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

[Anglian]

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.

Is there not a danger of circular logic here? The Book is there now. There is no way of testing whether you, me, or anyone one else alive now would be capable of choosing only those 27 books if put in a room with a hundred or so texts; so I can't quite see where this one is going

You go on to write:

Tradition does not quicken Gods word to my Spirit. That would be the annointing in me which does this.

I don't think anyone would disagree. What Tradition does is give us both the Bible.

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..

My statement there was a general one aimed at those who sometimes suggest that we treat the Blessed Theotokos as a goddess or that we worship idols. We don't, and to suggest we do in the face of our direct statement we don't leads not to good debate but to heated threads which get shut by the Mods; just look how many on this theme have been closed.

There is plenty of room for debate and discussion, but when we (and I am not saying you personally here) find people accusing Catholics or Orthodox of idolatry and goddess worship, I think we part company with that charity which should mark us if we have that anointing of which you speak sop eloquently.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Is there not a danger of circular logic here? The Book is there now. There is no way of testing whether you, me, or anyone one else alive now would be capable of choosing only those 27 books if put in a room with a hundred or so texts; so I can't quite see where this one is going

Well I don't know if someone alive now would be capable of putting those books together.. With God all things are possible..
You go on to write:

I don't think anyone would disagree. What Tradition does is give us both the Bible.

Well I guess I get a litte confused when you say tradition gave me the bible.

My statement there was a general one aimed at those who sometimes suggest that we treat the Blessed Theotokos as a goddess or that we worship idols. We don't, and to suggest we do in the face of our direct statement we don't leads not to good debate but to heated threads which get shut by the Mods; just look how many on this theme have been closed.

Many have been shut down yes.. I guess it really depends on ones interpretaion of idol..

There is plenty of room for debate and discussion, but when we (and I am not saying you personally here) find people accusing Catholics or Orthodox of idolatry and goddess worship, I think we part company with that charity which should mark us if we have that anointing of which you speak sop eloquently.

peace,

Anglian

I guess it can go both ways actually.. Us being accused of following man made traditions and such.. Love speaks truth actually.. Any less and it would not be the love commanded of us if we are to love as Jesus loved would it?

 

[Standing Up]

This appears missed---

The date of copy is disputed.

Two translations:

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.

Where exactly is the request for prayer?

As opposed to seeking mercy under "Mary's" wings?
As opposed to taking refuge under "Mary"?
As opposed to asking her for deliverance?
As opposed to speaking of her as only pure and blessed one?

 

[Anglian]

I guess it can go both ways actually.. Us being accused of following man made traditions and such.. Love speaks truth actually.. Any less and it would not be the love commanded of us if we are to love as Jesus loved would it?

Dear MamaZ,

One of the ways in which one can respond to being accused of acting on man-made traditions is to point out two things: that what we do was done by the early Church with no controversy; and that what you do in questioning it is the product itself of a man-made tradition.

I'd suggest from our experience that it doesn't lead anywhere edifying. As I have tried to suggest, for many of us, tradition and the Bible are not separate. We only know which books as to be in it because the early Church recognised which books were genuine; cut that link and there is really no way anyone could know for sure that the books are the only ones that are genuine.

As for idols, we take very seriously the prohibition about worshipping them - we are monotheists. We simply follow practices which the early Church approved of; that same Church which recognised the Bible and saw no contradiction between it and Marian veneration.

No one is insisting anyone else should practice it; what is being suggested is that people should stop making the false claim that any of us treats St. Mary as a goddess; that would be against the teaching of the Church.

Love does, indeed, speak truth; it does not bear false witness - and claiming any Christians worship statues is, I am afraid, just that. At first hearing one can take it for a misunderstanding and one can try to explain, as we have, what it is we do. But then people post silly pictures and claim that it 'proves' we worship a statue; at that point it becomes offensive I fear.

So, I hope that you can understand that our traditions do not involve goddesses or statue worship, and we can understand your tradition does not involve worshipping a book - and we can get on with understanding the ways in which the Lord works in His world.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Sister Coralie-

Our faith is in God, not men. Our faith is in Christ. He did it. We believe it. His eyewitnesses left us a record.

