Something About Mary

[Standing Up]

We don't speculate. We ask those who knew Paul personally, such as Clement and Ignatius, both of whom were contemporaries of the Apostles. We ask those ordained by them, and who came in succession from them.

It isn't speculation. It is observation.

It is belief that God would preserve an unchanged Church in every generation.

So does RC. It's pure speculation about what they taught and wrote over the centuries departed from apostles. Your Tradition doesn't stop at 100ad. Popism at its best; the very accusation you make of everyone else.

 

[sculleywr]

So does RC. It's pure speculation about what they taught and wrote over the centuries departed from apostles. Your Tradition doesn't stop at 100ad. Popism at its best; the very accusation you make of everyone else.

It's pure speculation? Then why do you accept the pure speculation of the canon? Or the pure speculation of the Trinity? Or the pure speculation of the identity of the gospel writers? I mean, all three of those aren't written down until well after the Apostles died.

It isn't speculation, it is expectation that God created a Church which was orderly and authoritative. It is belief that God created a Church that was and remained permanently stronger than the power of hell, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Christ Himself. I would rather believe that God has truly fulfilled this in every generation:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There is one Body. That is not speculation. That is fact. Don't like it, take it up with God. It isn't I or the Orthodox of today who said it. It is God.

 

[Albion]

It's pure speculation? Then why do you accept the pure speculation of the canon? Or the pure speculation of the Trinity? Or the pure speculation of the identity of the gospel writers? I mean, all three of those aren't written down until well after the Apostles died.

We don't accept those things because we like the speculation, you know. That's what Tradition does--picks out the particular opinions that the church leaders like, from among dozens of contrary opinions.

 

[sunlover1]

It's pure speculation? Then why do you accept the pure speculation of the canon? Or the pure speculation of the Trinity? Or the pure speculation of the identity of the gospel writers? I mean, all three of those aren't written down until well after the Apostles died.

It isn't speculation, it is expectation that God created a Church which was orderly and authoritative. It is belief that God created a Church that was and remained permanently stronger than the power of hell, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Christ Himself. I would rather believe that God has truly fulfilled this in every generation:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There is one Body. That is not speculation. That is fact. Don't like it, take it up with God. It isn't I or the Orthodox of today who said it. It is God.

Hmmmm
Who's denying that there's one church?
Nada.
So this here rant would be called a strawman.
But you make some good points in it anyhow.
Why not enjoy the writings of the ancients
without insisting others do and just accept
other christians for WHO they know (Children
of the most High God) rather than WHAT they
know?

 

[sculleywr]

There is only one church.
And it seems to be divided.

Not according to Scripture.
Paul was already scolding about division to the church at corinth.
I hear that when you come together as a church,
there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

He did!
And nothing's new under the sun is it?
1 Corinthians 3:3
You are still worldly.
For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you,
are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?


You're free to believe whatever you like, but when Paul calls them ALL
brothers and then scolds them for NOT being of one mind, well I gotta
believe that he was telling the truth.
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

He's speaking TO the church
He's begging them to be united in mind and thought.
Why's he scolding them?
Because there are divisions.

I can understand why the others unsubscribe.
No one is buying this story you're selling.
My sect is better, my sect is THE sect to beat all sects.
There's only ONE sect and mine's IT.
And MY division isn't as bad as your division.
And tbh, that's a sad message to cling to.

I encourage you to preach unity.

Then Christ is apparently Schizophrenic. I mean, he is saying 20'000 different things that all contradict each other. Yeah. That's the Body of Christ, a mishmash of conflicting people who can't even agree on Salvation, the nature of Christ, and the nature of the Body of Christ. Yeah, that's definitely one body, with one faith and one Spirit. Sure, that's what Ephesians meant when it said that. Or perhaps it was saying that there was one Church with one Spirit and one Faith. No divisions. Perhaps it was saying that those who were dividing were separating themselves

Perhaps it was saying you CAN know the complete Apostolically delivered truth. Perhaps the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. The concept of the Church you just delivered isn't of a pillar. It's of a bunch of dust left after you take dynamite to a pillar. It couldn't hold up a house of straw, much less the House of God. That concept of the Church is the very reason that Atheists look at us and say, "and what does YOUR brand of Christianity teach?"

