Speak lovingly of Mary

[Photini]

ah, I see.

object worship. (or more directly, hyperdoulia of objects, but whatever.)

so you revere a cup, that is nothing more than a cup, a room, that is nothing more than a room.

interesting.

I understand that there are many Protestants (not all, but many) who have zero respect or care for anything material. But from the Orthodox POV, we believe that God can and does communicate His grace to us through (but not restricted to) material means.

 

[Uphill Battle]

yes, he does.

but material is just that. Material. Not a single thing on this earth goes with us. Not the cup that you hold so sacred. Not the sanctuary that you would be aghast at using for something else.

darn straight I have no "respect" (and I use that word loosely, as you would have us believe it means I'm disrespectful, whereas, I place no stock in material things as worth more than their use) for objects.

every little piece that we hold dear is dust. it's something that should be considered very carefully.

 

[Thekla]

ah, I see.

object worship. (or more directly, hyperdoulia of objects, but whatever.)

so you revere a cup, that is nothing more than a cup, a room, that is nothing more than a room.

interesting.

No.

Its an attitude of thankfulness and respect. Agia - set aside for God and to God. If, for example, one receives a gift from a close friend, one is given to treating the item with care. Not because of the object itself, but because of the giver. Moreso, then, with God. If someone has experienced a period of poverty, one has a tendency to treat food more carefully.

Recognising that nothing we have is truly ours is an attitude of worship towards He who made and gave all that we have. Treating items that are used in worship with care is a "showing forth" of a sense of acknowledging "set aside", the purpose it has been set aside for, and Him whom alone is truly "agia", the only Holy and the source of all holiness.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

yes, he does.

but material is just that. Material. Not a single thing on this earth goes with us. Not the cup that you hold so sacred. Not the sanctuary that you would be aghast at using for something else.

darn straight I have no "respect" (and I use that word loosely, as you would have us believe it means I'm disrespectful, whereas, I place no stock in material things as worth more than their use) for objects.

every little piece that we hold dear is dust. it's something that should be considered very carefully.

Elements........gold...silver......burned up.......

Zeph 1:18 Moreover their silver, moreover their gold, not shall be able to rescue them in day of wrath of YHWH, and in fire of jealously of Him shall be devoured all of the land.

2 Peter 3:12 Toward seeming/expecting and hastening the Parousia of the God, Day, thru which heavens being fired shall be being dissolved and elements/stoiceia <4747> burning being melted.

Reve 18:11 And the merchants of the land are lamenting and are mourning over her, because no one is not still buying their cargo 12 cargo of gold, and of silver, and of precious stone, and of pearl, and of fine linen, and of purple, and of silk, and of scarlet, and every citron wood, and every ivory vessel, and every precious vessel out of wood, and of brass, and of iron, and of marble, 13 and cinnamon, and ginger, and incenses, and attar, and frankincense, and wine/oinon <3631>, and olive-oil/elaion <1637>, and fine-flour, and grain/siton <4621>, and cattle/beasts, and sheep, and of horses, and of chariots, and of bodies and souls of men.

 

[Thekla]

The Catechism does NOT state that a story is dogma and the highest level of truth and distinctively LOVING toward the object of the story IF the ones sharing the story say its true. I think it rare that one spreading a rumor begins by prefacing, "What I am about to say is false...." The Catechism does NOT say that spreading a story is okay if those spreading it say it's true. It does NOT say that spreading a story is distinctively loving and dogmatically true if lots think it is true. What it states is that it must be substantiated. Otherwise, it's sin to spread it. Thus, you are addressing a moot issue. According to the RCC (NOT ME!), the issue is not if those spreading it think it's true, the issue is if it is substantiated.



.

Your argument is valid ONLY IF you define Tradition as unsubstantiated rumor. The RC does not. Do you ?

 

[Thekla]

yes, he does.

but material is just that. Material. Not a single thing on this earth goes with us. Not the cup that you hold so sacred. Not the sanctuary that you would be aghast at using for something else.

darn straight I have no "respect" (and I use that word loosely, as you would have us believe it means I'm disrespectful, whereas, I place no stock in material things as worth more than their use) for objects.

every little piece that we hold dear is dust. it's something that should be considered very carefully.