Our faith is not in vain, regardless of wolves entering in.

Gates of hell isn't offensive weapon, but defensive. They hold people in. Peter in prison (Acts) is an example. He got out and preached.

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.

Understood. It'd be like the example of OT. They were chosen. They went along over hundreds of years. Christ arrives and isn't too pleased with some of them. He is crucified, buried, and resurrected. The NT is begun. We go along for hundreds of years. Do you really think that the Church today is exactly like, or even close, to what He founded? Just the fact of schisms tells us otherwise.

So, whereever you're called from, stay there, as Paul says. Do what you can do.

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.

Not sure what you are when you go to Church.

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)...

I'll have to go back and see what's said and then comment.

" Where, in what I've written above, does the idolatrous transgression come in (if that makes sense, didn't know how else to put it)? Is it all based on the "dead saints don't pray for us" thing, or is it something else? "

As an example, read over the sub tuum prayer (post #424) and let me know what you think.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

It doesn't take an invitation to submit to Rome. It's already out there.

So, again, you've (OO) drawn a line. You don't submit to Rome, agree with Pope Supreme, Marian dogma, etc.

I've drawn a line too, except mine predates yours.

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.

There seems to be some confusion. You're asking the eyewitnesses to read about themselves. They laid it out for us. We're built on them.

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

Then by all means, kiss the Pope's ring or feet or whatever in subjection.

Again, you're applying a practice that the early chuch did not. They asked for apostolic authority. Look, we've already determined that Rome's first apostles are contradictory. There's zero assurance there, especially given its marriage to the state later. So, at least you're right to NOT submit to Rome, for whatever the reason. All I'm saying is apply the same standard to other practices. Then do what you can where you're at.

 

[Standing Up]

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

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

Thanks for the link. Any others?

 

[Thekla]

This appears missed---



As opposed to seeking mercy under "Mary's" wings?
As opposed to taking refuge under "Mary"?
As opposed to asking her for deliverance?
As opposed to speaking of her as only pure and blessed one?

Not missed. It is apparently not in a form (poetic, of a much earlier era) that you are familiar with.

To pray for another requires compassion from the other, likewise it is merciful to pray for another. To pray for another - to even 'stand in the gap' and pray to God on behalf of another - is an act of mercy and compassion, is sheltering. Her prayers for others (as are yours, for ex.) are an act borne of love, compassion, mercy, sheltering. The prayers of the righteous are strong (see the Epistle of James). To be pure and blessed in the sight of God is equated with righteousness. (Likewise, the prayers of Moses are strong.) The use of the term "only" is a poetic rendering, used as a superlative or emphatic. We are delivered by the prayers of others; we are exhorted to pray for others.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks for the link. Any others?

Many - you can research these ... the tomb of Rachel, the tomb of the Patriarchs ... Perhaps your local library has a copy of the Stone edition of the Tanakh (where this is mentioned as well, as originating with Joseph when he asked his mother Rachel for her prayers as he passed her tomb on the way to captivity in Egypt).

EDIT: here is a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia online, which includes a discussion of the intercessions of Rachel:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=57&letter=R

 

[Coralie]

Sister Coralie-

Our faith is in God, not men. Our faith is in Christ. He did it. We believe it. His eyewitnesses left us a record.

Our faith is not in vain, regardless of wolves entering in.

Yes--my faith is in God, not men. He did it, and I believe it, and my faith is not in vain even though wolves entered in (which, of course, they did--but I don't believe they became the arbiters of the Church we have today).

But I am part of the Body of Christ, and I don't distrust it no matter if it disappoints me at times.

What I meant by statement was that if Jesus said "Peter, you are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it", and then the Church was immediately infected by idolatry (etc etc), then that would make Jesus a liar.

If I thought Jesus lied about His Church, I wouldn't be able to take His claims seriously. I wouldn't have been able to leave atheism and become a Christian when I was 22.

I hope that makes sense?

Gates of hell isn't offensive weapon, but defensive. They hold people in. Peter in prison (Acts) is an example. He got out and preached.

I can see how you would interpret that verse in that way, but I don't and never have.