God's body is apparently stricken with an autoimmune disease if your description is accurate.

No.

That is just about the most hopeless idea, because such an idea means that I can never know the truth. I am left as a baby sea turtle, content to be playing around in my puddle of a tide pool, unaware of the mighty ocean of truth that I am missing out on. And the saddest thing is, i'm close enough to the ocean that I could theoretically scoot my way there. But I'm content to stay in my little puddle, under the delusion that I could never make it to the ocean.

 

[sculleywr]

Hmmmm
Who's denying that there's one church?
Nada.
So this here rant would be called a strawman.
But you make some good points in it anyhow.
Why not enjoy the writings of the ancients
without insisting others do and just accept
other christians for WHO they know (Children
of the most High God) rather than WHAT they
know?

You don't deny that there is one Church. You deny that there is one Spirit and one Faith in that One Church. Your one Church has 20'000 faiths and spirits in it.

 

[sculleywr]

We don't accept those things because we like the speculation, you know. That's what Tradition does--picks out the particular opinions that the church leaders like, from among dozens of contrary opinions.

So, Tradition is what YOU say it is.

Unfortunately, Tradition doesn't select what people like. Honestly, if I chose what I liked, I'd still be a Baptist, because it's easier and simpler.

Tradition chooses what has always been taught, no matter what contrary opinions there are.

 

[sculleywr]

There are many hundreds of them, yes.



You aren't led at all. That is my point. We who do not have a Pope, have the Word of God. But you, who also do not have a Pope, really need one to decide which devout opinion, legend, or piece of folklore is to be interpreted which way.


Well, you're the one who thought it so cute to make that claim. I just pointed out that if we don't have one, you don't either.

That fact makes a strange basis for belittling reformed Christianity, if you only knew.


Actually, they do. Unfortunately, members of the unreformed churches are taught that they don't adhere to it. But that is just propaganda IMO. My advice always is to try to rise above it.

We are led, by the many Bishops we have, in concert with eachother. Not against each other.
Next, it is accurate that a Protestant is his own pope. As a Protestant, a person can pick and choose what he wants to believe is true. Want a wonka ticket salvation? No problem! Here's a church that teaches that. Want a little liturgical flavor? Here you go!

In Orthodoxy, you don't have that option with doctrine. Both Annunciation and Protection Orthodox Church here in Chattanooga will teach the same doctrine. They do not teach differently in Doctrine. when I go to Atlanta, I get the same doctrine at the Orthodox Church there.

Finally, I was once Baptist. And no, any church that follows Sola Scriptura is following a tradition of sola scriptura, which isn't found in the Scripture, and is rather their own tradition. Scripture never says "follow the Scripture alone". It never says "Scripture is the only source of doctrinal truth." Therefore, those two teachings are both TRADITIONS.

 

[sculleywr]

2 Timothy 3:15-17: "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."
1 Corinthians 4:6
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
Acts 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Matthew 4:1-11 note that Jesus always says 'it is written" not "I say" or "tradition teaches". As a matter of fact, the teaching of anything other than sola scriptura would be hard to prove.

Didn't happen to see a place that said "use only Scripture". Perhaps I missed it. Besides that, before Paul wrote to Timothy about Scripture, he called the Church the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15). He also commanded that all that he wrote AND said was to be followed.

No. And this proves a fundamental ignorance of the doctrine of sola scriptura.

And what authority do you have to tell me that? It is a logical determination. If we use only Scripture, then my personal interpretation of Scripture can be my own personal measuring stick.

Hey, way to cherry pick the tired, out of context, stand by from James.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
(Most of Romans reads like this)

But they cannot contradict the writings of James. Sola Fide ignores the context of James, as well as of Hebrews 5:9, which says He is the Author of Salvation to them who obey Him.

No.
Tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven.

nope.

