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

[Standing Up]

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

What did Nestorius say about Marian veneration?

Didn't he "reconvert" on his death bed?

 

[Anglian]

What did Nestorius say about Marian veneration?

Didn't he "reconvert" on his death bed?

Nestorius argued that since St. Mary was only the mother of Jesus Christ and not the Mother of God she shouldn't be given the veneration she was being given by the likes of St. Cyril of Alexandria - she was only a woman ... in fact the usual stuff we've seen much of here.

As for repenting on his death bed, his 'Bazaar of Heraclitus' suggests that he could never see he had done anything wrong and that it was all everyone else's fault - not much in that of repentance.

Interesting to see you continuing to ask rather than answer questions

peace,

Anglian

 

[IreneAdler]

yeah, the thread has Mary's name and commentary on her place again... woo hoo

 

[Standing Up]

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

No more questions, but a reiteration, since you've agreed (a post or two before this quote).

OO drew a line after the 3rd EC. They weren't invited to later ones, they were misunderstood, whatever the reason; and I'm sure each side has commentary and finger-pointing.

The fact is OO drew a line c455. Dogma done.

The fact is EO drew a line 1054. Dogma done.

The fact is P drew a line c1600. Dogma done.

The fact is RC continues to declare things. Dogma not done.

My line is much earlier than those. The very early church asked for a teachings source. They asked for apostolic authority. They asked for scripture. They asked for proof.

 

[Thekla]

I still don't know of any "new dogma" in the EO -- whatever the date

 

[Standing Up]

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

Sorry Thekla, this is just such a bizarre statement to make. I mean it's part of scripture.

To compare God-breathed scripture with some person's writing from who knows where is just too odd. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I can't believe you're making the comparison.

 

[Standing Up]

I still don't know of any "new dogma" in the EO -- whatever the date

Filioque. EO drew the line and said no to X and yes to Y.

 

[Thekla]

Sorry Thekla, this is just such a bizarre statement to make. I mean it's part of scripture.

To compare God-breathed scripture with some person's writing from who knows where is just too odd. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I can't believe you're making the comparison.

Its not bizarre -- you are using scripture as context. Without the context, who can conclusively say "who" the Lord's prayer is addressed to, or even if it is Christian.

Scripture is a description of revelation; it uses human language to communicate revelation. Can human description fully describe God ? Or the truth, or Truth - the person of Jesus Christ ? Even all that was witnessed that Christ did is not recorded. Christ can only be lived; can you fully describe your own life ? If you spend the time to fully describe in writing your life, will you have any life other than the life of describing it ? And even then, how can you record it all ?

 

[Thekla]

Filioque. EO drew the line and said no to X and yes to Y.

Cause it was "new"
(well, that's a silly simplification on my part)

Here is a link describing "dogma":

The term “dogma” and its significance - Metropolitan John Zizioulas | Serbian Orthodox Church [Official web site]

 

[Anglian]

No more questions, but a reiteration, since you've agreed (a post or two before this quote).

OO drew a line after the 3rd EC. They weren't invited to later ones, they were misunderstood, whatever the reason; and I'm sure each side has commentary and finger-pointing.

The fact is OO drew a line c455. Dogma done.

The fact is EO drew a line 1054. Dogma done.

The fact is P drew a line c1600. Dogma done.

The fact is RC continues to declare things. Dogma not done.

My line is much earlier than those. The very early church asked for a teachings source. They asked for apostolic authority. They asked for scripture. They asked for proof.

This seems over simple in so far as it ignores a fundamental difference between the mindsets of the East and West. It is not the Eastern practice to declare things dogma. If you look at the Councils between Chalcedon and the Great Schism I'm not aware that any of them pronounced new dogma; it is very rare this has ever been done. The CC, which is more inclined to a scholastic view of the Faith and to proceed in a more juridical manner, has, it is true, pronounced as dogma things that it long accepted beforehand.

To describe that a 'new' is, again, to fall into the belief that the date something is declared dogma is when it was first known; this is not so. Neither is it the case that that which is declared dogma is actually new. The idea of Papal infallibility and the Marian dogma had been around for many centuries. Rome likes to define things; the East likes to maintain that somethings cannot be defined and is content that they should be believed by those who believe them, caring only to pronounce on error.

