was he sought as an intercessor before God.

And no, tithing is not required, but that's another thread.

 

[Debi1967]

Rag,
Completely out of context...

You wanted proof as to where we got the term from right?

Then No sir it is not out of context for me to provide you the ECFs that helped to explain it.... it is a strawman for you to dismiss it as such because you do not want to do proper analysis.

We do not turn deaf and dumb because we now have Faith, in fact we should become more in touch with our reasoning and intellect at that point. The Lord told us that our Faith would not be baseless. That it would have a foundation. We were created with a highly intellectual brain with the capacity to use it, as well as logic, conscience, and reasoning.

 

[Smileyill]

Then you don't understand the ramifications of the Resurrection. Those who are in Christ, remain in Christ and are in communion with Him, and their prayers on our behalf avail much. None of this applies to Saul, who died before the Resurrection, nor was he sought as an intercessor before God.

And no, tithing is not required, but that's another thread.

Forgive me, I was testing a bit there.
I agree, only that which Christ reaffirmed is now commanded. Although the rest is valuable for instruction. I also agree that tithing isn't required.

So you distinquished the story. There still remain 2 levels of extrapolation.

 

[simonthezealot]

The first church dedicated to Mary was dedicated by St. James the Greater in Spain in 40 or 41 A.D.

Historical records show that many churches have stood on the same site since. So if a church was dedicated in her name it follows that veneration was a part of the apostles mindset.

This was the post to which I asked where he learned about the Church dedicated to Mary.

Mike kindly posted a link.

I stated the link did not reference the history of the "myth" of a church being dedicated to Mary by James the Greater. only 11 years after Christ.

 

[Oblio]

Well, the Liturgy of St. James, the brother of the Lord, contains petitions to the Ever Virgin Theotokos.

 

[Debi1967]

This was the post to which I asked where he learned about the Church dedicated to Mary.

Mike kindly posted a link.

I stated the link did not reference the history of the "myth" of a church being dedicated to Mary by James the Greater. only 11 years after Christ.

To which I have now given you backing that it is not a MYTH of the Church because whether or not you have the particular reference to that Church in question or not, makes no difference.

The present spacious church in Baroque style was begun in 1681. According to an ancient Spanish tradition, given in the Roman Breviary (for 12 October, Ad. mat., lect. vi), the original shrine was built by St. James the Apostle at the wish of the Blessed Virgin, who appeared to him as he was praying by the banks of the Ebro at Saragossa. There has been much discussion as the truth of the tradition. Mgr L. Duchesne denies, as did Baronius, the coming of St. James to Spain, and reproduces arguments founded on the writings of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council, discovered by Loaisa, but rejected as spurious by the Jesuit academician Fita and many others. Those who defend the tradition adduce the testimony of St. Jerome (PL XXIV, 373) and that of the Mozarabic Office. The oldest written testimony of devotion to the Blessed Virgin in Saragossa usually quoted is that of Pedro Librana (1155). Fita has published data of two Christian tombs at Saragossa, dating from Roman days, on which the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is represented.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083b.htm

However this may help you in your endeavors

 

[simonthezealot]

To which I have now given you backing that it is not a MYTH of the Church because whether or not you have the particular reference to that Church in question or not, makes no difference.

The present spacious church in Baroque style was begun in 1681. According to an ancient Spanish tradition, given in the Roman Breviary (for 12 October, Ad. mat., lect. vi), the original shrine was built by St. James the Apostle at the wish of the Blessed Virgin, who appeared to him as he was praying by the banks of the Ebro at Saragossa. There has been much discussion as the truth of the tradition. Mgr L. Duchesne denies, as did Baronius, the coming of St. James to Spain, and reproduces arguments founded on the writings of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council, discovered by Loaisa, but rejected as spurious by the Jesuit academician Fita and many others. Those who defend the tradition adduce the testimony of St. Jerome (PL XXIV, 373) and that of the Mozarabic Office. The oldest written testimony of devotion to the Blessed Virgin in Saragossa usually quoted is that of Pedro Librana (1155). Fita has published data of two Christian tombs at Saragossa, dating from Roman days, on which the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is represented.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083b.htm

However this may help you in your endeavors

Where in here is that so called proof. I read of alot of later developing theories, and denials.

