There's something about Mary.......

[Standing Up]

There isn't, it is nothing to do with the Creeds. It is a practice of the same Church which canonised Scripture. If it was good enough for St. Cyril it is good enough for me. All these new-fangled ideas ...

peace,

Anglian

Those were the dates you mentioned earlier. Cyril came after Athanasius, so again, the practice you want came later than your "canonization" example (which I believe came much earlier).

Look, if the argument is that it's whatever the Church says, then, again, when will you actually join the nondefective Church? Or are you in it? Around and around we go. OO, EO, RC, P? It's whatever the Church declares and everyone's doing it.

At some point, the Church needs to do what the very early Church did. Is it scriptural? Is it apostolic? What is the source?

'Course before that, the Church so-called needs to divorce itself from the State it married in 325.

Every schismed group has its pet doctrine, dogma, creed, whatever the semantics are. They all have something to lose in the process of returning to apostolic truth, the faith once delivered, the apostle's doctrine.

It is very simple. Get rid of those things that arose out of acorn-to-oak thinking.

Mariology goes.

Pope stuff goes.

Eucharist as sacrifice or thanksgiving?

Priesthood of laity?

Lots of examples. It's very simple.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

Let us, please, deal with these things respectfully. If we take the easy options we stay in the trenches and do nothing towards fulfilling His command that we should 'be one'. It may be that your knowledge of the ongoing dialogue within the Apostolic Churches places you in a position to talk about aspects of it as 'meaningless'; if so, fair enough; but if not, do try to understand what might be involved in dealing with a split which began in 451.

peace,

Anglian

No, I wasn't invited either .

451? That's about 125 years past the main event when the Church married the state and thereby divorced itself from full apostolic ties. I've started threads on this issue. Folks don't believe it.

325 the Church decided on the Easter question, fixing the time as Fri-Sun. Jesus, the apostles, and others knew otherwise. (Death on the 14th-Thursday; not death on the 15th-Friday.)

c455 Pope Leo I and Proterius of Alexandria admitted to that change. God is not mocked and will not share His glory. Nearly to the year, the Church began splintering. OO, then EO, then RC, then P. Old heresies and new are found again within the walls of the Church (believers).

Kall it simple stupid, that's how I see it.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I say becuase the whole trinity idea is just man grasping at straws to describe the divine and is really not that important.

Pfft.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

In short we all are our own "Pope" as we pick and choose who to follow and who to believe. Some of us even blaze our own path.

You can "blaze [your] own path" but it won't lead you to where you want to go.

There are ten thousand heresies but only one orthodoxy.

There are ten thousand false Christs but only one True Christ.

There are ten thousand ways to hell but only one Way to Heaven.

 

[Anglian]

Those were the dates you mentioned earlier. Cyril came after Athanasius, so again, the practice you want came later than your "canonization" example (which I believe came much earlier).

I had rather taken it for granted that we none of us believed that there was an absolute connection between the date something was declared to be so and the date from which it was believed. We know the Trinity was believed from the beginning; the fact that it was not declared a dogma until 325 means only that by then it had become necessary to do so. Neither Athanasius or Cyril originated Marian veneration or intercessory prayer; indeed, the fact we don't know who did, like the fact that no one ever contested it before the sixteenth century, argues for its extreme antiquity.

Look, if the argument is that it's whatever the Church says, then, again, when will you actually join the nondefective Church? Or are you in it? Around and around we go. OO, EO, RC, P? It's whatever the Church declares and everyone's doing it.

The disagreements on the Creed are not, I think, apparent.

At some point, the Church needs to do what the very early Church did. Is it scriptural? Is it apostolic? What is the source?

Indeed, so let us see what this might have been. Let me quote from St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory [443 AD]:

If some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the Holy Fathers, of those, at least, in their own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple. [Chapter 41]
......
Nothing ought to be believed by posterity save what the sacred antiquity of the holy Fathers consentient in Christ has held. [Chapter 43]

So yes, when our Protestant friends do as the ancient Church did, they will abandon the idea that they can read the Bible apart from the Fathers and the rest of the tradition which establishes it is the Bible.