And so we come to something you still won't comment on. The Church which tells us all what the canon is saw no contradiction between it and Marian veneration; why do you persist in maintaining that there is such a contradiction? The argument that 'it is not in Scripture' is undermined by the fact that Scripture does not tell you what it is - the Church does that.

To some of us it seems that you accept that part of the teaching of the early Church concerning the canon and then use the latter as your yardstick by which to reject another practice of that same Church - Marian veneration. Is this not inconsistent?

Would it be too much to hope, finally, for an answer to this oft-repeated question; after all, your own questions have been answered?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

This seems over simple in so far as it ignores a fundamental difference between the mindsets of the East and West. It is not the Eastern practice to declare things dogma.

Dogma or heretical, either way, OO said "here's the line". We disagree over X. Bye, bye.

If you look at the Councils between Chalcedon and the Great Schism I'm not aware that any of them pronounced new dogma; it is very rare this has ever been done. The CC, which is more inclined to a scholastic view of the Faith and to proceed in a more juridical manner, has, it is true, pronounced as dogma things that it long accepted beforehand.

This is another "anglian" comment. No new dogma, but it has pronounced dogma.

To describe that a 'new' is, again, to fall into the belief that the date something is declared dogma is when it was first known; this is not so. Neither is it the case that that which is declared dogma is actually new. The idea of Papal infallibility and the Marian dogma had been around for many centuries. Rome likes to define things; the East likes to maintain that somethings cannot be defined and is content that they should be believed by those who believe them, caring only to pronounce on error.

And again, neither OO or EO agrees with your statement.

I think we have to distinguish, or at least I have to distinguish, between Anglian and OO. It's like with some RC and EO, everyone has an opinion, but it's not necessarily official RC, EO, or OO. In that sense, we're all Protestant .

And so we come to something you still won't comment on. The Church which tells us all what the canon is saw no contradiction between it and Marian veneration; why do you persist in maintaining that there is such a contradiction? The argument that 'it is not in Scripture' is undermined by the fact that Scripture does not tell you what it is - the Church does that.

Dude, I started a thread on that. Asked for your participation numerous times. Tune cricket chirping .

To some of us it seems that you accept that part of the teaching of the early Church concerning the canon and then use the latter as your yardstick by which to reject another practice of that same Church - Marian veneration. Is this not inconsistent?

Would it be too much to hope, finally, for an answer to this oft-repeated question; after all, your own questions have been answered?

peace,

Anglian

I've already commented that Sub Tuum is an example of a rejected practice. As it stands alone (or even within supposed context), most Christians would agree it attempts to elevate someone as Deity as Mother of God. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that was the issue over which OO "split". More than likely, it is from that era of Jer. 44 brought forward and then "banned" per Epiphanius.

Here's Jesus on the same attitude--

Lk. 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!

He gathers. We are gathered under Him. Some, however, prefer for some reason, to allow themselves to be gathered under someone named "only pure and blessed one". Gather under the "blessed one's" mercy?

" 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. "

Lastly, let's go back to something else. Personally Anglian, personally, do you think Jesus Christ was a created being?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

Let me try to deal with the points you raise, as there is still, in them, a want of understanding of the Orthodox ethos.

To start with:

Dogma or heretical, either way, OO said "here's the line". We disagree over X. Bye, bye.

No, that is the precise opposite of what happened. Those Fathers at Chalcedon who disagreed with the definition of Christ's natures found it Nestorian in tone and argued that case. After they had returned home they found, within a few months, Imperial troops under the orders of Constantinople turfing them out of their Churches at the point of a sword; we said 'bye bye' to no one. For the next century and a half there were talks between the two sides in an attempt to find an understanding; some of them came close to success. But the Islamic conquests of the Middle East put an end to such talks, and for the next 1400 years the OO were separated from the rest of Christendom. There was no line drawing, there was a disagreement which did not have the time, or circumstances, to work itself through.

