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

[Coralie]

I suppose I need to clarify two things.

I'm not a pure scripture only person. I believe that the apostles did the job at transmitting the same truth to faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2). I also believe that wolves entered in (Acts 20:29). I also believe that the OT was written for our instruction upon whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor. 10:11).

What this means is that we know there were TWO lines.

I understand what you mean. I guess for me, if I believed that the gates of Hell had prevailed against the Church (your "line 1") that early on, my faith would be in vain.

And I believe this:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

What I don't see in that paragraph from an apostle is anything about Councils, Popes, Patriarch, Pastors, teaching magesteriums, etc.

So, thank God. We know there were two lines, and the one left is the "it is written".

Yeah, I've heard that quote millions of times in these Solo Scriptura debates. It doesn't mean what people usually twist it to mean. All it means is:

1. The OT (and, at an interpretational stretch in this context, the whole Xian Bible) was given by inspiration of God.
2. Scripture is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
3. The things listed in (2) make a man of God perfect and furnished unto good works.

That doesn't contradict anything in my worldview. I believe that too. Only I don't see how it makes following Scripture ONLY the mark of a more excellent Christian than one who follows the Church and Scripture.

So again, the argument does nothing for me.

The second thing is that I am not OO, EO, RC, P, or restorationist (SDA, LDS, JW, etc). Just a Christian. I understand it's easier to blindly see, but I'm not a category.

I assumed you were a non-affiliated Christian. For the purposes of an online discussion, this shorthand is necessary or the waters get muddy very quickly.

No disrespect meant. I, too, in my daily life, am just a Christian.

One thing. Modern folks are slipping. If I recall correctly, they used to pray to Mary until their spittle supposedly turned to honey.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to or how this is relevant. Reference, or more information?

There will always be Christians who do out-there, misguided things; from a non-EO/RC perspective, the Toronto "Blessing", snake-handling cults, the "Third Wave", the Salem witch hunts, Fred Phelps, and Todd Bentley come to mind immediately.

I was asking you what you thought of the current (very old) practices of my Church, and to show where you thought they were out of line.

Did this last comment mean that you feel other practices, which I am not asking about, are out of line? Meaning you could find nothing wrong with what we say about her?

Thanks again for your response. I know these things are time-consuming (threads like this, I mean)...

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

You keep repeating the same question, asking when Stephen and James were first venerated, but the question is unimportant. Why St. Stephen the Protomartyr? Why St. James the Brother of the Lord? Of course we venerate them and of course they pray for us but what does it matter when their cults began, whether it was immediately after their entrance into Heaven or a hundred years later, it doesn't really matter.

Your attack on the veneration and intercession of saints and, presumably, on icons, is an attack on the Incarnation itself. So tread lightly!

You sound like Victor. You know Polycrates' response?

Really?

Is this related to Quartodecimanism? Your point is lost without a quote and an explanation.

Apparently, you do not know what I mean when I say that attacking the veneration of the saints of God and the use of icons is an attack on the Incarnation. I am not speaking randomly. The Incarnation is everything -- the entire Deposit of Faith flows from that one singular fact. Orthodoxy is understanding the meaning of the Incarnation and how we should act because of that fact. Heresy is the corruption and distortion of that, contrary to logic and Holy Tradition.

You have it backward in any event. Maintaining the cult of supposed Mary, eyes are closed, ears are shut, hearts are grown over.

Again, "supposed Mary", what is that supposed to mean? You did not answer me last ntime and so I repeat the question.

You also say, "eyes are closed, ears are shut, hearts are grown over". Yet, where do we see that? We see none of that in those who are truly devoted to the Blessed Mother, we see eyes and ears opened, hearts softened, souls saved, and the world redeemed. That is what we see when people understand and practice a true devotion to the Mother of God.

The point of Stephen and James is that the apostles and early Christians had the two perfect examples with which to teach the veneration and intercession of saints. They didn't.

Again, I repeat the same question to you: And?

The fact of a Mary cult is explained at Jer. 44.

Again, I also ask: How is Mary related to the pagan goddesses Asherah, Ishtar, Hera, or Kali? You just keep repeating "Jer 44!" "Jer 44!" as though by mere inane repetition, you make a point, yet you don't -- you have made no point except association by repetition, which is the most boorish and ignorant of all arguments. If you think it works, perhaps you should write political attack ads...

