Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where in Scripture does it say that God has inspired Scripture but not His church?

Moot to the discussion...

Yes, we ALL KNOW that the LDS claims that God infallibly leads it, that it infallibly follows and that God reveals Truth to it. But this thread is not about the LDS or about denominations or about new revelations. It's about MARY.

The RCC insists that to spread popularly held but unsubstantiated reports or stories is a sin. Thus, it agrees that substantiation is essential - the story or report must be confirmable, not simply an opinion. Thus, the RCC agrees that these DOGMAS (statements of highest certainty) about Our Blessed Lady MUST be substantiated and confirmed - not only because they are DOGMAS (and thus require the highest level of evidence, documentation and substantiation) but because if it is not substantiated, the spreading of it is a sin against Mary.

Thus, we're discussing what dogmatic documentation there is for these stories about Mary. BECAUSE we love, adore, revere and hold her in highest esteem as Jesus' Mother, the Mother of God, Chief among the Saints, and the Queen of Heaven. TRUTH about her matters. We don't want to hurt or embarrass or sin against her - and therefore her Son.




.

 

[MamaZ]

What does Martin Luther have to do with anything tee hee.. The topic at hand is Mary really.

 

[Uphill Battle]

From wikipedia~
According to the apocryphal Gospel of James.

didja read the wiki article?

Authorship:

The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem." Thus the purported author is James the Just, whom the text claims is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and thus a stepbrother of Jesus.
Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language, and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs while James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by).[1]

The echoes and parallels of the Old Testament appear to derive from its Greek translation, the Septuagint, as opposed to the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is noticeable due to several peculiarities and variations present in the Septuagint. It apparently embellishes on what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to and at the moment of, Jesus' birth, in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke.
As for its estimated date, the consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[2]

Ill advised for someone who accepts the infancy gospel as truthful... to link to evidence that it is in fact not.


also from the article:

Besides the perpetual virginity of Mary, this is also the earliest text that explicitly claims that Joseph was a widower, with children, at the time that Mary is entrusted to his care. This is the feature which appears in its earliest mention, in the above-mentioned text of Origen, who adduces it to demonstrate that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife. Since the text was among those "which are to be avoided by catholics" according to Gelasian Decree, its dismissal may be due in part to this reading of the adelphoi, which corresponded to the developed Eastern Orthodox view rather than the western, i.e. Roman Catholic, view, which treated them as cousins.

did the Gelasian Decree get ignored, overturned... or was it "not from the chair of Peter, so we're free to change it if we want?"

 

[Qoheleth]

BECAUSE we love, adore, revere and hold her in highest esteem as Jesus' Mother, the Mother of God, Chief among the Saints, and the Queen of Heaven. TRUTH about her matters. We don't want to hurt or embarrass or sin against her - and therefore her Son.

Josiah, why do you call Mary chief among saints? Why do you say she is Queen of heaven?

Is there specific Scripture to support this?



Q

 

[Philothei]

Josiah, why do you call Mary chief among saints? Why do you say she is Queen of heaven?

Is there specific Scripture to support this?



Q

No, but he is full of straw man... you did not know?

He never answered either where we find in the Bible the event of ressurection to be actually eyewitnessed.... I am not talking about the "accounts" of seeing Jesus ressurected AFTERWARDS but actual people who saw Him being ressurected.... then I will understand his insistance on us finding an eyewitness that actually eyetenessed Mary and Josephs' "platonic" relationship....But he cannot as it is not in the Bible but we ONLY are told "about" the ressurection through the witness of the myrth brearer women...

Was the ressurection also a "rumour"? of course not...

Was Mary's virginity a "rumour" or course not since the community of the faithful "witnessed" her undefiled life style as she is "equal to the Apostles".

 

[Thekla]

Moot to the discussion...

Yes, we ALL KNOW that the LDS claims that God infallibly leads it, that it infallibly follows and that God reveals Truth to it. But this thread is not about the LDS or about denominations or about new revelations. It's about MARY.


.

Given the "parallel" you claim, and the novelty (new) of the LDS teachings, it is your burden to show that your position is not novel (new) also and that the EO/OO/RC teaching of ever-virginity is novel (new).

Likewise, as you claim the Bible as the only valid source, it is your burden to prove that the NT is indeed authentic and the same as the original 1st c. writings of the same.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Given the "parallel" you claim, and the novelty (new) of the LDS teachings, it is your burden to show that your position is not novel (new) also and that the EO/OO/RC teaching of ever-virginity is novel (new).

Likewise, as you claim the Bible as the only valid source, it is your burden to prove that the NT is indeed authentic and the same as the original 1st c. writings of the same.

I don't think so.


tell me... if a student walks into a math class, and the teacher says 2+2 is 4. It just is... don't argue. And if you think it's not, it's up to you to prove otherwise.... the teacher is not doing their job. Additionally (pun intended) there would be, using that line of thinking, nothing to stop the teacher from saying 2+2 is 5.... c'mon kid, prove me wrong. The kid can look in the textbook and say , but it reads that 2+2 is 4... why is it 5?
the teacher says "because we've always taught 2+2 is 5. don't argue, we're right.
again, teacher is not doing their job.

If, the EO, or the RC, or whomever, is going to claim the sole teaching authority, they must be teachers, with the proof of their claims.

I could care less if it was taught for "a really long time." the earth was taught as flat, for a really long time. Drilling holes in the head was taught as a great way to relieve headaches. For a really long time.

extend the claim of "really long time" to the unsubstatiated "from the beginning" and presto, you have the EO, and RC claim in a nutshell.

you know that there would be no challenge to these supposed truths, if there was any substatiation beyond "because we say so." don't you?

this shifting of the burdon of proof merely hilights that the proof does NOT exist... just the assertion.