One of the things done from antiquity is the subject of this thread - Marian veneration. So, if you are sincere in your desire to do as the ancient Church did, join in its practice here.

'Course before that, the Church so-called needs to divorce itself from the State it married in 325.

My Church is married to no state. Neither is the RCC.

Every schismed group has its pet doctrine, dogma, creed, whatever the semantics are. They all have something to lose in the process of returning to apostolic truth, the faith once delivered, the apostle's doctrine.

If you follow St, Vincent's practice you will see how much the EO, OO and RCC have in common; much more than that which divides them.

It is indeed terribly simple. Get rid of those things which arise out of the pride of man's intellect, especially the idea that he knows better than the Fathers who received and identified Holy Scripture. Return to the practices of the early Church and abandon the man made idea that everything is in a book.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

No, I wasn't invited either .

451? That's about 125 years past the main event when the Church married the state and thereby divorced itself from full apostolic ties. I've started threads on this issue. Folks don't believe it.

Whoa there. This Protestant belief that there was a falling away when the Church was protected by the State is just that - a belief. I know of no non-Protestant historian who believes such a thing. It is, at best, western-orientated myth.

It ignores the fact that in Egypt, Syria, Persia and the rest of the East, the Church was not married to the State at all; in other words, taking a Western concept, it ignores much of the early Church.

It totally misrepresents and misunderstands the position of Rome. After the 320s the centre of the Empire was in Constantinople, the Pope in Rome had no armies and was not 'married to the State'; indeed, if you read Leo the Great's sermons and letters, you will see one of his great themes is the independence of the Church.

There is no evidence at all that in Rome or Alexandria there was any loss of Apostolic ties; I am sure our EO brothers and sisters would say the same for Constantinople.

So, I would question your whole meta-narrative.

peace,

Anglian

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Oh, no; they didn't invite us, wah. It's been 1600 years. Give us a break.

Meaningless.

Actually, not meaningless, only Ecumenical Councils can make infallible proclamations, local synods cannot promulgate dogma.

As Catholics, we continue to hold Ecumenical Councils and bishops from all over the world are in attendance, in not only the Latin Rite but also the Byzantine Rite, the Syriac Rite and others. Most Catholics are Latin Rite and most Latin Rite folks are Catholic. Most of the members of the other Rites are separated from the Catholic Church, but not all. The Great Schism was not a clean break. So as far as we are concerned, our Councils are still Ecumenical and thus the Church is still catholic.

We do, however, recognize the separated apostolic Churches as true Churches, in contrast to the Protestant sects, and we agree on most doctrines which is why you find us generally on the same side of the argument in these forums with the Protestants of various stripes on the other side. There are still a great many things that Catholics and Orthodox disagree on even apart from the distinct Eastern and Western theologies (which are usually two sides of the same coin) but these topics aren't usually the ones brought up on GT.

On GT, the topics are usually very simple questions of the defense of traditional Christianity against the modernists and sectaries. For example, I haven't seen in recent memory a debate on GT over the Essence-Energies distinction of St. Gregory Palamas or discussions of predestination which do not involve Calvinism or the relation of merit to soteriology or the necessity (or lack thereof) of prevenient Grace. On debates on the Immaculate Conception, I do not usually see Orthodox in opposition to Catholics, regarding differences between Ancestral and Original Sin -- it is generally enough for them to defend Our Lady against charges of sin and incontinence brought against her by Protestants.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Those were the dates you mentioned earlier. Cyril came after Athanasius, so again, the practice you want came later than your "canonization" example (which I believe came much earlier).

I'm lost now, who mentioned St. Athanasius? Perhaps I'm skimming too fast to catch up.

Look, if the argument is that it's whatever the Church says, then, again, when will you actually join the nondefective Church? Or are you in it? Around and around we go. OO, EO, RC, P? It's whatever the Church declares and everyone's doing it.

"P" for "Protestant" is not a Church, it's a catch-all term like "Gnostic". It is whatever the Church declares and that "everyone's doing it" is quite true, not like smoking marijuana or jumping off bridges but rather more like "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" ("what has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone").

