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

[Thekla]

You may also wish to consult Midrash on Moses' prayer for his people (Deuter.) -
his prayer to God went unanswered until he mentioned the Patriarchs (Deuteronomy 9:25).

 

[Anglian]

Dear Thekla,

Your case is firmly established. But then Marian veneration and intercessory prayer were established so early that none can say when they begun.

What we know if there was no controversy over either - unlike the make-up of the Canon - which is the yardstick Standing Up chooses to use. We know what that was by the same token we accept Marian veneration and intercessory prayer - the verdict of the early Church.

Standing Up seems to want to find a time when the Church accepted the full NT canon but did not practice intercessory prayer; at the moment he hasn't found it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

It's not different "stuff".

How else can Mary assist, except by prayer ?

It's not in there however, as you agree.

There is not an explicit delineation;

Obviously we disagree, but sub tuum is an example of the other that I've been saying.

Mary is not God, and Christians know that all that is good comes from God. That God is uncreated, that Mary is created.

Yes, we know that, but the sub tuum example does not support that.

Again, where exactly is the petition for her to take on the request to God? It is not there.

We take refuge under Mary.
Don't deny our petitions Mary.
Rescue us from dangers Mary.
Only pure and only blessed one Mary.

Heavens, except for the Virgin part, and even then, one wonders if they even knew of Jesus Christ and His salvation.

You assume that this is 'stopping at Mary', but have missed that Christians indeed know the difference between God and what He has created.

Were the Jews sheltered by the intercessions of Phineas ?

I know we know the difference, but your example indicates that those saying the sub tuum did not know or did not care or believed otherwise.

 

[Standing Up]

You may also wish to consult Midrash on Moses' prayer for his people (Deuter.) -
his prayer to God went unanswered until he mentioned the Patriarchs (Deuteronomy 9:25).

Not at all.

Back up to Deut. 5:3--we're of faith, not Sinai.

 

[Thekla]

It's not in there however, as you agree.

Because you have forgotten to consider that the Sub Tuum is from within a context; it is like saying if we have alone the Lord's Prayer then we know everything there is to know about the Resurrection.

Obviously we disagree, but sub tuum is an example of the other that I've been saying.

No; you do not live out the context within the Sub Tuum is used.

Yes, we know that, but the sub tuum example does not support that.

The Lord's Prayer on its own does not demonstrate Trinitarian belief, of the Sonship of Christ.

Again, where exactly is the petition for her to take on the request to God? It is not there.

It is understood -- you cannot wrest the prayer from the context and have an understanding.

We take refuge under Mary.

We take refuge under Moses, Phineas, etc.

Don't deny our petitions Mary.

Listen to our request for help.

Rescue us from dangers Mary.

Consider our plight in your compassion and pray for us.

Only pure and only blessed one.

You are blessed and pure (the righteous are those who can 'stand in the gap'http://bible.cc/ezekiel/22-30.htm).

I know we know the difference, but your example indicates that those saying the sub tuum did not know or did not care or believed otherwise.

Without the context, how can you know that. Do you say Christ, in giving the Lord's prayer, does not "believe" in the Holy Spirit ?

 

[Thekla]

Not at all.

Back up to Deut. 5:3--we're of faith, not Sinai.

I have given evidence for the continuation of an understanding; the OT demonstrates falsehood in its teaching ?

 

[Standing Up]

Dear Thekla,

Your case is firmly established. But then Marian veneration and intercessory prayer were established so early that none can say when they begun.

You've been silent on sub tuum. Where's the petition to pass the prayer on through to God? Just assumed or in fact this is simply an example of what we've been arguing about and that was later condemned? The church says, we don't deify Mary; she does not offer us refuge or rescue us from danger. She's not only pure and blessed. Those things are reserved for God alone.

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

Beneath thy mercy,
we take refuge, O Virgin Theotokos:
disdain not our supplications in our distress,
but deliver us from perils,
O only pure and blessed one.

