Standing Up
On and on
I'd agree she did have a choice. Much as everyone else has a free choice to believe God or not.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There's something about Mary that I'd like to know. Many of you may find this question naive, but to me it's critical: Did Mary have a choice?
Do you have something more concrete?
Sub Tuum (dated to 250 ad, mentioned in my post - above)
OK. So if I'm understanding correctly, Solo Scripturists appear to believe that the Church was led by the HS until the Biblical canon was assembled. Then He waved bye-bye until ~200 years ago (depending on who you ask, of course). Fair enough.
That kind of thinking is what led me away from Protestantism in general, so I guess we should agree to disagree.
OK. So if I'm understanding correctly, Solo Scripturists appear to believe that the Church was led by the HS until the Biblical canon was assembled. Then He waved bye-bye until ~200 years ago (depending on who you ask, of course). Fair enough.
That kind of thinking is what led me away from Protestantism in general,
so I guess we should agree to disagree.
I can't argue for exact dates re: Marian veneration appearing in ECF writings; I'm not educated enough for that. Anglian might have more info. The Sub Tuum shows that Marian veneration was around pre-canon;
I argue that my list of questions still stands.
But perhaps this is more important a question: what exactly are you arguing against, Standing Up?
Are you annoyed about people asking the BVM for her intercessions? Because saint intercession was mentioned and approved of by St Cyril of Jerusalem as early as 350 AD (Catechetical Letters) for example. The Sub Tuum (thanks Thekla!) attests to how ancient the practice was.
Are you annoyed that some Christians think she was an awesome Christian, who should be remembered and celebrated? That seems weird to me. Even God's own messenger called her "Full-of-Grace" and "blessed".
Are you annoyed by the dense RC Mariology surrounding her? Do you feel it takes away from Christ? If you are, I will bow out of this discussion, since I'm not RC so I can't really comment on that aspect.
What is it that you hate, specifically?
This practice may go back before the bible cannon but in the bible cannon I see nothing written that supports this practice. The scriptures bring correction and reproof to what is being praciticed. So reading the scripture brings light to this subject and we do not see this as being part of the Apostles teaching in their writings. Therefore it makes one wonder why it is being practiced when we do not see the writings for this practice.Dear MamaZ,
whilst we wait for our friend to return, can I ask why you seem to have a problem with a practice which goes back further than the Bible canon? You accept the Canon established by the Church. You then try to tell us that intercessory prayer is against Scripture. Do you suppose the Fathers who established the genuine deposit of Scripture had not read it? They practised intercessory prayer and saw no contradiction with Scripture. Nor did anyone before the sixteenth century.
Why do you think that a relatively modern, man made tradition should take precedence over ancient Christian practice?
peace,
Anglian
I didn't take it as snarky..Anglian asks a good question, MamaZ. I have read many of your posts, and you never answer this, you simply dismiss it. I can never work out whether you understand what is being asked of you, so I will give it a try myself.
1. The Holy Spirit worked through the early Church fathers to assemble the Bible as we know it. You accept that as inspired, and indeed base your entire worldview on the Bible. Correct?
Answer: I base truth on the scriptures yes.
2. If that is correct, are you saying that the Church fathers were right when they assembled the Bible, but wrong when they venerated Mary?
Answer:
What I suggest is that the scriptures were inspired by God and back then as the scriptures were being compiled for the cannon it was the writings that spoke for themselves. Even as Paul was penning his letters we see that things were going astray. His warnings are very evident in his writings. So now we have the written scriptures we need to take correction and reproof for the practices that are not taught from the pens of the Apostles.
3. If so, how do you come to that conclusion? Was the HS only with the Church some of the time? Not at other times? How do you know which times?
Answer: The HS will bear witness to the Scriptures that have been penned by the Apostles in the NT and others in the OT since they are inspired of God through Him..So if there is something being practiced that does not line up with the written scripture I question it as being truly from the HS..
4. What if [for example] they were wrong in assembling the Bible, but actually right in venerating Mary?
Answer: I don't trust in the men who assembled the cannon of the NT . I do trust in the writings of the cannon of the NT and OT for I know they are inspired by God. I can go back on them for all my beliefs. Knowing that there are three that bear witness. It has been written the fear of men brings a snare.