Material was created by God, and God said it was good. Right use is a manner of returning all things to the Him, and acknowledes that nothing was made ex nihilo by us. It also acknowledges that God uses matter. If matter was so unimportant to God, why not stop creation at the angels ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catechism does NOT state that a story is dogma and the highest level of truth and distinctively LOVING toward the object of the story IF the ones sharing the story say its true. I think it rare that one spreading a rumor begins by prefacing, "What I am about to say is false...." The Catechism does NOT say that spreading a story is okay if those spreading it say it's true. It does NOT say that spreading a story is distinctively loving and dogmatically true if lots think it is true. What it states is that it must be substantiated. Otherwise, it's sin to spread it. Thus, you are addressing a moot issue. According to the RCC (NOT ME!), the issue is not if those spreading it think it's true, the issue is if it is substantiated.

Your argument is valid ONLY IF you define Tradition as unsubstantiated rumor.

The Catholic Catechism does not state that a story or report is DOGMA, is NOT sinful and IS distinctively LOVING toward the object of the story if it's held to be true by those telling it. It says it needs to be substantiated. Acknowledging that those speading it think its true is not the same as substantiation that it is. Apples and oranges.




Again....

1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma? WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my question (although it seems, none do).


Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).


Let me TRY YET AGAIN to address it this way: I'm not married, but I have a hunch that many married couples regard what they do in bed to be private and a matter between the two of them. They do not regard such issues to be matters of public DOGMA - issues of highest importance for all the world's 6.5 billion people (including kids) to know and if they deny such they are heretics and their salvation is in question. Do you suspect I'm right about that? IN FACT (again, a hunch), I suspect that SOME (maybe not a large percentage) would even regard the mention of such (much less DOGMATIC INSISTENCE FOR ALL 6.5 BILLION PEOPLE) - even if true - to be none of our business and perhaps even offensive or embarrassing or painful. Do you think I might be right about that? IF SO, then why are the world's 1.0 billion Catholics CERTAIN TO THE LEVEL OF DOGMA that Mary has the exact OPPOSITE feeling about all this? Why they regard it as none of my business how often they have sex or when or how with their spouse, maybe even offended that I regard it as DOGMA, but they are certain to the very highest level possible that Mary is honored by it AND regards it as DISTINCTIVELY LOVING toward her (the issue of this thread)?




2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true. The issue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.






.

 

[Thekla]

The Catholic Catechism does not state that a story or report is DOGMA, is NOT sinful and IS distinctively LOVING toward the object of the story if it's held to be true by those telling it. It says it needs to be substantiated. Acknowledging that those speading it think its true is not the same as substantiation that it is. Apples and oranges.

Tradition is not "a story or a report". Tradition is the substantiative for the teaching.

Really, do you think the authenticity of the NT is a rumor ?
The RCs don't. But absent the sort of substantiation you claim they require, wouldn't they refer to the NT as the "rumored to be accurate" NT ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your argument is valid ONLY IF you define Tradition as unsubstantiated rumor. The RC does not. Do you ?

Rumors of battles.......armor on.......

Matt 24:6 "Ye shall be being about yet to be hearing battles and hearings of battles. Be seeing no be being alarmed, for it is binding to be becoming, but not as yet is the Finish/End

Reve 11:7 And whenever they should be finishing the testimony of them, the beast, the one ascending out of the Abyss, shall be doing with them battle, and shall be conquering them, and he shall be killing them

 

[lionroar0]

1. Do Orthodox Christians agree with many Catholics that the loving, mutual, marital sharing of intimacies defiles the wife and makes her sinful and impure?

Nope. Totally wrong.

Marriage is a Sacrament.

Peace

 

[Thekla]

ah, I see.

object worship. (or more directly, hyperdoulia of objects, but whatever.)

so you revere a cup, that is nothing more than a cup, a room, that is nothing more than a room.

interesting.

well, OTOH, there should be no problem if you tossed your wife's engagement ring in the trash or down a storm drain. After all, she'd love you anyway and you're already married. Same with the wedding band. They're just dust, and you have each other.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

more of the same. You're shovelling out the stall or something?

We Protestants do not consider ourselves the authority over ourselves either.

Christ is the authority.

we even have leaders.

we just don't treat them like demi-gods.

And this is the madness which I speak of.

You contend that you are not, of yourselves, an authority and you have leaders.

What qualifies in the Protestant world, a leader?

Basically a Protestant is free to "church shop". When they find a capable pastor who is truly "Sola scriptura" that is the pastor agrees with the person, then they consider them to be a suitable leader. But only as long as the pastor agrees with the person and if the pastor begins to stray from what the individual believes to be "Sola scriptura" correct, then they begin to "church shop" again for a true "Sola scriptura" pastor or the congregation (or certain members) will boot the pastor, if possible.

This draws into question who is really a leader and why. This also begs the question of ecclesiology, authority passed on by Christ, and yes informed submission. Of course this involves decision making.