See? Hear? Understand? If the apostles wanted us to practice invoking the deceased, they would have done so with the two first perfect examples.

If the apostles had not wanted us to ask those in Heaven to pray for us, they would not have taught their disciples to do so. They also would have condemned it, since it is no great leap to go from saying that those in Heaven pray for us and that we should ask each other to pray for us to saying that we should ask those in Heaven to pray for us. You recoil and lash out at the perfectly orthodox practice that encompasses the entire Christian world and has for the past 2,000 years. But why? You have yet to say anything intelligent, just "Jer 44!" "Jer 44!" as though people offering sacrifices to a pagan goddess has anything to do with asking those in Heaven to pray for us!

Jesus stood up when Stephen was stoned. We all know and agree upon that fact.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

James was on the inner circle, being with Christ at the transformation. He is martyred. Now, the apostles have two perfect first examples by which to teach Christians the truth about the state of the deceased and prayers to them. They do not instruct us.

What do you mean "they do not instruct us"? They instructed their disciples, did they not? Their disciples did so, did they not? Are we to believe that Christ's mission failed and His Church apostatized and the disciples of the Apostles completely changed the Faith which they were entrusted with and we the world lay in darkness for 1500-1800 years until God sent a new prophets to give the whole "Church" thing a second shot but this time creating an entirely chaotic system where everyone just relies on their own "personal inspirations" to make up their own religion and then calls the first Church heretics for doing what they have always done as was handed down to them from the Apostles? Your hypothesis is not laughable but pitiable, you have no idea what the Incarnation means, you have no idea what Jesus means, you stumble in the darkness, praying to an unknown God.

Now, if someone replies, but Mary, we know of Mary. No we don't. It isn't the Virgin Mary. How do we know? Because the practice does not originate from apostles. We know it is mentioned as a cult at Jer. 44. The fact that it is "polished" hasn't anything to do with the issue.

Mary was venerated in Jeremiah 44? I don't see that anywhere, you invent things. You might as well say the Athenians were venerating Mary when they made sacrifices to Athena. You make no sense whatsoever.

You did not actually reply to my post. You probably did not actually read it. You simply repeated the same inane two two things: Stephen/James and Jeremiah 44. Whether St. Stephen and St. James were celebrated and their intercessions sought the day after they were martyred or a hundred years later is irrelevant. And repeating your ridiculous connection between the Blessed Mother of God and some pagan goddess over and over ad nauseum does not make it true, it is not really even an argument, it is the opposite of intelligence and argument, you just babble like an idiot, knowing nothing of what you are saying or why you are saying it. You just want to feel like you are right. You have no way of knowing that you are right, you have no bishop to follow, you establish yourself as your own leader and although you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, you reject Him and His Church and follow no one but yourself... and thus the blind man falls into the pit.

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Only following bishops who are holy and committed to Faith once delivered to the apostles (the Deposit of Faith) can we follow Christ. Christ is not served by everyone who says "Lord, Lord!", He is served in His Holy Church, which He established with the form of worship which He has established.

St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of St. John, writes only about a generation after St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles:

But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
...
It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.

It is nothing to follow your own folly and claim to be following God. It is everything to follow the bishop and thus follow God.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

SUP- But we were warned of wolves entering in.
​

P2C-Yes, the heresiarchs you follow who seek to draw souls away from the Catholic Church, which God established!

You mean the Roman Church per Pope Damasus.

No, I mean the Catholic Church.

What does Pope Damasus (+384) have to do with anything?

He condemned heresies (the pneumatomachians who denied the Personhood of the Holy Spirit and the Apollonarians -- those who believed that Jesus did not have a human mind but only a divine one), appointed St. Jerome as his personal secretary and encouraged his translation of the Bible. Is there supposed to be something negative that I am overlooking?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

She's already assumed to have been born sinless,

Adam and Eve were also born without Original Sin, is there a problem here?

Where to start.

Well, are you going to start, are you going to make an argument? Why is it so horrible that God preserved Mary from the corruption of Original Sin? Why do you believe He should not have done that?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Church so-called excommunicated and declared heretical Christ and the Apostles and their bishops in 325, 341, 363.