Tradition says Jesus is sacrificed again and again in the mass.

Nope

Tradition says Mary was sinless.

nope

Tradition says the pope is the head of the church.

nope. From the Council of Chalcedon, which was approved by the Pope of that time:
And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her;

Tradition says infant baptism imparts grace.

Finally something. But Scripture is kinda completely quiet on infant Baptism. An infant received grace through the circumcision in the Old Testament, being allowed from then on to take part in the worship of the Jews. The same happens in Baptism.

Tradition says priests must remain unmarried.

My priest is married, has two children and four grandchildren. In fact, most priests in Orthodoxy are married.

The scriptures do not say any of this. Sola scriptura means the scriptures are the last word (no pun intended) on doctrine and practice. I think in the end, all that's been highlighted is your lack of understanding when it comes to sola scriptura.

Scripture never says it is the last word. Scripture doesn't even tell us what it is.

A true Sola Scriptura application is to say there is no known authorship of the gospels, because you cannot say who wrote them.

 

[Albion]

We are led, by the many Bishops we have, in concert with eachother. Not against each other.

In theory, but in practice the backstabbing and rivalries between bishops over getting and holding power are well known.

Next, it is accurate that a Protestant is his own pope.

Look, that is such a ridiculous notion, that it's not worth rebutting it once again.

As a Protestant, a person can pick and choose what he wants to believe is true.

With certain matters, that's probably so; but it's no less the case in the Catholic churches, so you really have no issue here.

In Orthodoxy, you don't have that option with doctrine.

But when you look at the other Catholic churches, it certain is true. You took all the Protestants and looked at them as if there were supposed to be some homogenous body and then pointed to alleged inconsistencies, but when it comes to the other side of the ledger, you don't want us to take account of the Catholic churches in the same way. Oh no, then you want the Orthodox to be assessed separately from the other Catholic churches. Well, if you want to do that, I insist that you make a fair comparison between your church and some particular Protestant church such as the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. What diversity of opinion exists in that body?

 

[sculleywr]

In theory, but in practice the backstabbing and rivalries between bishops over getting and holding power are well known.

And yet, despite personal issues which EVERY human has, the Orthodox Church hasn't changed its dogmatic teachings. You, yourself, come from a split-off of a split-off from the original Anglicanism.

Look, that is such a ridiculous notion, that it's not worth rebutting it once again.

Proof that you can be your own pope:
Galatians 4

I've debated with this girl several times. She can choose what she wants to believe, including the fact that she does not need to go to church.

There are thousands of people just like her, believing what they want. By pure definition, they are their own pope. But they are Christians, too, according to the loose definition of the Church which I have seen you use.

With certain matters, that's probably so; but it's no less the case in the Catholic churches, so you really have no issue here.

I don't actually have that freedom as an Orthodox. I would be excommunicating myself by doing so.

But when you look at the other Catholic churches, it certain is true. You took all the Protestants and looked at them as if there were supposed to be some homogenous body and then pointed to alleged inconsistencies, but when it comes to the other side of the ledger, you don't want us to take account of the Catholic churches in the same way. Oh no, then you want the Orthodox to be assessed separately from the other Catholic churches. Well, if you want to do that, I insist that you make a fair comparison between your church and some particular Protestant church such as the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. What diversity of opinion exists in that body?

I also made the assertion that there is only one Body. Not many. I didn't say that all other Catholics are part of that Body. If you wish to debate with my stance, please debate with it. Don't create a bill of goods and try to sell it to me.

 

[Albion]

And yet, despite personal issues which EVERY human has, the Orthodox Church hasn't changed its dogmatic teachings. You, yourself, come from a split-off of a split-off from the original Anglicanism.

But the truth is that there are similar split-offs in Eastern Orthodoxy. I often think that the real difference is we admit it and you pretend that it doesn't happen.

I don't actually have that freedom as an Orthodox. I would be excommunicating myself by doing so.

That would only matter if you imposed it upon yourself. There are many Catholics who have technically excommunicated themselves but go ahead communing, etc. as though nothing has changed.