Or right in both?
Or wrong in both?
God is Faithful. My trust is in Him. Not in man.
5. How do you decide on the answers to 4?
Answer:
By taking all that is being taught and practice back to the writings of the Scripture.
6. Does the Holy Spirit tell you the answer? If so, are you like the Church fathers--right in some things, wrong in others? Or are you infallible?
Answer: The HS bears witness with what has been written. I don't see anything about Mary being what she is called today written in the cannon of scripture. I am not infallible but the writings of scripture I believe are.
This is not intended to be snarky--I honestly want to understand how you can hold such seemingly contradictory views. Perhaps I am missing something.
This practice may go back before the bible cannon but in the bible cannon I see nothing written that supports this practice. The scriptures bring correction and reproof to what is being praciticed. So reading the scripture brings light to this subject and we do not see this as being part of the Apostles teaching in their writings. Therefore it makes one wonder why it is being practiced when we do not see the writings for this practice.
So you only believe in spiritual fatherhood but not spiritual motherhood? St. Paul can be the spiritual father for the faithful under his care but St. Mary cannot be the spiritual mother for the faithful under her care? Why? We can have fathers in the faith but not mothers? No wonder Christianity is always being accused of sexism... Of course, orthodox Christianity embraces spiritual motherhood as equal to spiritual fatherhood. There were deaconesses* (and still are in some places) in the early Church to be spiritual mothers to the women in the flock and nuns/sisters are spiritual mothers to the world (and their abbesses to them) and biological mothers are called also to be the spiritual mothers of their children. Just because God created men and women differently and established the priesthood exclusively for men doesn't mean that women can't be spiritual mothers just as much as men can be spiritual fathers, even though it is in a different way (just as biological mothers and fathers raise their children together but in different ways).
If a deaconess or a nun can be a spiritual mother, why not the Mother of God?
This is not what I asked. I asked if you saw in the scriptures I gave anything about Mary being the one who draws us to Christ.Mary's spiritual motherhood is not in contrast to God's election
No Paul is not the HS.. God works with His creation for His glory and not for anothers.. Angels exist because God created them. Are you suggesting this is what Gods reasoning is for creating Angels? Or humans? Gods Church is born through the Spirit.. The Church exists because God has ordained it this way through ,Not Mary, but through His son Christ Jesus. Did Jesus take all His diciples to meet His mother and hold her in veneration?St. Paul is not God the Holy Spirit either. God prefers to work through His creatures. That is why angels exist, that is why God became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary and she clothed him with her flesh and nature, that is why the Church exists.
It wasn't me, because there is no significance to 397 for me, at leastCyril 397 I believe it was who you mentioned. When you did, I replied at least twice in the same way as above and each time you more or less ignored it.
Indeed.But, start afresh shall we?
First you said, no one can date the start of the veneration. Then you said, but it predates canonization.
The earliest signs we have of Marian veneration are the Protoevangelion of St. James and the Sub Tuum, both of which predate canonisation - Q.E.D.Now, how does one know it predates something when you don't even know when it began? So again, you cited Cyril 397 as your clear proof of veneration of Mary. I replied with Athanasius 367. So, no, off the top of my head, veneration does not predate canonization.
The Protoevangelion, although never regarded as canonical, was one of the most reproduced works of the second century and was in circulation in the East well into the sixth century - in other words it had a longer life than modern Protestantism.Do you have something more concrete?
This practice may go back before the bible cannon but in the bible cannon I see nothing written that supports this practice. The scriptures bring correction and reproof to what is being praciticed. So reading the scripture brings light to this subject and we do not see this as being part of the Apostles teaching in their writings. Therefore it makes one wonder why it is being practiced when we do not see the writings for this practice.
Well first we have to understand that Eve was not born from Adams side. She was created from Adams rib as a helpmeet for Adam. We are not created from the rib of Jesus as His bride.. We are born of His Spirit This is why we read this.Originally Posted by MamaZ
Yes, this gets a bit mystical. But, otherwise, how can we say both that the Church is the Bride of Christ and also the Body of Christ except that the two become one flesh?