 

[Yab Yum]

Every single substantive argument between Catholics and Protestants whether regarding Mary, Eucharist, auricular confession, celibate male prietshood, etc, stems from the threshold issue of Scripture versus Church. Without addressing that threshold issue noone really wants to solve the substantive issues. <STAFF EDIT>

 

[katholikos]

I do not trust in the counsel of men. For God is greater

You'd better be careful saying things like that, because God has always worked through men:

God worked through men who wrote the Bible:
God spoke through the prophets:
God came to eareth through a woman:

And remember: It was a council that decided which books went in the New Testament; a coucil that God worked through.

Its not a matter of God being greater than councils: Its the fact that God works through councils, just as in Acts 15 - the prototype council.

 

[Kristos]

what's the opposite of catholic?

 

[katholikos]

what's the opposite of catholic?

Oh man, thasts a straight line waiting for a punch line. LOL. I won't do it.

 

[Yab Yum]

If, the EO, or the RC, or whomever, is going to claim the sole teaching authority, they must be teachers, with the proof of their claims.

I could care less if it was taught for "a really long time." the earth was taught as flat, for a really long time. Drilling holes in the head was taught as a great way to relieve headaches. For a really long time.

And this argument does not apply with equal force to Scripture itself, because ... ?

 

[Philothei]

You did not answer the questions though either for the Bible or the ressurection... that proves that you are not dialoguing but want ONLY to debate "within the Bible" sphere..which is unfair noting the Bible is NOT at all a valid source when it comes to":

Holy Trinity
Ressurection of Christ
procaliming its self as the ONLY valued Document

and the list goes on and on..

Thus you do "go by" faith that they Bible that the community of believers put together (not God) but men could be fallable... YOu have to have faith in God and then on man who did wrote the Bible... and "trust" their opinions... Bottom line you are based on oral tradtions that pre-existed the Bible .... Bingo

 

[Philothei]

ah...then again maybe UB is a muslim and believes the hand of God wrote it...hehehe

 

[katholikos]

If, the EO, or the RC, or whomever, is going to claim the sole teaching authority, they must be teachers, with the proof of their claims.

Matt 16:17-19:
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36)
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I the Great (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I the Great (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45)
Sylvester III (1045)
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

 

[Uphill Battle]

And this argument does not apply with equal force to Scripture itself, because ... ?

which is irrelevant to what I'm speaking about.

ah...then again maybe UB is a muslim and believes the hand of God wrote it...hehehe

may as well be. Sometimes I think Catholics and E&O think higher of Muslims than protestants anyways.

Matt 16:17-19:
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36)
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I the Great (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I the Great (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45)
Sylvester III (1045)
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

I've seen the list you guys have cobbled together before. It impresses me no more now, than it did then.

 

[Philothei]

That is only "half" of the list that is out there.... Please do not "blind" us with quote mines Katholicos .... we get the point...

 

[Kristos]

Sometimes I think Catholics and E&O think higher of Muslims than protestants anyways.

LOL! You must not know very many EO

Like I said before, from the EO view, there is nothing to prove, because it's not dogma. Theoretically, you could be EO and not believe EV. Tertullian denied it - eventually, he was anathemized, but it was for other stuff... Chrystostom believed it, but said it wasn't important.

 

[Uphill Battle]

LOL! You must not know very many EO

Like I said before, from the EO view, there is nothing to prove, because it's not dogma. Theoretically, you could be EO and not believe EV. Tertullian denied it - eventually, he was anathemized, but it was for other stuff... Chrystostom believed it, but said it wasn't important.

I think that's a bit misleading. the EO church teaches the EV... even if they don't label it "dogma."

you'd not find it easy not to agree with it, and remain EO.

 

[Thekla]

I don't think so.


tell me... if a student walks into a math class, and the teacher says 2+2 is 4. It just is... don't argue. And if you think it's not, it's up to you to prove otherwise.... the teacher is not doing their job. Additionally (pun intended) there would be, using that line of thinking, nothing to stop the teacher from saying 2+2 is 5.... c'mon kid, prove me wrong. The kid can look in the textbook and say , but it reads that 2+2 is 4... why is it 5?
the teacher says "because we've always taught 2+2 is 5. don't argue, we're right.
again, teacher is not doing their job.

assuming, of course, that both the teacher and the student had in mind the same numbers which the stated numerals express as sign.

If, the EO, or the RC, or whomever, is going to claim the sole teaching authority, they must be teachers, with the proof of their claims.

this sounds, to me, like the failure of 'foreign policy' -- the standards of "proof" (which shades too close to a western 'mindset' ) are different; to ask of one what is not inherent to it is a bit of an unfair standard, and cannot produce an agreement (as in the example above, a different understanding of the value represented by the numeral will potentially lead to impasse).

I could care less if it was taught for "a really long time." the earth was taught as flat, for a really long time. Drilling holes in the head was taught as a great way to relieve headaches. For a really long time.

the introduction of the LDS as a parallel introduces the concept of "novel teachings" (to the Tradition minded, at least); as to the shape of the earth, it has been known to be 'spherical' for a very long time.

extend the claim of "really long time" to the unsubstatiated "from the beginning" and presto, you have the EO, and RC claim in a nutshell.

this was against the parallel of novel teachings

you know that there would be no challenge to these supposed truths, if there was any substatiation beyond "because we say so." don't you?

where Biblical passages have been offered in this subforum, there is shown a difference in accepted exegesis between the two sides of the issue -- so likewise, one can just say - the substantiation is not valid because I disagree. This indicates that both sides operate withing a tradition, and that the traditions are different.

this shifting of the burdon of proof merely hilights that the proof does NOT exist... just the assertion.

no, it indicates diffrence in what is considered "proof" in two different traditions.