I also made the assertion that there is only one Body. Not many.

And we say that same thing. You ridicule us for speaking of the invisible church, but that's the same concept.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm a bit confused about why you don't know the answer to this.
I thought your church had the fullness of truth.
Was that some other group I"m thinking of?

We don't cense statues, normally. We cense the altar, we cense the Gospel, we cense the people. We cense entire churches. In fact, in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, there's a censor that a human could comfortably sit in (if it wasn't full of charcoal) that they swing through the main aisle of the church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you wet a computer print off the ink runs, though most cement figures got that clear coat on them so you get them really wet (lots of lips) and the paint remain in tact.

Though all the Jesus's all look different I wouldnt know which one was which because they dont all look alike.

Did you see the picture on the one thread in GT? That one looks exactly like Sly Stallone, around the lips and the eye area. I posted pictures besides that one, the ressemblance is uncanny.

Actually, the ones that resemble my avatar are the ones that most resemble Jesus...for example...

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

I also made the assertion that there is only one Body. Not many. I didn't say that all other Catholics are part of that Body. If you wish to debate with my stance, please debate with it. Don't create a bill of goods and try to sell it to me.

Sculleywr is probably the easiest to talk to here, if we simply hear him. He's really quite clear that his denomination is The One True Church and all others are not part of the Body of Christ.

 

[sunlover1]

I agree that sculley is easy to talk to.
But I'm enjoying everyone today.
God bless you all!
Off to spend some time in the sun
See you all later!

 

[sunlover1]

Sculleywr is probably the easiest to talk to here, if we simply hear him. He's really quite clear that his denomination is The One True Church and all others are not part of the Body of Christ.

Curious to see what he says about this.

 

[Root of Jesse]

2 Timothy 3:15-17: "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."
1 Corinthians 4:6
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
Acts 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Matthew 4:1-11 note that Jesus always says 'it is written" not "I say" or "tradition teaches". As a matter of fact, the teaching of anything other than sola scriptura would be hard to prove.

No. And this proves a fundamental ignorance of the doctrine of sola scriptura.

So, none of these passages speaks of the written word exclusively...Jesus Himself, if writing was so crucial, never said "Write this down". And when he says "It is written", he was talking about OT.

Hey, way to cherry pick the tired, out of context, stand by from James.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
(Most of Romans reads like this)

No.
Tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven.
Tradition says Jesus is sacrificed again and again in the mass.
Tradition says Mary was sinless.
Tradition says the pope is the head of the church.
Tradition says infant baptism imparts grace.
Tradition says priests must remain unmarried.
Tradition says...etc, etc, etc....ad infinitum.

You have two different types of tradion mentioned here, and several misconcepitons. First the misconceptions: Jesus is not sacrificed again and again. (T)radition says Mary was assumed and sinless, that Matt 16:18 and other places put Peter and his successors as head of the Church on earth, and that baptism, whether infant or adult (because Scripture never specifies), imparts Grace. The others are (t)radition.

The scriptures do not say any of this. Sola scriptura means the scriptures are the last word (no pun intended) on doctrine and practice. I think in the end, all that's been highlighted is your lack of understanding when it comes to sola scriptura.

So where, in Scripture, are altar calls, and passing the collection basket while a hymn is sung after the sermon?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm with you. I had hoped that this thread would contain different material, but it seems there is nothing new under the sun. Also unsubscribing

Truthfully, there is nothing new under the sun. The Truth is The Truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are many hundreds of them, yes.



You aren't led at all. That is my point. We who do not have a Pope, have the Word of God. But you, who also do not have a Pope, really need one to decide which devout opinion, legend, or piece of folklore is to be interpreted which way.


Well, you're the one who thought it so cute to make that claim. I just pointed out that if we don't have one, you don't either.

That fact makes a strange basis for belittling reformed Christianity, if you only knew.


Actually, they do. Unfortunately, members of the unreformed churches are taught that they don't adhere to it. But that is just propaganda IMO. My advice always is to try to rise above it.

You know full well that Popes don't make those kinds of decisions...