What we know if there was no controversy over either - unlike the make-up of the Canon - which is the yardstick Standing Up chooses to use. We know what that was by the same token we accept Marian veneration and intercessory prayer - the verdict of the early Church.

Standing Up seems to want to find a time when the Church accepted the full NT canon but did not practice intercessory prayer; at the moment he hasn't found it.

peace,

Anglian

OO drew a line c455. EO drew a line 1054. P drew a line c1600. RC keeps on going with new dogma.

My line is drawn like the very early church drew. Show me the apostolic and scriptural and lineage for the practice. If it's not there, then it's heretical.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

Do you not think that the NT shows us an example of a Church growing in its understanding of the Faith once delivered? Do you not see that every time St. Paul or one of the disciples meets fresh challenges, they adapt? The Council of Jerusalem shows us one way of dealing with conflicting interpretations of what the Gospel requires. The Catholic epistles, like dome of those St. Paul wrote, show how some early Christians misunderstood and needed correcting. Do you honestly think these problems had all been sorted by the time of the death of the last Apostle and that things could have remained as they did in AD 100?

What the NT and the history of the early Church suggests is a constant process of challenge and a developing understanding of the Faith once given. Anyone who thinks that they can fix a date at which the Holy Spirit stopped working in the Church is setting a limit to God's guidance to the Church. That was not what the Lord promised.

You have not yet provided any evidence that intercessory prayer was ever a subject of controversy in the early Church. You take your stand on the fact that it is not in the NT - a book you agree was approved by the early Church, which practised intercessory prayer. It saw no contradiction; why is it you insist there must be one. If it is because you insist there must be evidence in the NT, you will have to tell us why you agree that those 27 books are the NT when the Bible itself fails to tell us what is in it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Not at all.

Back up to Deut. 5:3--we're of faith, not Sinai.

Those who were righteous were righteous through faith - and in faith they were obedient. The prayers of the righteous are effective; God is the God of the living.

I am not certain how Deut. 5:3 is interpreted by you as responding to the topic.

 

[Thekla]

OO drew a line c455. EO drew a line 1054. P drew a line c1600. RC keeps on going with new dogma.

My line is drawn like the very early church drew. Show me the apostolic and scriptural and lineage for the practice. If it's not there, then it's heretical.

Can you demonstrate what "new" dogma the EO has added ?

 

[Standing Up]

Can you demonstrate what "new" dogma the EO has added ?

You might should ask an OO. They "split" before EO. Maybe they think EO added "new" dogma. If not, then you folks wouldn't be "separate", I'd guess.

Or the question might be, what does RC think you folks (EO, OO) have missed by not "growing" with "new" understandings of the faith once delivered. Alternatively, what do you think RC has added "new"?

That word "once" sure means more than once btw .

Or you might should ask a P what "new" dogma was added.

 

[Standing Up]

Dear Standing Up,

Do you not think that the NT shows us an example of a Church growing in its understanding of the Faith once delivered? Do you not see that every time St. Paul or one of the disciples meets fresh challenges, they adapt? The Council of Jerusalem shows us one way of dealing with conflicting interpretations of what the Gospel requires. The Catholic epistles, like dome of those St. Paul wrote, show how some early Christians misunderstood and needed correcting. Do you honestly think these problems had all been sorted by the time of the death of the last Apostle and that things could have remained as they did in AD 100?

What the NT and the history of the early Church suggests is a constant process of challenge and a developing understanding of the Faith once given. Anyone who thinks that they can fix a date at which the Holy Spirit stopped working in the Church is setting a limit to God's guidance to the Church. That was not what the Lord promised.

You have not yet provided any evidence that intercessory prayer was ever a subject of controversy in the early Church. You take your stand on the fact that it is not in the NT - a book you agree was approved by the early Church, which practised intercessory prayer. It saw no contradiction; why is it you insist there must be one. If it is because you insist there must be evidence in the NT, you will have to tell us why you agree that those 27 books are the NT when the Bible itself fails to tell us what is in it.

peace,

Anglian

Yo, Anglian. Just looking for your comments on sub tuum, a supposed example of intercessory prayer from c250-350.