I will deal with the second and third points you make in a separate post, as they are different in kind from this one.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

You state with immense confidence that:

And again, neither OO or EO agrees with your statement.

This was what I stated:

To describe that a 'new' is, again, to fall into the belief that the date something is declared dogma is when it was first known; this is not so. Neither is it the case that that which is declared dogma is actually new. The idea of Papal infallibility and the Marian dogma had been around for many centuries. Rome likes to define things; the East likes to maintain that somethings cannot be defined and is content that they should be believed by those who believe them, caring only to pronounce on error.
And again, neither OO or EO agrees with your statement.

Now, if you can show me where either my own Church or the EO Church has said that the date at which a dogma is declared is the date at which it originated I would be most surprised.

As it happens, we have no problem with the idea of the Bishop of Rome holding a primacy of honour; one of the reasons we disagree with the RCC is that it has sought to do something we do not do in the East, that is to define it dogmatically. The same is true with the Blessed Theotokos. We see no reason to make dogmatic which none of us have questioned; mind you, had we had to put up with people casting slurs on St, Mary, we too might have been driven to declare her sinless; as it is, we see no need to make a dogma out of what every Orthodox Christian believes.

This is not my view, it is that of my Church. We do not, of course, hold what our Catholic friends hold on Original Sin, so we would express ourselves in quite a different manner. But if you ask an Orthodox Christian two simple questions:
- do you believe that the Blessed Theotokos was without sin?
- do you believe that she was ever-Virgin
we would all say 'yes'. There is a unanimity on such things you will not find in Protestantism

You keep telling me you started a thread on the issue of the Church, tradition and the canon; no doubt, but does that stop you answering a question you have consistently evaded here?

Your view that the Sub Tuum represents a rejected practice is just that - your view. Thekla has dissented and you offer no evidence showing it was rejected.

Lastly, let's go back to something else. Personally Anglian, personally, do you think Jesus Christ was a created being?

I could use the 'SU' defence and say I've commented on this in other threads, but in the decreasingly optimistic hope you will actually answer my one question as I have answered you numerous ones, I will answer it here too.

The man we call Jesus the Christ was born of the Virgin and made man; she gave birth to the Word Incarnate, who is coeternal with the Father and the Spirit, whose essence He shares. Thus, as the Church teaches, He was 100% man and 100% divine with no mixture of the two natures, not even for the twinkling of an eye.

I am surprised you ask, since this is what the Nicene Creed has taught us. But, of course, that was not the point at which the Church decided to believe this - it was the point at which the Church found itself having to declare what all had taken for granted, because a group of men claimed to know better than tradition.

Would that be a familiar story to you

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

Dear Standing Up,

Let me try to deal with the points you raise, as there is still, in them, a want of understanding of the Orthodox ethos.

To start with:

No, that is the precise opposite of what happened. Those Fathers at Chalcedon who disagreed with the definition of Christ's natures found it Nestorian in tone and argued that case. After they had returned home they found, within a few months, Imperial troops under the orders of Constantinople turfing them out of their Churches at the point of a sword; we said 'bye bye' to no one. For the next century and a half there were talks between the two sides in an attempt to find an understanding; some of them came close to success. But the Islamic conquests of the Middle East put an end to such talks, and for the next 1400 years the OO were separated from the rest of Christendom. There was no line drawing, there was a disagreement which did not have the time, or circumstances, to work itself through.

I will deal with the second and third points you make in a separate post, as they are different in kind from this one.

peace,

Anglian

Semantics again. But let me see if I can couch this in language with which you'd agree.

OO and EO/RC/P (twinkles in each other's eyes at the time) had a disagreement that didn't work itself through (dtdwit). This was c455.

c1054, OO was still in dtdwit. Then EO and RC/P had a dtdwit.

c1600, OO and EO were still in dtdwit. RC and P had a dtdwit.

Year 2010. OO, EO, RC, P are still in dtdwit's.

Those dtdwits are what I term "line-drawing".

My dtdwits are pre 455.

 

[Standing Up]

Dear Standing Up,

You state with immense confidence that:


This was what I stated:

Now, if you can show me where either my own Church or the EO Church has said that the date at which a dogma is declared is the date at which it originated I would be most surprised.