325 - The First Council of Nicea

So you're an Arian? a Paulian? What could you possibly have against the Council of Nicea? Even CT establishes the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed as a foundation of Christian theology.

341 - Constans (Constantine's son) bans pagan sacrifices and magic

So you support pagan sacrifices and magic? He also suppressed Donatism and Arianism.

363 - The Synod of Laodicea

Established that only readings from the Old and New Testaments (defined slightly differently than today -- e.g. no Revelation) should be read during Mass.

It also condemned the Quartodecimans. Aha! You mentioned Polycrates and Victor earlier, perhaps you believe that Easter should only be celebrated on teh 14th of Nisan instead of on Sunday. Curious, I didn't know that anyone still did that...

Are those things what you mean when you say the Christ's Church "excommunicated and declared heretical Christ and the Apostles and their bishops"? Surely you must explain.

The history of the Roman Church (Pope Damasus)

I'm not sure why you believe that Pope Damasus is somehow the founder of the Catholic Church... He contended against Antipope Felix II, are you a supporter of him?

is one of bloodshed

That is the history of humanity, sometimes necessary, sometimes avoidable. Sometimes honorable, sometimes sinful. That's life.

and schism as prophesied.

1.2 billions Catholics are not in schism from the Catholic Church. You are ridiculous.

Why would anyone remain a part of that history?

Why would anyone abandon the Church of Christ just in order to make up their own religion? Truly, then, that is the real curiosity. What is so interesting about heresy instead orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is far more fascinating.

 

[Anglian]

Like I've mentioned before, why do you (OO) stop at 455? Why not continue with the Roman Church (Pope Damasus)?

We only 'stop' in the sense that we were not invited to any more Councils (poor old us) and therefore receive them as 'local' decisions. I'm not aware that anything later changes anything we hold - in this instance Marian veneration. We were doing it before 451 and we're doing it still.

IOW, you draw a line Anglian. As have I. Mine simply is drawn as the very early church used to do. Show me proof. Show me the apostles doing it. Show me the historic line. Show me from scripture. If you can't do those things, then like the very early Christians, we declare those things heresy.

Show me where the Apostles said 'show me from Scripture' and meant that term to apply to the 27 books of the NT and I will gladly concur. You are adopting a methodology the Apostles themselves did not use. Where is it written in Scripture what the books of the NT are, or that only the things in those 27 books are everything we do? You can't, of course, because there is no such admonition there. You do seem, to me, to be adopting an essentially renaissance methodology and applying it to the early Church in a way which is anachronistic.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why you don't erase your line and either move on or backward.

If there were such a line, the sensible thing would be to move with the living Church, not to reconstruct one's own facsimile of what one imagines the early Church to be like at some point in time one decides is OK.


peace,

Anglian

 

[Coralie]

If there were such a line, the sensible thing would be to move with the living Church, not to reconstruct one's own facsimile of what one imagines the early Church to be like at some point in time one decides is OK.

QFT

 

[Thekla]

The point of Stephen and James is that the apostles and early Christians had the two perfect examples with which to teach the veneration and intercession of saints. They didn't. The fact of a Mary cult is explained at Jer. 44.

You have provided no evidence that :
1. Sts. Stephen and James were not venerated
2. that all that was done and taught by the apostles is included in the NT.

You have not demonstrated that Jeremiah 44 refers to anything other than what it refers to, a pagan practice.

 

[Thekla]

Actually I find that very interesting. And if I recall did comment on it. But I also said to pursue it would be to establish some things folks also don't want to see.

But no problem.

Bring up the Jewish practices again. Quote your sources and the links.

1. The Tanakh, Stone edition, notes (from Midrash).

2. Judaism.com - About Rachel's Tomb (Kever Rochel)
(for one ...)

 

[MamaZ]

Very happy to.

If I can take the points you make in order:

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.

Well we differ on this because in the OT canon we see that problem of the queen of heaven being venerated ect. History has a way of repeating itself. So therefore by taking the OT canon we can be corrected with veneration to "queen of heaven".


You go on to write:

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.

Well I have never asked for proof of a list for the scripture. I believe it was you that asks for this. No church had all the book but they did have the letters. If the letters were not deposited then how where they canonized?

