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

Standing Up said:

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

Click to expand...

None at all. We are in the presence of poetic usage of language, so we shouldn't get too literal - after all, neither of them has actual wings

Good point (EO and RC were one then).

The nature of Christ isn't a dogma?

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

peace,

Anglian

Anglian said:

None at all. We are in the presence of poetic usage of language, so we shouldn't get too literal - after all, neither of them has actual wings

Click to expand...

We're not talking the poetics, but about to whom one comes under. Jesus or Mary.

No it isn't.

peace,

Anglian

Click to expand...

And why was Arias excommunicated and declared heretical?


And Nestorius was excommunicated and declared heretical, why?

So JW (Jehovah Witness) says Christ is a created archangel and you'd agree. I guess as you've been saying, OO didn't draw a line. Or do your brethren OO agree with your opinion here?

Jeez, Anglian, maybe we really should have started here. My dogma is Jesus Christ is God, God of God, uncreated, only begotten. What do you think?

Thekla said:

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" ?

Click to expand...

Like I said, you've got the semantics better than I. I'm not really sure what you're asking about. "Christianness" means what? What's the context? Are you speaking of whether to use a white candle or blue? Just not sure what you're asking.

Dogma. Just give me an example. Apparently OO doesn't think the nature of Christ is a dogma. Surprise to me. So, is it to EO?

Standing Up said:

Like I said, you've got the semantics better than I. I'm not really sure what you're asking about. "Christianness" means what? What's the context? Are you speaking of whether to use a white candle or blue? Just not sure what you're asking.

Dogma. Just give me an example. Apparently OO doesn't think the nature of Christ is a dogma. Surprise to me. So, is it to EO?

Click to expand...

Its not a matter of "semantics".

Where is Christ in the Lord's Prayer ? Where is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Lord's Prayer ? The Lord's Prayer certainly does not seem to be Christian -- could as easily be said to Zeus.

Standing Up said:

We're not talking the poetics, but about to whom one comes under. Jesus or Mary.

Click to expand...

We are talking about figurative language; read it literally and you'll end up telling me Jesus did not have wings - which I know. I also know that when we pray to St. Mary we are asking her to pray to Jesus for us - to Him, through her - ditto with wings and protection.

And why was Arias excommunicated and declared heretical?

Click to expand...

Because the Council of Nicaea decided he was preaching heresy.

And Nestorius was excommunicated and declared heretical, why?

Click to expand...

See the above. He denied that the Blessed Virgin was the Mother of God - and rather objected to Marian veneration ....

So JW (Jehovah Witness) says Christ is a created archangel and you'd agree. I guess as you've been saying, OO didn't draw a line. Or do your brethren OO agree with your opinion here?

Click to expand...

We have a synod and a Pope, and they have determined that the JW's are heretics; that's good enough for me. And, of course, since not one of the ECFs and none of the Councils ever declared any such stuff as the Lord's Christ being any sort of angel, how would one begin to agree?

The OO family of Churches believes firmly in the Faith once established as understood through the three ecumenical councils. We also practice Marian veneration, as our forefathers have for as far back as anyone can go. We also reject the novel idea of Protestants that the Bible alone provides all the things we need to know for worship; we also reject the strange idea that asking others to pray for you is somehow wrong; our forefathers did that as far back as anyone can go. We see no great need to keep pronouncing dogma on everything under the sun, but recognise that the Western mindset has about it a scholastic turn which delights in such things; this we admire in its own way; but it is not our way.

We hold that St. May was ever-Virgin, that she intercedes before the throne of God for us broken-hearted sinners, and that she has made appearances to the faithful at times of trial.

We see our EO and RCC brothers and sisters as separated from us by history and misunderstandings which we would like to clear up, and we recognise and work with them to do this.

What we don't understand is why, if the Bible self-interprets, there are so many Protestant sects; still less do we understand why some of them turn up in Egypt thinking to 'convert' us when we were Christians when their forefathers were bowing to heathen gods. But then, as my great grand mother used to tell me solemnly, people from the West thought they knew everything that was worth knowing and that they were doing us a favour by telling it to us; we should never, she went on, tell them that they sounded a little conceited because, after all, they meant well. She was a very charitable old Coptic lady, and I have always tried to follow her advice - although often reminded of the cause of it (Always wondered if she included my great grandfather in that, as he was British )

peace,

Anglian

What we don't understand is why, if the Bible self-interprets, there are so many Protestant sects; still less do we understand why some of them turn up in Egypt thinking to 'convert' us when we were Christians when their forefathers were bowing to heathen gods

Click to expand...

oh come on, most of these folks are the kids of hippies, their regular fathers bowed to heathen gods
lol
and your great grandmother is so kind for humoring us western folk lol

SUP --- The nature of Christ isn't a dogma?

A--- No it isn't.


I see your response to my incredulousness as semantics.

Is the nature of Christ an angel?

To answer that question as yes or no, is or is not a dogma?

Anglian said:

-snip-



Because the Council of Nicaea decided he was preaching heresy.


See the above.-snip-
Anglian

Click to expand...

Heresy is not equal to dogma?

So, again, you are a Jehovah Witness--that Christ is an angel?

Or perhaps LDS, that God is a man like us?

Or maybe OO is Arian--created divinity?

Which is it?

No dogma? Do all OO, including Grandmother, believe 'whatever'?

Standing Up said:

SUP --- The nature of Christ isn't a dogma?

A--- No it isn't.


I see your response to my incredulousness as semantics.

Is the nature of Christ an angel?

To answer that question as yes or no, is or is not a dogma?

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with my questions to you

Thekla said:

Its not a matter of "semantics".