BD

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

I understand that there are many Protestants (not all, but many) who have zero respect or care for anything material. But from the Orthodox POV, we believe that God can and does communicate His grace to us through (but not restricted to) material means.

Agreed. I believe all that is given to us by God (tangible-intangible) is worth showing and giving of thanks and respect.

ALL that we have from God (no matter what it may be) is worthy of respect and care as we offer them back to God in thanksgiving. For His ways are not ours and indeed He may communicate His grace/life to us in the most unlikley ways, means or objects. We see this all throughout Scripture.


BD

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

right. Drop in, call Protestantism Madness... and then run away.

thanks for that. next time, don't bother, it wastes time.

Thank you for the correction. I have added context to my comments above. Sorry for being so brief.




BD

 

[Rick Otto]

Hi Bene! Haven't seen ya around much. good to see ya.
Have you been hidin' or do I need to get out more?

quote=BenedicamusDomino; And this is the madness which I speak of.

Get it off yer chest, bro!

You contend that you are not, of yourselves, an authority and you have leaders.

...Not sure about that...

What qualifies in the Protestant world, a leader?

For me, a person who is holding the truth in righteousness, which requires some discernment on the "follower's" part. Having a leader is not an excuse to be lazy about lovin' God. We each have to "subdue our flesh" & "take up our cross", so we to a degree have to be our own leader & be responsible for ourselves.

Basically a Protestant is free to "church shop".

Praise God. Thank You Lord Jesus for Religious Freedom.

When they find a capable pastor who is truly "Sola scriptura" that is the pastor agrees with the person, then they consider them to be a suitable leader. But only as long as the pastor agrees with the person and if the pastor begins to stray from what the individual believes to be "Sola scriptura" correct, then they begin to "church shop" again for a true "Sola scriptura" pastor or the congregation (or certain members) will boot the pastor, if possible.

There is usualy a consensus & oversight with a comittee, etc., etc.

This draws into question who is really a leader and why.

Fine, & that question is dealt with by participating members of the congregation in question

This also begs the question of ecclesiology, authority passed on by Christ, and yes informed submission.

No problem.

Of course this involves decision making.

My specialty, & just so happens I'm having a buy-a-decision, get-one-free sale this week only.
Sounds like you like to think ahead, Mr. B.

 

[MamaZ]

Mary being born a woman and being married is what exactly what God ordained from the very beginning.. For God did not create Male without female. Children are an inheritance from the Lord. They are gifts.. Jesus was Gods gift to mankind.. His own Son.. Jesus was born to die for the sins of Men and to testify of truth. Mary on the other hand was a human being born in sin just as all male and female are except Christ for Christ was not born from mans seed. She was the vessel that God Brought Jesus into the world with. A miracle at best direct from the Hand of God. Mary being a lowly woman married a man and therefore became one flesh with this man as God from the beginning had ordained.. To not do so would be disobedient to the very God she served. A virgin lived at home with their parents.. Remained that way until they were married.. A virgin was not given in marriage . This is where virgin came from.

 

[MamaZ]

And this is the madness which I speak of. Madness?

They even called Jesus mad. Those whom stuck to their tradtions and thought they were decendents of Abraham..

You contend that you are not, of yourselves, an authority and you have leaders.


We have the pure word of God to be in submission to. We are told to submit ourselves to God and the devil will flee from us.. How does one submit himself to God? By submiting to men or by submitting to the very pure word of God?

What qualifies in the Protestant world, a leader?
Christ who is the Head of His Church. Pastor, teachers that teach the scriptures as truth. But although they are the Pastor teacher they stand on even ground when it comes to the cross.

Basically a Protestant is free to "church shop". When they find a capable pastor who is truly "Sola scriptura" that is the pastor agrees with the person, then they consider them to be a suitable leader. But only as long as the pastor agrees with the person and if the pastor begins to stray from what the individual believes to be "Sola scriptura" correct, then they begin to "church shop" again for a true "Sola scriptura" pastor or the congregation (or certain members) will boot the pastor, if possible.

IT is not whether they agree with the person but whether they agree with the scriptures. For scripture alone is sufficient..

This draws into question who is really a leader and why. This also begs the question of ecclesiology, authority passed on by Christ, and yes informed submission. Of course this involves decision making.

well we are to submit one to another in the fear and love of God.We uphold our Pastor teachers and pray for them and love them and encourage them. The in return feed us the word of God.. It is all about love and edification.. Not about Ruler and subjects with the household of God. For there is to be no lording it over one another.. We are all to be subject to one another and submissive to the written word of God.