No one denies that the Scriptures are vital - but they are not the whole of tradition; neither are they able to be established outside of the tradition of the Church.

To me the scriptures are more than vital. They are the very breath of God for me His child to eat and adhere to. Tradition not so much. For I see tradition sometimes gets in the way of the truth. We read about that in scripture also.

Your position is one which the scholar Bart Ehrman used to hold. As he discovered how variable is the evidence that books like II Peter, Jude and Hebrews were by the authors whose name they bear, he turned away from the Faith. If he had followed the teaching of the Church, which alone is the warrant for the genuineness of Scripture, he'd have had no problem.

If he turned away from God then it was his doings due to the fact of some like darkness better than light. How would you know he would have no problem?

To use writing which is only warranted as Scripture to establish the practice of the body (the Church) which gives us that warrant is to place logic on its head.

Explain to me what you mean here please. I don't think I getting what you are saying. If it is logic you are seeking whos are you seeking? Mans or Gods? For we know that Gods truth is not based on mans logic..

It has already been pointed out to you that early Christians regarded some of the vision of the author of the Apocalypse as referring to the Blessed Virgin, but you simply said that was not your interpretation. So, again, we have the question: why should your interpretation be preferred above that of the Church which established the canon on which you base your views?

Yes it has been mentioned. Here is what I base my position on.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.



peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Well we read this..
2Pe 1:15 And I will also be diligent to cause you always to have memory of these things after my departure.
2Pe 1:16 For not following fables which had been cleverly devised, but having become eyewitnesses of the majesty of Jesus Christ, we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord.
2Pe 1:17 For receiving honor and glory from God the Father such a voice being borne to Him from the magnificent glory, "This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have been delighted," Psa. 2:7; Gen. 22:2; Isa. 42:1; Matt. 17:5
2Pe 1:18 even we heard this voice being borne out of Heaven, being with Him in the holy mountain,
2Pe 1:19 and we have the more established prophetic Word, in which you do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a murky place, until day dawns and the Light-bearing One rises in your hearts;
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
2Pe 1:21 for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

Indeed, you cite II Peter. But it only bears the interpretation you want if you twist it out of context.

Like the other Catholic Epistles, II Peter is largely concerned to defend the true Apostolic teaching against the counterfeit versions of heretics. What he means in II Peter 1:20 is the exact opposite of what you make it mean. That is that all real prophecy comes from the Holy Spirit through the Apostolic teaching, not by private interpretation. He goes straight on to condemn the 'false prophets' who do claim private inspiration, and by whom many will be led astray. Anyone can claim to be inspired of the HS, and many, falsely, do that.

You seem to think he means that anyone who prophecies speaks with the HS - that is the opposite of what the writer means.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Well we differ on this because in the OT canon we see that problem of the queen of heaven being venerated ect. History has a way of repeating itself. So therefore by taking the OT canon we can be corrected with veneration to "queen of heaven".

But here you are preferring the OT to the New one; why? The Apocalypse of St. John has been read as referring to St. Mary by the Fathers; why should we prefer your attempt to link it to the OT? Where is that written?

This is at the heart of our long discussions:

Well I have never asked for proof of a list for the scripture. I believe it was you that asks for this. No church had all the book but they did have the letters. If the letters were not deposited then how where they canonized?

If you have no proof, why do you believe them? The letters, like the Gospels, were not just deposited in every Church as they were written. Some Churches certainly had the Gospels, but at the time of St. Paul's first epistles, there were no Gospels at all. As they were written, they had local, and then wider circulation, but we know that Sy. John's Gospel had a more limited circulation, and that most of the Catholic epistles had a very limited one. So, how indeed were they canonised - by the Church.

The early Fathers cited the works with which they were familiar, and by the third century this was one of the ways in which the Church identified what was and was not genuine; this - tradition - is the only guarantee we have that the books in the NT are inspired; that's why you can't abandon it; there is no other warrant.

To me the scriptures are more than vital. They are the very breath of God for me His child to eat and adhere to. Tradition not so much. For I see tradition sometimes gets in the way of the truth. We read about that in scripture also.