Even if I did, though:
If the Church is meant to be "the pillar and ground of Truth",
... but it fell into error immediately after being created
.... and was only put back on the straight and narrow at the Reformation (at the earliest)
...then I can't take its original witnesses seriously, since the Bible lied anyway.

Understood. It'd be like the example of OT. They were chosen. They went along over hundreds of years. Christ arrives and isn't too pleased with some of them. He is crucified, buried, and resurrected. The NT is begun. We go along for hundreds of years. Do you really think that the Church today is exactly like, or even close, to what He founded? Just the fact of schisms tells us otherwise.

So, whereever you're called from, stay there, as Paul says. Do what you can do..

I don't think the Church we have today is exactly like the 33 AD Church, simply because of different circumstances.

For example, they worshipped in the Temple back then, but now we have our own buildings and don't go to synagogues and mix with Jews much at all (unless Messianic I guess, but I don't know much about that so I can't comment). Outside of the Lord's Day, we do still meet in houses for fellowship and teaching, so that's probably similar.

Also, we aren't under persecution in the West, so of course that makes our Church life much different to 33 AD and up till Constantine's time. Just as Churches in China right now look very different to ours.

All these variables change constantly. I don't think our Churches need to "look" like they did in 33 AD, or even use the same words in homilies, hymns, liturgies, etc--but the spirit of love and honour for God and one another, and an understanding of Who God truly is [proper doctrine], always has to be there, otherwise it's not a Church.

I do feel that in my Church we understand that and we love God ardently. We take care of each other, take care of strangers, repent and pray to God for mercy and help, and try to work on our hearts so they reflect Christ, and not the world.

I don't feel that loving, remembering, and including Mary and the rest of the Body of Christ in Heaven makes us "not Christians" or idolators or what-have-you.

Not sure what you are when you go to Church.

I don't know what you mean by this... I'm hoping you aren't trying to say that I'm not a Christian when I go to Church...

I'll have to go back and see what's said and then comment.

"Where, in what I've written above, does the idolatrous transgression come in (if that makes sense, didn't know how else to put it)? Is it all based on the "dead saints don't pray for us" thing, or is it something else?"

As an example, read over the sub tuum prayer (post #424) and let me know what you think.

TBH, what I'm looking for is your thoughts on our Liturgy. Please do give me your thoughts when you can.

I will look over these though and comment on them:

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, the first thing that strikes me is that it's very old-fashioned and contains a lot of things that we probably would formulate differently these days. Also, there are a lot of things assumed in this prayer (that is, the writer assumes we understand certain things about Mary).

To me, this prayer says, line by line:
1. Mary, we believe you have a compassionate/merciful character.
2. Thank goodness you are, because we know you'll pray for us. Our relief feels like refuge from our current troubles.
3. Please don't ignore our requests for your prayers.*
4. Please pray for us [because you know God's will for us, since you are in Heaven with Him, so]; whatever you pray will happen [since it's in line with God's will].
5. You are the purest and most blessed among the Saints [this refers to her virginity and her being chosen by God for such a special work]

*The formulation "do not despise/disdain" is used to show respect for the person you're talking to--a person of 200 AD, and indeed 33 AD, will have addressed their own earthly parent in this way.

I, as an EO Christian who understands Mary's proper place, don't have a problem with this prayer.

I do have a problem with it if the person saying it believes that Mary "grants wishes" or some such. But any EO who believed that, and admitted it out loud, would be admonished pretty strongly. "Glory to God for all things!" is our watchword over at the EO subforum.

Thanks again for your responses. Let me know your thoughts on our Liturgy if you can--I'm still interested in your view.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Not sure what you are when you go to Church.
​

Coralie--I don't know what you mean by this... I'm hoping you aren't trying to say that I'm not a Christian when I go to Church...

Heavens no. Wouldn't have said sister if I'd have thought that.

I just thought it an interesting distinction you made.

 

[Anglian]

It doesn't take an invitation to submit to Rome. It's already out there.

I think you may be forgetting that in 451 it was the Chalcedonians who changed things, not just Rome. And, as I suggested earlier, it isn't correct to suggest we drew a line and stopped there; that ignores the work of the HS within the Church for the last 1600 years.