At some point, the Church needs to do what the very early Church did. Is it scriptural? Is it apostolic? What is the source?

The point is now and always has been and thus we do. It is our solemn bound duty under pain of damnation to transmit from generation to generation and spread throughout the world the faith once delivered to the apostles in all fullness and purity. We may be human but there is no famine of hearing the word of the Lord, it is the word and the Word preached and prayed in our Churches every single day around the world.

'Course before that, the Church so-called needs to divorce itself from the State it married in 325.

I know many crowns were given out by the Romans prior to conversion of Constantine, but I'm rather happy not to face the lions.

Every schismed group has its pet doctrine, dogma, creed, whatever the semantics are. They all have something to lose in the process of returning to apostolic truth, the faith once delivered, the apostle's doctrine.

Yet, Protestants insist on clinging to their heresiarchs instead of to the apostolic faith, why?

 

[Livindesert]

You can "blaze [your] own path" but it won't lead you to where you want to go.

There are ten thousand heresies but only one orthodoxy.

There are ten thousand false Christs but only one True Christ.

There are ten thousand ways to hell but only one Way to Heaven.

Which is why I am going to go to church with an LDS friend. His church has produced the best "fruit" I have seen come from a Christian church. A good tree produces good fruit. It will be interesting visit to the one Catholic church for a change.

 

[Livindesert]

It is indeed terribly simple. Get rid of those things which arise out of the pride of man's intellect, especially the idea that he knows better than the Fathers who received and identified Holy Scripture. Return to the practices of the early Church and abandon the man made idea that everything is in a book.

peace,

Anglian

And abandon all Christian scriptures because they do not mean what they say they mean but mean the opposite....at east that is what our Apostolic "friends" would have us believe. That Jesus left us with uncomplete Christianity that needed the additions of Marian veneration that grew over time.

 

[Livindesert]

There is no evidence at all that in Rome or Alexandria there was any loss of Apostolic ties; I am sure our EO brothers and sisters would say the same for Constantinople.

Anglian

The proof is the Proto of James. It proves that Oral beliefs changed from the Aposotlic Matthew beliefs of which Mary had relations with Joseph. To the newer but "sexier" beliefs that Mary was a sinless ever virgin. But all I hear in return is "don't listen to what the text says listen ot what we tell you it says".

 

[Musa80]

Which is why I am going to go to church with an LDS friend. His church has produced the best "fruit" I have seen come from a Christian church. A good tree produces good fruit. It will be interesting visit to the one Catholic church for a change.

I know many of my posts are a bit tongue in cheek and tend to contain a good bit of sarcasm, but I'm saying this in all seriousness, and only out of sincere concern for another person. It is one thing to look around and go through a period of discernment in seeking the truth, it's quite another to run off and join up with non-Christian cults. The LDS are not catholic in any sense of the word, and certainly do not bear fruit of any flavor that might be confused with that of the workings of God.

 

[MamaZ]

How does this differ from reading the Scriptures to see whether they agree with your opinion?

peace,

Anglian

Because in the scriptures we do not see anything on the Marian doctrines. In fact we see that those to who worshiped or held high the queen of heaven in the scriptures and Gods anger against this. Now what makes one think that He would change His mind about this? God changes not.

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

In responding, I see that you added things within the quotation brackets,
which meant it was not reproduced.

You will have to expound.




Let me deal with some of the points here:

The teachings of the Apostles were not only recorded in writing in the Bible, they were recorded in the liturgies of the Church, the writings of the Fathers and the Creeds - you receive only a part of what was taught because you do not receive as the Apostles did.

What creed did the Apostles adhere to? When we take what the writings say and match them up with what tradition says we have a problem. For what is being preacticed and taught cannot be found in the writings of the Scriptures.. Where is the Creed that the Apostles themselves wrote?
I believe that the creeds are summaries . I also believe in one Church which is the body of Christ made of every nation and tongue..


Because the Apostles did not have all the Gospels and the epistles, indeed none of the first Christians did.