I agree about the importance, but it is important we know that these books are the right ones; you just can't do that without tradition. The dead tradition of the Pharisees is condemned; the living tradition of the HS is commended by St. Paul himself. It is that we follow; do not, dear sister, think it dead, It is the tradition passed on from the Apostles.

If he turned away from God then it was his doings due to the fact of some like darkness better than light. How would you know he would have no problem?

Because he rejected the idea of the living tradition, when he discovered how unreliable the historical evidence is, he lost faith; had he read the books in the light of the tradition which produced them, he would have been sustained.

Explain to me what you mean here please. I don't think I getting what you are saying. If it is logic you are seeking whos are you seeking? Mans or Gods? For we know that Gods truth is not based on mans logic..

We know that the 27 books of the NT are Scripture because the early Church told us it is so. That same Church also told us that intercessory prayer and Marian veneration were allowed; was it wrong when it told us one of these things? If so, if it was wrong on the last two, how can it be right on the books of the Bible? Either, dear sister, the Church was inspired or it was not; we are not taught that it can be partly right on such matters.

Thank you for the readings from the Apocalypse, but do remember that was circulated as a separate book, and what you quote applies to that book alone, not the whole 27 - which at that stage did not exist. It is the tradition of the Church to put it at the end of the NT - which is why you misread it as applying to the whole 27 books. Logically it can't, as when it was written it did not stand as the 27th book of a NT.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

MamaZ, I see what you mean.

You believe that the initial writings of what is now Scripture were inspired, and so you base your life on them.

But you don't believe that the group of people God used to tell us that they were inspired, the Church from which all Christians stem, is to be trusted.

Our views on church differ also.

You believe that Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth.

I believe the scripture are the very breath of God and what He is saying to His people. I believe the body of Christ is the pillar and ground of truth. They are to uphold and stand on the word of God. The foundation is Christ.

I, on the other hand, believe that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). And so I trust the Church to safeguard and teach me that Truth, with Scripture as part of it.

Again we differ for I believe that the truth is the scripture. History has a way of repeating itself and we see where tradition has creeped in just as it did when Jesus spoke about it to the Isreal People who thought they were the holding the very truth through their tradition. But Jesus addressed this and what did He say?


If I'm wrong, I humbly submit to God's wrath and hope that He will be merciful to me. I am only trying my best to follow Him.

If I merit eternal punishment for asking Mother Mary to pray for me, I deserve that punishment. If I merit eternal punishment for accepting guidance from the Church, I deserve that punishment. God's justice is perfect.

I hope you understand where I am coming from too. We all love Jesus and we are all doing our best; hopefully our best will be good enough for God. You are my sister in Christ and I love you, even though I don't agree with you.

Thank you for talking to me, and God bless you on your way.

Our very best is not good enough for a Holy God. This is why He sent Jesus to die for me and for you.. So that we can know with complete assurance that Because of Christ we can be redeemed. Not of works lest any man should boast but through the blood shed at calvary by the mighty One who came to seek the lost and heal the sick.. He is my portion. He is my refuge.. Mary is not my queen. Mary is not my mother. Mary is my sister in the Lord redeemed of the Lord just as I and many others are through the shedding of His blood and the Spirit who seals us..

 

[MamaZ]

However, Christ promises that we have eternal life and the gospels also say that God is the God of the living. Does that mean that when a person dies, God is no longer their God? If the soul lives on, then who says that the soul of a person who is no longer walking on this earth can't pray for his/her brothers and sisters in Christ who are still walking on this earth? The Scriptures don't say they can't, and Paul does talk about a "cloud of witnesses".

They are no longer walking among us . They are now in the very Presence of the One who called them. Paul does talk about a cloud of witnesses while he is talking about faith. Can you tell me though what they are witnesses to? There is only one who forever lives to intercede for us. That is Christ Jesus my King. We do not read anywhere in the canon that those who pass from this life to the next live to intercede for us. But we do read that Jesus does.

 

[MamaZ]

Indeed, you cite II Peter. But it only bears the interpretation you want if you twist it out of context

.

Like the other Catholic Epistles, II Peter is largely concerned to defend the true Apostolic teaching against the counterfeit versions of heretics. What he means in II Peter 1:20 is the exact opposite of what you make it mean. That is that all real prophecy comes from the Holy Spirit through the Apostolic teaching, not by private interpretation

He is speaking of Scripture. The prophecy of Scripture. Scripture is the Prophecy that reveals the truth. This is why we take the full context of the written scriptures. Not just bits and pieces to fit into a theory someone else has thought up. Such as Mary being a queen of Heaven. Many Fables out there today. When we line them up with the Prophecy of Scripture we can see that.