One flesh????
Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.Originally Posted by Eph 5:25-32
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.Just as the bride of Adam was born from his side, so too is the Bride of Christ born from His side.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.
Where do you read nothing but our own faithlessness? I have seen many a woman and man as faithful to God through out the full context of scripture and also in life here as we know it..Originally Posted by Rom 8:35-39Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? (As it is written: For thy sake we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.Nothing but our own faithlessness can separate us from the love of God and who is more faithful than His Holy Mother, the Handmaid of God?
you have given me writings of men to proclaim your own position but nothing from the writings of the scripture from the very beginning of what the Apostles taught. I take everything that is being taught to the scripture to see if indeed this is what the Apostles penned. .
Thanks for teaching me how to do that.. I so appreciate it.Because God inspired them to put the cannon together does not mean He inspired them to venerate Mary. Just as the donkey spoke what God wanted to say they did not follow after the donkey and eat hay and grass did they? When the scriptures were brought forth and cannonized then correction should have came. Just because they practiced veneration of Mary does not mean that it was inspired of the HS.. Just as Paul had to write to correct many misgivings to the church of Corinth and ect..Well, presumably you believe that those who recognised the sacred books were inspired by the Spirit when they did so? If so, they also practised Marian veneration; had the Spirit stopped inspiring them then?
So by your logic if you do not have a list then you do not know what the Spirit is saying through the written word? We can take the full context of the written scriptures and take a wonderful view and knowledge of God and how he has dealt with sinful men from the earliest of times to the now. We can also see the sinfulness in the OT and learn from them what not to do..We see no writing that tells us the names of the 27 books of the NT, so by your logic we should be sceptical of them as the Bible does not tell us what they areThis is why the word is a lamp unto our feet.. The entrance of Gods word brings light.
peace,
Anglian
p.s. if you highlight the parts you want to quote and put quote marks round them each time, you, and we, will be able to distinguish which writing is your own and which is that of the post you're responding to
A
I don't know who really write Hebrews. But what I do know is if you compare Hebrews to the full context of the other written it interprets what others has written and brings a more bigger understanding of what has been written. With the Mary veneration I don't see that in any of the written accounts.. So this is why I question this practice and teaching.And your evidence that what is in the NT is the writings of the Apostles from the beginning is exactly what? Who wrote Hebrews, who wrote II Peter and the Jonannine epistles? You accept these are what they claim to be, but why if you reject the tradition which tells the rest of us that they are inspired?
peace,
Anglian
Very happy to.Thanks for teaching me how to do that.. I so appreciate it.
But where is the evidence that anyone needed or tried to correct Marian veneration? There is none. There was more controversy over the make-up of the Canon which you follow than there ever was over Marian veneration. If there was any evidence that the men who canonised Scripture thought it inconsistent with their own Marian veneration, then generations of Protestants would have produced it; there is none. Therefore there is no ground to think that Marian veneration was against the Faith revealed in the Canon.Because God inspired them to put the cannon together does not mean He inspired them to venerate Mary. Just as the donkey spoke what God wanted to say they did not follow after the donkey and eat hay and grass did they? When the scriptures were brought forth and cannonized then correction should have came. Just because they practiced veneration of Mary does not mean that it was inspired of the HS.. Just as Paul had to write to correct many misgivings to the church of Corinth and ect..
Strictly speaking it must be you who takes up the first position. After all, how did the early Christians manage without a New Testament? By AD 90 or so all the Apostles had died and no Church had all the books upon which (alone) you rely. So a MamaZ in AD 110 would have had nothing upon which to base her views - except the teaching of the Church.So by your logic if you do not have a list then you do not know what the Spirit is saying through the written word? We can take the full context of the written scriptures and take a wonderful view and knowledge of God and how he has dealt with sinful men from the earliest of times to the now. We can also see the sinfulness in the OT and learn from them what not to do.. This is why the word is a lamp unto our feet.. The entrance of Gods word brings light.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?