Where is Christ in the Lord's Prayer ? Where is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Lord's Prayer ? The Lord's Prayer certainly does not seem to be Christian -- could as easily be said to Zeus.

Click to expand...

Ai, yi, yi.

Hallowed be thy name.

What is the names of God?

I don't know whether you're serious or not Thekla. If you're asking because of sincerety or what. Do you not really know?

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Thekla--What does this have to do with my questions to you

Nothing, but it's probably more important if our friend Anglian believes Christ is a created being.

Is the nature of Christ a dogma, Thekla?

Standing Up said:

Ai, yi, yi.

Hallowed be thy name.

What is the names of God?

I don't know whether you're serious or not Thekla. If you're asking because of sincerety or what. Do you not really know?

Click to expand...

The word "hallowed/holy" in Greek predates Christianity !

But linguistic history is not my interest here; again, I do want to know if -- without referring to any context at all, can the Lord's Prayer be demonstrated to be fully Christian ? There is no mention of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or even the identity of the (general term) "father".

Context is important !! One cannot divorce something completely from its contextual use and expect to engage in an accurate analysis. This is the case with the Lord's Prayer, and with the Sub Tuum.

Thekla said:

The word "hallowed/holy" in Greek predates Christianity !

But linguistic history is not my interest here; again, I do want to know if -- without referring to any context at all, can the Lord's Prayer be demonstrated to be fully Christian ? There is no mention of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or even the identity of the (general term) "father".

Context is important !! One cannot divorce something completely from its contextual use and expect to engage in an accurate analysis. This is the case with the Lord's Prayer, and with the Sub Tuum.

Click to expand...

Let's see if that's the case with Sub Tuum.

Thekla said:

The word "hallowed/holy" in Greek predates Christianity !

But linguistic history is not my interest here; again, I do want to know if -- without referring to any context at all, can the Lord's Prayer be demonstrated to be fully Christian ? There is no mention of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or even the identity of the (general term) "father".

Context is important !! One cannot divorce something completely from its contextual use and expect to engage in an accurate analysis. This is the case with the Lord's Prayer, and with the Sub Tuum.

Click to expand...

Thekla, how dare you continually counter his broken record argument with all this common sense? That's just unfair.

Thekla said:

The word "hallowed/holy" in Greek predates Christianity !

But linguistic history is not my interest here; again, I do want to know if -- without referring to any context at all, can the Lord's Prayer be demonstrated to be fully Christian ? There is no mention of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or even the identity of the (general term) "father".

Context is important !! One cannot divorce something completely from its contextual use and expect to engage in an accurate analysis. This is the case with the Lord's Prayer, and with the Sub Tuum.

Click to expand...

It is with context that we can see it as an example of what came to be declared heretical. Neither you nor Anglian can even remotely suggest or point to anything that the prayer was to be "sent on". There's nothing there except, we seek refuge under the wings of Mary. Deliver us Mary.

We've done that with its context.

Nowadays, I assume people at least say, Mary, please talk to God for me, instead of, Mary deliver me. But I don't know what folks in zillions of churches are doing.

The authors of the sub tuum probably considered it far too blindingly obvious how Mary would deliver us (asking her Son) to bother including it.

Standing Up said:

It is with context that we can see it as an example of what came to be declared heretical. Neither you nor Anglian can even remotely suggest or point to anything that the prayer was to be "sent on". There's nothing there except, we seek refuge under the wings of Mary. Deliver us Mary.

We've done that with its context.

Nowadays, I assume people at least say, Mary, please talk to God for me, instead of, Mary deliver me. But I don't know what folks in zillions of churches are doing.

Click to expand...

And who declared the Sub Tuum heretical? Certainly not the Church. Sorry but while Anglian and Thekla have done a saintly job of repeatedly showing your errors, you do not get to promote yourself to Pope of all Christendom and tell the Church what is heretical and what is not.

Standing Up said:

It is with context that we can see it as an example of what came to be declared heretical. Neither you nor Anglian can even remotely suggest or point to anything that the prayer was to be "sent on". There's nothing there except, we seek refuge under the wings of Mary. Deliver us Mary.

Click to expand...

And there's nothing in the Lord's Prayer to suggest the Christian God.

We've done that with its context.

Click to expand...

Then you should be able to recount the context of the Sub Tuum. As both Anglian and myself know and live the context of its use, and the context of the Lord's Prayer, it is not understood by ourselves in the manner you present.

Nowadays, I assume people at least say, Mary, please talk to God for me, instead of, Mary deliver me. But I don't know what folks in zillions of churches are doing.

Click to expand...

Both - but we also understand the poetic language and the context.

somehow this thread hasn't been about Mary in quite a while...

Standing Up said:

Heresy is not equal to dogma?

So, again, you are a Jehovah Witness--that Christ is an angel?

Or perhaps LDS, that God is a man like us?

Or maybe OO is Arian--created divinity?

Which is it?

No dogma? Do all OO, including Grandmother, believe 'whatever'?

Click to expand...

This suggests you don't quite understand the nature of a declared dogma, or, indeed, the ethos of Orthodoxy.

We are Orthodox Christians who believe what the Fathers taught and what is in the Councils and the Creeds; you won't find any of the things you mention in any of these sources. How that amounts to 'whatever' I don't know.

I notice, getting back to the Blessed Theotokos, that you didn't allude to the fact that that old heretic Nestorius had problems with Marian veneration, like some of the posters here.

The fact you keep avoiding is that the early Church practised marian veneration and intercessory prayer. You don't think these things should be allowed because they are not in Scripture. We have repeatedly shown that the Scripture on which you take your stand is known only through tradition - which is how we have Marian veneration and intercessory prayer. Admiring, as I do, your dance away from this point, I await to see what questions you will come up with to avoid the point yet again

peace,

Anglian