BD

We do not put our souls in the hand of any human man.. We put our souls in the very hand of Jesus and there is none not none that can snatch us from His hand.. For it was He who chose us to be His people and there is none greater than He..

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

Mary being born a woman and being married is what exactly what God ordained from the very beginning.. For God did not create Male without female. Children are an inheritance from the Lord. They are gifts.. Jesus was Gods gift to mankind.. His own Son.. Jesus was born to die for the sins of Men and to testify of truth. Mary on the other hand was a human being born in sin just as all male and female are except Christ for Christ was not born from mans seed. She was the vessel that God Brought Jesus into the world with. A miracle at best direct from the Hand of God. Mary being a lowly woman married a man and therefore became one flesh with this man as God from the beginning had ordained.. To not do so would be disobedient to the very God she served. A virgin lived at home with their parents.. Remained that way until they were married.. A virgin was not given in marriage . This is where virgin came from.

I understand and respect your POV. With 1800 + years of nearly unanimous agreement (a few dissenters), I believe it was Gods will that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin. His ways are not our ways. He writes the laws, He can and has made exceptions.



pax

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

And this is the madness which I speak of. Madness?

They even called Jesus mad. Those whom stuck to their tradtions and thought they were decendents of Abraham..

Christ did not object to the traditions themselves but to the attitude and disposition of the heart.

We have the pure word of God to be in submission to. We are told to submit ourselves to God and the devil will flee from us.. How does one submit himself to God? By submiting to men or by submitting to the very pure word of God?

I would rather say that I submit to Christ not a book. You say pure word and I would say how do you know and by whose understanding do you proceed with in faith as it pertains to discerning all that the Book offers?

IT is not whether they agree with the person but whether they agree with the scriptures. For scripture alone is sufficient..

Would you attend a church where you disagreed with what the Pastor was teaching even though he claims scripture alone and so called submission to it? Or maybe Pastors of any type really are not needed.

Not about Ruler and subjects with the household of God. For there is to be no lording it over one another.. We are all to be subject to one another and submissive to the written word of God.

We are all subject to and submit to one another in love. I do not submit to a book but to the living God of which He has revealed Himself in more than the pages of Scripture. Submission is not a bad word you know.



BD

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Basically a Protestant is free to "church shop". When they find a capable pastor who is truly "Sola scriptura" that is the pastor agrees with the person, then they consider them to be a suitable leader. But only as long as the pastor agrees with the person and if the pastor begins to stray from what the individual believes to be "Sola scriptura" correct, then they begin to "church shop" again for a true "Sola scriptura" pastor or the congregation (or certain members) will boot the pastor, if possible.

This draws into question who is really a leader and why. This also begs the question of ecclesiology, authority passed on by Christ, and yes informed submission. Of course this involves decision making.

Some comments....


1. Ecclesology has nothing to do with how often a loving couple shares marital intimacies. There's no indication that Mary or Joseph were officially registered in a congregation officially belonging to the RCC or even that the RCC dogmatically taught that couples are not permitted to lovingly share marital intimacies from 5 BC until Her death (or undeath) or even that the RCC existed at all. Ecclesiology has nothing to do with Mary's sex life.


2. Of the 30,000 denominations that the RCC insist exists, nearly all of them (including the RCC) officially and current agree with itself in all matters that itself regards as appropriate for itself to agree with itself about, but it doesn't agree with the other 29,999 nor do any of the other 29.999 agree with it. There's nothing whatsoever unique or special or unusual about the Catholic Denonomination in this regard. It enjoys a unity of ONE - itself. Why this quality it shares with every denomination on the planet makes the Catholic Church infallible/unaccountable or correct or whatever is a point no one understands.


3. Self appointing self as the sole authority is simply self evading all accountability - nothing more.


4. Catholics are now "free" to leave and join another church, too. I did. Almost half the Confirmed members of my Lutheran congregation were once active members of the Catholic Church. 30,000,000 Americans are former Catholics. The Church will not persue them and kill them; in fact the Catholic Church seems very respectful of those who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to leave that denomination. My Catholic teachers said NOTHING negative upon my departure but each, in their own way, blessed me and wished me all God's grace. I disagree with you that only Protestants are free to leave or "church shop."


I realize you are Orthodox and not Catholic, but since I was Catholic and not Orthodox, I write from that perspective.



Now back to the issue of why it is distinctively LOVING toward a couple to insist that all dogmatically know how often that couple had/has sex (or not) and to deny such is to be a heretic, and whether the dogmatic spreading of this detail from their sex life needs to be substantiated before spread to all the world's 6.5 billion people, including children....





.