 

[Debi1967]

Where in here is that so called proof. I read of alot of later developing theories, and denials.

the coming of St. James to Spain, and reproduces arguments founded on the writings of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council, discovered by Loaisa, but rejected as spurious by the Jesuit academician Fita and many others. Those who defend the tradition adduce the testimony of St. Jerome (PL XXIV, 373) and that of the Mozarabic Office.

Fita has published data of two Christian tombs at Saragossa, dating from Roman days, on which the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is represented.

I absolutely love the way you always choose to highlight that which is negative in order to bend something to your point of view and take it out of the context of the whole...... amazing how you do that!
That is the Church approved encyclopedia. Basically it is saying to break this down for you, that although it was disputed, the allegations were put down as spurious and negated.

The tradition that St. James founded the Shrine to the Holy Mother there is accepted by the Church. The Church that surrounds the Shrine itself came later on though.

 

[simonthezealot]

I absolutely love the way you always choose to highlight that which is negative in order to bend something to your point of view and take it out of the context of the whole...... amazing how you do that!
That is the Church approved encyclopedia. Basically it is saying to break this down for you, that although it was disputed, the allegations were put down as spurious and negated.

The tradition that St. James founded the Shrine to the Holy Mother there is accepted by the Church. The Church that surrounds the Shrine itself came later on though.

Is the "Church" right in doing so?
Oh, this is one of those apple seeds to grow an oak tree analogies isn't it. There was no original proof but the story started spreading in the __ century and now we accept as tradition or would that be (T)radition.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I absolutely love the way you always choose to highlight that which is negative in order to bend something to your point of view and take it out of the context of the whole...... amazing how you do that!
That is the Church approved encyclopedia. Basically it is saying to break this down for you, that although it was disputed, the allegations were put down as spurious and negated.

The tradition that St. James founded the Shrine to the Holy Mother there is accepted by the Church. The Church that surrounds the Shrine itself came later on though.

I also noted that happens alot in here. The same happens to my posts.

Pull out the negative and ignore the full content.

 

[Debi1967]

Where in here is that so called proof. I read of alot of later developing theories, and denials.

Is the "Church" right in doing so?
Oh, this is one of those apple seeds to grow an oak tree analogies isn't it. There was no original proof but the story started spreading in the __ century and now we accept as tradition or would that be (T)radition.

It was always accepted it was not until the Council of Trent though that it was affirmed as such because it was disputed at the Council of Trent.

And I was correct in saying it is tradition not Tradition, it is not Canonical, or Law therefore cannot be Tradition with a captial T.

 

[simonthezealot]

It was always accepted .

How do we know this?

 

[Debi1967]

Those who defend the tradition adduce the testimony of St. Jerome (PL XXIV, 373) and that of the Mozarabic Office.

Because these men were taught by the Apostles themselves, therefore being taught by and students of the Apostles themselves their testimony weighs heavily into the picture of what is really said and done by the Apostles at the time. Therefore if the students of the Apostles themselves accepted it then it was thusly always accepted as such.

 

[Smileyill]

Because these men were taught by the Apostles themselves, therefore being taught by and students of the Apostles themselves their testimony weighs heavily into the picture of what is really said and done by the Apostles at the time. Therefore if the students of the Apostles themselves accepted it then it was thusly always accepted as such.

If so, I'd expect a complete list, you know similar to the genealogies in the Bible. Paul taught ____ who taught ___ who taught ____....all the way to today. I'd also expect stories about how great those men were, their character etc. I know all popes don't qualify.

 

[Lotar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Antioch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Constantinople

 

[Smileyill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Antioch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Constantinople

Thank you, this could make for some interesting reading.
I defer all until after I read it.

 

[AFriendinChrist]

If you say Mary is without sin then aren't you lifting her up higher than she belongs, thus inadvertently and unwittingly you would still be worshipping her?

 

[Smileyill]

Thank you, this could make for some interesting reading.
I defer all until after I read it.

Well I guess I won't be reading it, much of the list is incomplete. Do you have a better source?

 

[Lotar]

Well I guess I won't be reading it, much of the list is incomplete. Do you have a better source?

What, do you want to read about the life of each one? I'm sure no such record yet exists in English.

Some were Saints, some were not so good. The thing is, we have records like this for hundreds of bishoprics that have been around since Apostolic times. One may have erred from time to time, but never all at once.