They did not have the cannon as we do today but they sure had the OT and the writings of the Apostles.. So when the Apostles taught they would take what was being taught to the OT scriptures which testify of Christ and Gods covenants.

It was not until the fourth century that this was possible. It was the Church which collected the books

These books that you speak of are the written letters that the Apostles were sending to the Body of Christ as they also taught in person.


- the same Church which practised Marian veneration.

This marian veneration does not come from the writings of the Apostles.. In fact God was very angered when others lifted up a woman as queen of heaven.. God does not change.. For He is the same today Yesterday and Forever..We read this in the OT scriptures.. So we understand that since there was no writings from the Apostles for this and that God was not pleased with those who did this very thing in the scriptures why would one believe that all of a sudden God changed His mind?

It is illogical to suppose that the Church which was inspired to know the Gospels was not also inspired to practice Marian veneration.

Christs Church still knows His scriptures.. His Church is every man woman and child that have His Spirit within them. These men you speak of may have been inspired but I do not believe it was from the Spirit of God for when testing this with the full context of the written scriptures we see that God would have had to change His mind. When we trace this practice back it does not lead us to the Apostles but those who came way after Christ and the Apostles.


In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, so whether it came from the Greeks, the Jews or someone else, it was the Christian practice then, as it still is for most of us now.

But did it come from the Spirit of God? Because a greek becomes Christian does not mean that they can bring their beliefs and practices into Christianity and call it of God..


You are in a minority following a man-made tradition unknown in the Christian world before the sixteenth century. So, to tell the rest of us we are somehow wrong takes a good deal of chutzpah.

I can read the very written account of the scriptures and tell you that there is nothing in them that even hints to all this Marian devotion..So this chutzpah you speak of goes both ways.. Those who believe they can add to what has been written and call it from God has alot of chutzpah themselves.. Those who come and tell us we follow man made tradition when we see that through out the full context of the written scripture that this is very important since Jesus Himself directed those to who held on to oral traditions to the written.



Indeed, but the ones who put them together were inspired to know the genuine books from the fake. How can you think they were not equally inspired about Marian veneration? Where, in Scripture, is it written that everything we do is in written Scripture?

peace,

Anglian

The very same Spirit that wrote the Scirptures lives and teaches us today.. Tradition teaches well this is what has been done in the past.. and because they did it then it must be okay to do it..

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

Indeed, so let us see what this might have been. Let me quote from St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory [443 AD]:


So yes, when our Protestant friends do as the ancient Church did, they will abandon the idea that they can read the Bible apart from the Fathers and the rest of the tradition which establishes it is the Bible.

I don't know what's worse. Arguing that we should do as St Vincent says or hearing that the Church thinks it does so.

One of the things done from antiquity is the subject of this thread - Marian veneration. So, if you are sincere in your desire to do as the ancient Church did, join in its practice here.


My Church is married to no state. Neither is the RCC.


If you follow St, Vincent's practice you will see how much the EO, OO and RCC have in common; much more than that which divides them.

It is indeed terribly simple. Get rid of those things which arise out of the pride of man's intellect, especially the idea that he knows better than the Fathers who received and identified Holy Scripture. Return to the practices of the early Church and abandon the man made idea that everything is in a book.

peace,

Anglian

Like I said, I don't know what's worse, having folks agree with me or thinking they are doing so. IOW, how does one 'get through' to that person?

Go back to first stuff. Oh, we do.

Right. Marian stuff isn't there.

EDIT--this type of discussion (yes, we go back to the beginnings) that you're offering is along the lines of "we are the TRUE CHURCH"; "the Church never errs". How does one get past that type of thinking, so people may be set free?

 

[MamaZ]

Which is why I am going to go to church with an LDS friend. His church has produced the best "fruit" I have seen come from a Christian church. A good tree produces good fruit. It will be interesting visit to the one Catholic church for a change.

Be careful with the teachings of the LDS also.

 

[Standing Up]

In one breath it was said, " It is illogical to suppose that the Church which was inspired to know the Gospels was not also inspired to practice Marian veneration. "

And then in the next breath, "we are all sinners".

What logic?!