So, again, you've (OO) drawn a line. You don't submit to Rome, agree with Pope Supreme, Marian dogma, etc.

We submit to the same Pope we submitted to at Nicaea, read canon 6. Like all Eastern Churches we don't go big on defining dogma.

I've drawn a line too, except mine predates yours.

Since we have drawn no line, your line certainly predates something we don't have.

There seems to be some confusion. You're asking the eyewitnesses to read about themselves. They laid it out for us. We're built on them.

No, I was suggesting that we only know they were eyewitnesses because the Church says they were; we actually have no idea who wrote Hebrews or II Peter; we accept the Church's view that they are Apostolic.

Then by all means, kiss the Pope's ring or feet or whatever in subjection.

I am sensing some hostility here to subjecting ourselves to those set in authority above us; I kiss my bishop's ring as I do the Bible every Sunday; both represent the word of the Lord.

Again, you're applying a practice that the early chuch did not. They asked for apostolic authority. Look, we've already determined that Rome's first apostles are contradictory. There's zero assurance there, especially given its marriage to the state later. So, at least you're right to NOT submit to Rome, for whatever the reason. All I'm saying is apply the same standard to other practices. Then do what you can where you're at.

You have determined this; I don't recall agreeing that the issue on which they disagreed was fundamental to our salvation; it was, as I recall, rather a pharisaical one. Neither do I accept that the 'marriage' to the State had the effects you describe. The Apostles themselves did not always agree - James, Peter and Paul all took different positions on some matters. If you want unanimity on all things, perhaps you should consider Rome as an option; you seem to mention it rather often.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

Anglian-

More like frustration.

" Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force. "

So you're (OO) like EO is not subject to Rome. That you draw it 325 rather than 455 or 1054 matters not to the point. The point is you've drawn it and then wonder why others simply draw a line earlier.

Some draw it at 1054. Some 1600s. Some not at all.

What's the deal? I've simply drawn mine like I understood how the very early church did it. Unfurl the rolls of your bishops. From where did the teaching arise? What source? What is the earliest mention? If those things aren't drawn to apostles or scripture, then they were declared heretical.

Again, Polycarp vs. Marcion. You know the drill. It's why we have 4 gospel instead of Luke only.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

(double-post, mea culpa)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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.

This is evidence towards the fact that the Deposit of Faith is immutable. Dogmas only further clarify what has been handed down to us. The presence of the Coptic Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church (split from the Assyrian Church of the East -- the "Nestorian Church" -- to reconcile with the Catholic Church in the 15th century).

Photios I of Constantinople (+893, Saint to the EO) attacked the West for the insertion of the word Filioque into the Creed, saying that it constituted heresy. But two centuries earlier, St. Maximus the Confessor (+662) spoke rightly when he explained:

[T]hey (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊένα&#953 through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them...

When we say, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" -- "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" we mean nothing new or different from the Eastern Churches (including both those in communion with Rome and those apart) when they do not include that word. We mean simply that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" which is attested to by Holy Scripture and uncontested.

Obviously, some things like papal infallibility are going to be opposed by those not in communion with Rome. The intention was not to establish the pope as a monarch but rather the necessary servant of Tradition. In the book I am currently reading (and taking copious quotes from on paper), Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) writes on the authority of the pope as it relates to the organic development of the liturgy:

The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such has never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the given-ness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

It is my position that all of the things which the Eastern Orthodox (and I assume, the Oriental Orthodox with them) impugn the Catholic Church for are either something which is not taught (e.g. that the guilt of Original Sin is transmitted) or are not substantially different (Purgatory appears to be completely in conformity to the definition of the transitory state in the Synod of Jerusalem). We all have the same Deposit of Faith, which we earnestly contend for, but there is much misunderstanding and human pride. Schisms are fundamentally the result of the sin of pride and reunification is inevitable if we all seek Christ and mutual understanding (which is not, and is contrary to, false ecumenism).

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.