.

He goes straight on to condemn the 'false prophets' who do claim private inspiration, and by whom many will be led astray. Anyone can claim to be inspired of the HS, and many, falsely, do that.

They sure do and we can take all that is spoken and taught to the scripture. This is why we are to test the spirits.

You seem to think he means that anyone who prophecies speaks with the HS - that is the opposite of what the writer means.

No this is not what I think.. For if someone teaches or practices anything outside the written scriptures then I will take the Prophecy of Scripture over any teaching that is not outlined in the scripture..
peace,

Anglian

Scripture is my plumb line.

 

[Anglian]

Dear MamaZ,

Your good heart and zeal are a tonic.

But do remember that you are grounding everything in a book which does not even tell you what its parts are.

Some of us are rounding ourselves in that book and the tradition which tells us what it is. That same tradition tells us other practices from the days of the successors of the Apostles, and those, too, we practice.

So, even as we can respect you and your practices, can you not find it in you to do the same to us?

peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

That same tradition tells us other practices from the days of the successors of the Apostles, and those, too, we practice.

which ones,tail back that far i mean?

mamaZthezealot

 

[Anglian]

which ones,tail back that far i mean?

mamaZthezealot

Dear Simon,

One of the reasons why the early Fathers matter is they enable us to give some sort of answer to that question.

So, we see the idea of the Trinity, the idea that Christ was divine and not just a very good man, the idea of confession, the idea of the threefold ministry. But, of course, we cannot reconstruct the whole of the worship of that era, and even if we could, there is no reason to suppose that it would be a good idea; the Holy Ghost leads the Church now, as then; it is a living body, not a fossil.

And yes, like your good self, MamaZ has a zeal for the Lord; but it would help us all get along even better if you'd both see that those of us who practice intercessory prayer and Marian veneration also have a zeal for the Lord. I appreciate that for her, and you, what is in the book matters most; well, it matters to us too - which is why we embrace the tradition which tells us that it is the word of God.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Coralie]

Our very best is not good enough for a Holy God. This is why He sent Jesus to die for me and for you.. So that we can know with complete assurance that Because of Christ we can be redeemed. Not of works lest any man should boast but through the blood shed at calvary by the mighty One who came to seek the lost and heal the sick.. He is my portion. He is my refuge.. Mary is not my queen. Mary is not my mother. Mary is my sister in the Lord redeemed of the Lord just as I and many others are through the shedding of His blood and the Spirit who seals us..

You appear to think that when I said "I am trying my best" that I meant "works will save Coralie, and not faith".

That is not what I meant at all; all I meant was that I surrender to God as the Perfect Judge of my beliefs and conduct.

I, too, believe that only because of Christ can I be redeemed.

I, too, believe that I am not redeemed by works, but by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

I, too, believe He is my portion and my refuge, and the only One worthy of worship.

That I occasionally ask the Blessed Virgin to pray for me does NOT make me a pagan goddess worshipper or a heretic or a non-Christian.

I understand where you are coming from, even if I disagree with you, and I would have liked to know that you understand me too. But I guess that's not going to happen.

So I think I should stop talking to you about this: it just makes me feel angry and misunderstood. Thank you for spending your time speaking to me. God bless you.

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

Your good heart and zeal are a tonic.

But do remember that you are grounding everything in a book which does not even tell you what its parts are.

Not they may not tell us what the Parts are but we can know for a fact that these parts that are in there are inspired of God.

Some of us are rounding ourselves in that book and the tradition which tells us what it is. That same tradition tells us other practices from the days of the successors of the Apostles, and those, too, we practice.

Tradition does not quicken Gods word to my Spirit. That would be the annointing in me which does this.
So, even as we can respect you and your practices, can you not find it in you to do the same to us?

peace,

Anglian

I sometimes wonder what you mean by the word respect.. I do not bash you for what you believe but I do not agree with what you believe. This is a debate forum if I am not mistaken so therefore there will be these debates..