That's what happens when we abandon what is taught in scripture.

it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

There is no evidence at all that in Rome or Alexandria there was any loss of Apostolic ties; I am sure our EO brothers and sisters would say the same for Constantinople.

So, I would question your whole meta-narrative.

peace,

Anglian

What evidence would you like? Chrysostom? Pope Leo I? Clement of Alexandria? Proterius of Alexandria? Victor? Athanasius? Columbanus? Melito? Polycarp? Polycrates? Irenaeus? 325, 341, 363 Councils? And least we forget, Scripture?

Meta-narratives, God changes not, God is in control, God will not be mocked, God will not share His glory, for our God is a consuming fire.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm lost now, who mentioned St. Athanasius? Perhaps I'm skimming too fast to catch up.

It was brought up as an argument that the church did Marian veneration before the canon. Last I checked 396 is after 367 (Cyril vs Athanasius). The reply was folks were doing it before it was written. Why that would apply to Mariology tradition, but not scripture is beyond my pay scale (he said sarcastically). And as if to say, scripture wasn't written between James and John sons of thunder, but later like Marion stuff came in the late 300s is also quite amazing to assert. Let me out of the building before it crumbles.

"P" for "Protestant" is not a Church, it's a catch-all term like "Gnostic". It is whatever the Church declares and that "everyone's doing it" is quite true, not like smoking marijuana or jumping off bridges but rather more like "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" ("what has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone").

Folks are so confused over what a Church is. Supposedly you are born-again from above, you're a called-out one, a Church that meets with other called-out ones. Temple of the Living God ring a bell?

The point is now and always has been and thus we do. It is our solemn bound duty under pain of damnation to transmit from generation to generation and spread throughout the world the faith once delivered to the apostles in all fullness and purity. We may be human but there is no famine of hearing the word of the Lord, it is the word and the Word preached and prayed in our Churches every single day around the world.

-snip-

Who is our?

And again Churches are not the buildings. That's holdover thinking from the OC. That brings up a point. We know what acorn-to-oak thinking is. What would be a good name for those things brought forward into RC, OO, EO, and some P? Probably the same stuff, but it might confuse some. Have to prink about it.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

It was brought up as an argument that the church did Marian veneration before the canon. Last I checked 396 is after 367 (Cyril vs Athanasius). The reply was folks were doing it before it was written. Why that would apply to Mariology tradition, but not scripture is beyond my pay scale (he said sarcastically). And as if to say, scripture wasn't written between James and John sons of thunder, but later like Marion stuff came in the late 300s is also quite amazing to assert. Let me out of the building before it crumbles.

Sorry, I must have missed that whole discussion. So I'm still lost as to how Sts. Cyril and Athanasius got brought into the equation? Are you suggesting that St. Cyril was the first to venerate and pray to Mary? As I mentioned earlier, the prayer Sub Tuum was found on Coptic manuscripts dating to the 3rd century so Marian prayers are at least that old. As for Mariology, it begins with Justin Martyr less than a century after Christ.

The second part of the equation also confuses me, St. Athanasius and the Council of Carthage did not just sit down and make up a list of books to be included in the Bible. Nor was their list dogmatic being a local synod and not an Ecumenical Council, as the canon was not formally dogmatically defined until Trent. The definition of the New Testament was an organic development, just as was the cult of Mary and the saints. It all comes from the same culture, the same Church. Things don't just pop into existence.

Folks are so confused over what a Church is. Supposedly you are born-again from above, you're a called-out one, a Church that meets with other called-out ones. Temple of the Living God ring a bell?

Who is our?

Traditional Christians -- the Apostolic Churches. Specifically and fully, the Catholic Church.

And again Churches are not the buildings.

Who says we need buildings?

St. Basil attests to the Arian crisis about 376:

Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assembled in the deserts, -- a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snowstorms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven.

What would be a good name for those things brought forward into RC, OO, EO, and some P? Probably the same stuff, but it might confuse some. Have to prink about it.

I do not know what you are referring to about "those things brought forward into RC, OO, EO and some P". I also am not sure what "prink" means...