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

Beneath thy mercy,
we take refuge, O Virgin Theotokos:
disdain not our supplications in our distress,
but deliver us from perils,
O only pure and blessed one.

 

[Thekla]

You might should ask an OO. They "split" before EO. Maybe they think EO added "new" dogma. If not, then you folks wouldn't be "separate", I'd guess.

Or the question might be, what does RC think you folks (EO, OO) have missed by not "growing" with "new" understandings of the faith once delivered.

That word "once" sure means more than once btw .

Or you might should ask a P what "new" dogma was added.

But you aren't (afaik) OO or RC, etc., and it is your statement that the EO has added dogma; so, I ask you.

 

[IreneAdler]

I don't know if someone mentioned it, but the word he used "woman" was the term for utmost respect, not "hey you chick over there". Another amazing way the english translation loses something...

I'm not even sure she so much chose to have Jesus, as often when people in the bible have chosen NOT to do what was asked they've been pushed into changing their minds (Moses, Jonah, etc.). She may have willingly gone along, but to assume she had any real choice is kinda a stretch.

 

[Standing Up]

But you aren't (afaik) OO or RC, etc., and it is your statement that the EO has added dogma; so, I ask you.

Okay.

Would you agree that RC "adds" new dogma? If so, could you list a couple?

The reason I ask for you to do this is you have "better" language about things like this.

 

[Anglian]

Yo, Anglian. Just looking for your comments on sub tuum, a supposed example of intercessory prayer from c250-350.

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

Beneath thy mercy,
we take refuge, O Virgin Theotokos:
disdain not our supplications in our distress,
but deliver us from perils,
O only pure and blessed one.

Well, I guess you might think a 'petition' is something you sign to stop someone building an airport near you, but in the context it is clear that here it means 'prayers'. So as an example of intercessory prayer, I have no problem with it.

The division between the OO and the Chalcedonians (EO and RCC were one then) was not over dogma, it was over the definition of Christ's nature at Chalcedon which, to us, seemed Nestorian. Most OO now accept that was not how they meant it, and many EO accept we are not Monophysites, but a faith in which we can spend x hundred posts arguing over words without ever getting close to agreement is also one in which 1600 years of separation are next to impossible to overcome.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Okay.

Would you agree that RC "adds" new dogma? If so, could you list a couple?

The reason I ask for you to do this is you have "better" language about things like this.

You've skipped my question to you.

 

[Standing Up]

Well, I guess you might think a 'petition' is something you sign to stop someone building an airport near you, but in the context it is clear that here it means 'prayers'. So as an example of intercessory prayer, I have no problem with it.

So, no problem with under the wings of Mary, as opposed to under the wings of Christ Jesus?

The division between the OO and the Chalcedonians (EO and RCC were one then) was not over dogma, it was over the definition of Christ's nature at Chalcedon which, to us, seemed Nestorian. Most OO now accept that was not how they meant it, and many EO accept we are not Monophysites, but a faith in which we can spend x hundred posts arguing over words without ever getting close to agreement is also one in which 1600 years of separation are next to impossible to overcome.

peace,

Anglian

Good point (EO and RC were one then).

The nature of Christ isn't a dogma?

 

[Standing Up]

You've skipped my question to you.

Just trying to avoid semantics.

Is the nature of Christ a dogma?

 

[Thekla]

Just trying to avoid semantics.

Is the nature of Christ a dogma?

If you'd prefer not to answer my question about dogma, perhaps you might answer my other question ... it follows in a fuller form:

does the Lord's Prayer on its own convey the whole revelation and practice of Christianity; ie., can the Lord's Prayer be wrested from its full context - and treated on its own without context - for analysis of its "Christianess" ?