Maybe your next comment will aid after the Pope comment.

As it happens, we have no problem with the idea of the Bishop of Rome holding a primacy of honour; one of the reasons we disagree with the RCC is that it has sought to do something we do not do in the East, that is to define it dogmatically. The same is true with the Blessed Theotokos. We see no reason to make dogmatic which none of us have questioned; mind you, had we had to put up with people casting slurs on St, Mary, we too might have been driven to declare her sinless; as it is, we see no need to make a dogma out of what every Orthodox Christian believes.

If some RC or EO would join in, they'd probably use different semantics there.

This is not my view, it is that of my Church. We do not, of course, hold what our Catholic friends hold on Original Sin, so we would express ourselves in quite a different manner.

Okay. Take that same concept and apply it to the issue of "new dogma" or not. Obviously, you're going to disagree, but if it's good in one case, it might be good in another.

But if you ask an Orthodox Christian two simple questions:
- do you believe that the Blessed Theotokos was without sin?
- do you believe that she was ever-Virgin
we would all say 'yes'. There is a unanimity on such things you will not find in Protestantism

Whatever.

You seem to make a distinction, draw a line, that Protestants aren't part of the Church. IOW, you are part of the Body that hasn't unanimity on such things. Unless, of course, you prefer not to draw that line.

You keep telling me you started a thread on the issue of the Church, tradition and the canon; no doubt, but does that stop you answering a question you have consistently evaded here?

It's off topic. And I've already commented numerous times about Peter calling Paul's works scripture and Paul calling at least Luke's works scripture. Other things like that are found throughout the NT. When my other thread "ended", it was up to 24 of 27 NT books self-identified as scripture.

What you need to do is show that, for example, the Gospel of Thomas was written between the first and last apostles to die and was considered scripture like the others by apostles and eyewitnesses.

Your view that the Sub Tuum represents a rejected practice is just that - your view. Thekla has dissented and you offer no evidence showing it was rejected.

Jer. 44 and Epiphanius. We disagree over the interpretation about the two's actions.

But let me toss this out. The underlying issue with Sub Tuum seems to be something else. It seems as though the thinking throughout some groups is that one might pray to something named X, as if the prayer were directed to God Almighty. IOW, if you pray to Allah, you believe you are praying to God the Father of Jesus Christ the Son. In Sub Tuum's case, praying to something called Virgin Mary, given the context (under her wings, as opposed to under Jesus' wings), doesn't mean anything because we really know to whom we are praying. Is that true however? Moses certainly worried about it. OT is very clear, Emmanuel. Jesus was also clear (reject Me and you've rejected God). So, no, we aren't protected under Mary's wings, but Christ's. If Jer. 44 holds, then the names he used have simply been changed. The intent, however, is the same.

I could use the 'SU' defence and say I've commented on this in other threads, but in the decreasingly optimistic hope you will actually answer my one question as I have answered you numerous ones, I will answer it here too.

The man we call Jesus the Christ was born of the Virgin and made man; she gave birth to the Word Incarnate, who is coeternal with the Father and the Spirit, whose essence He shares. Thus, as the Church teaches, He was 100% man and 100% divine with no mixture of the two natures, not even for the twinkling of an eye.

I am surprised you ask, since this is what the Nicene Creed has taught us. But, of course, that was not the point at which the Church decided to believe this - it was the point at which the Church found itself having to declare what all had taken for granted, because a group of men claimed to know better than tradition.

Would that be a familiar story to you

peace,

Anglian

Well, I was really looking for your personal view.

 

[Thekla]

The EO has no problem with a primacy of honor to Rome, never have; we differ with the RC on what that means.

I may be wrong, but it seems you may not yet have an understanding of 'dogma' eastern style.

If interested, look back at the last page where I've given a link which does a good job of describing the concept in EO understanding.

 

[Standing Up]

The EO has no problem with a primacy of honor to Rome, never have; we differ with the RC on what that means. -snip-

No kidding.

Words fail me.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

I may be wrong, but it seems you may not yet have an understanding of 'dogma' eastern style.