That idea of reconstruction is the folly of Protestantism. The Church is the organic, living, growing, Body of Christ. The idea that individuals in the 19th and 20th century know more about the first century Church than the Church who was there is ridiculous. We know about the early Church because we have their writings and, most importantly, we have their prayers -- we have their Liturgy. There is one constant Deposit of Faith, the way that is applied changes through time. There is one constant Heavenly Liturgy, but the reflections we have in the earthly liturgy are diverse and change over time. There is one constant God, who acts in conjunction with human beings through time.

To quote the same book,

With the radicalization of the historical-critical method, it has become very clear today that the 'sola scriptura' principle cannot provide a foundation for the Church and the commonality of her faith. Scripture is Scripture only when it lives within the living subject that is the Church. This makes it all the more absurd that a not insignificant number of people today are trying to construct the liturgy afresh on the basis of 'sola scriptura'. In the reconstructions they identify Scripture with the prevailing exegetical opinions, thus confusing faith with opinion. Liturgy "manufactured" in this way is based on human words and opinions. It is a house built on sand and remains totally empty, however much human artistry may adorn it.
...
The more priests and faithful humbly surrender themselves to this descent of God, the more "new" the liturgy will constantly be, and the more true and personal it becomes. Yes, the liturgy becomes personal, true and new, not through tomfoolery and banal experiments with the words, but through a courageous entry in to the great reality that through the rite is always ahead of us and can never quite be overtaken.

Does it still need to be explicitly stated that this has nothing to do with rigidity? Whereas for Moslems, the Koran is God's speech, pure and simple, without any human mediation, Christians know that God has spoken through man and that the human and historical factor is, therefore, part of the way God acts. That, too, is why the Word of the Bible becomes complete only in that responsive word of the Church which we call Tradition. That is why the accounts of the Last Supper in the Bible become a concrete reality only when they are appropriated by the Church in her celebration.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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.

Really? You mean like this?

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
...
And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Sacred Tradition cannot be contrary to Sacred Scripture -- they are both part of the Deposit of Faith, given to the Church by God.

That does not, however, mean that your personal interpretations of Scripture are not sometimes contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. But there is not a lot of reason to believe your interpretations over those of the Church.

 

[Standing Up]

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.


Any other comments about this c250-350 prayer to Mary?

Is it what you thought? Is there a request in there for her prayer to God or a statement of taking refuge in her instead?

Beneath her compassion?

Is there a request to God the Father through Jesus Christ for deliverance or an appeal to Virgin Theotokos?

Is there deification with "only pure and blessed one"?

Resuce us from dangers? Isn't that God's job?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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.

Really? You mean like this?

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
...
And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Sacred Tradition cannot be contrary to Sacred Scripture -- they are both part of the Deposit of Faith, given to the Church by God.

That does not, however, mean that your personal interpretations of Scripture are not sometimes contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. But there is not a lot of reason to believe your interpretations over those of the Church.

Those pseudo-traditions created by the various sects alienated from the Apostolic faith are not Sacred Tradition. The Tradition of the Apostolic faith is Sacred and given to us by God, it is our participation in the divine life.

 

[Standing Up]

Many - you can research these ... the tomb of Rachel, the tomb of the Patriarchs ... Perhaps your local library has a copy of the Stone edition of the Tanakh (where this is mentioned as well, as originating with Joseph when he asked his mother Rachel for her prayers as he passed her tomb on the way to captivity in Egypt).

EDIT: here is a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia online, which includes a discussion of the intercessions of Rachel:
JewishEncyclopedia.com - RACHEL

Thanks again.

So far, we've seen that Purgatory and intercession from the deceased apparently arose out of Jewish oral tradition and incorporated into the Church.

Are there other similar examples of that? Some easy ones are the clergy/laity split, levitical-type priests, not to open those worm cans, but what others come to mind?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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.

Really? You mean like this?

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
...
And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Sacred Tradition cannot be contrary to Sacred Scripture -- they are both part of the Deposit of Faith, given to the Church by God.

That does not, however, mean that your personal interpretations of Scripture are not sometimes contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. But there is not a lot of reason to believe your interpretations over those of the Apostles.

Those pseudo-traditions created by the various sects alienated from the Apostolic faith are not Sacred Tradition. The Tradition of the Apostolic faith is Sacred and given to us by God, it is our participation in the divine life.