If interested, look back at the last page where I've given a link which does a good job of describing the concept in EO understanding.

Interesting perspective. Apparently he agrees that new dogmas may be formulated in every era.

" The truth does not become a dogma, unless it has been experienced and certified from within the Church. From this, it is obvious that the dogmas of the Church are not limited in number; new dogmas can be formulated in every era, because the Church is a living organism and the Holy Spirit is not associated to certain isolated periods of history. But, for a truth to become a dogma of the Church (and not a personal opinion), it must necessarily go through the community of the Church in its totality, and not only through a few people - be they theologians in the current (academic) sense, or saints. This point needs clarifications, because two important issues are posed: "

That's what I've been saying has happened. My line is just long ago--

" Acts, 16:4: "......as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees (‘dogmas' in Greek text) that were validated by the apostles and the elders...". "

Somewhere pre 450 would be my line. More like the Acts 16:4. Faith once delivered.

I should be less than annoyed to find your quoting someone agreeing with me, which confirms my long-made point. Like I should waste my time and effort arguing with folks who basically agree all along. New dogma. It just sounds better when you hear it from someone within your group.

****

' Truth as dogma until experienced and certified by the church' is an odd comment, I thought. As if truth might somehow be manipulated by majority rule. And to say, if the majority rule, it must therefore be truth. But that's what Christ "found" outside the Temple system majority.

His other problem is that he apparently doesn't believe his own words anyway, else he'd become Roman Catholic; after all, they're more numerous.

****

Bye bye. See you around.

 

[Thekla]

Interesting perspective. Apparently he agrees that new dogmas may be formulated in every era.

" The truth does not become a dogma, unless it has been experienced and certified from within the Church. From this, it is obvious that the dogmas of the Church are not limited in number; new dogmas can be formulated in every era, because the Church is a living organism and the Holy Spirit is not associated to certain isolated periods of history. But, for a truth to become a dogma of the Church (and not a personal opinion), it must necessarily go through the community of the Church in its totality, and not only through a few people - be they theologians in the current (academic) sense, or saints. This point needs clarifications, because two important issues are posed: "

That's what I've been saying has happened. My line is just long ago--

" Acts, 16:4: "......as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees (‘dogmas' in Greek text) that were validated by the apostles and the elders...". "

Somewhere pre 450 would be my line. More like the Acts 16:4. Faith once delivered.

I should be less than annoyed to find your quoting someone agreeing with me, which confirms my long-made point. Like I should waste my time and effort arguing with folks who basically agree all along. New dogma. It just sounds better when you hear it from someone within your group.

****

' Truth as dogma until experienced and certified by the church' is an odd comment, I thought. As if truth might somehow be manipulated by majority rule. And to say, if the majority rule, it must therefore be truth. But that's what Christ "found" outside the Temple system majority.

His other problem is that he apparently doesn't believe his own words anyway, else he'd become Roman Catholic; after all, they're more numerous.

****

Bye bye. See you around.

The dogmas can be issued, but reflect what always is - and is experienced.

Again, new dogmatic pronouncements do not indicate the dogma is new.

"New" does not mean innovation; this is an important delineation.

 

[Anglian]

Semantics again. But let me see if I can couch this in language with which you'd agree.

OO and EO/RC/P (twinkles in each other's eyes at the time) had a disagreement that didn't work itself through (dtdwit). This was c455.

Yes, after Chalcedon on 451 - but they were still talking in the 640s when the Muslims stopped all dialogue.

c1054, OO was still in dtdwit. Then EO and RC/P had a dtdwit.

The difference here is that the dialogue was not interrupted by outside forces for another 400 years.

c1600, OO and EO were still in dtdwit. RC and P had a dtdwit.

Did the RCC and the Ps try to work it though - or just try killing each other?

Year 2010. OO, EO, RC, P are still in dtdwit's.

Those dtdwits are what I term "line-drawing".

Fair enough - but that isn't the same as saying the line is a disagreement over dogma - is it?

My dtdwits are pre 455.

And you distinguish this from orthodox disagreements with Gnosticism how?

peace,

Anglian