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

[Standing Up]

-snip-

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

They took their cue from their parents, the marriage of church and state in 325.

Nestorius and Chrysostom taking violence against their brothers and sisters who refused to give up the way of Christ and the apostles over the death, burial, and resurrection. While at least Chrysostom admits that they used to observe it that way.

You tell me. It's disgusting.

-snip-


And you distinguish this from orthodox disagreements with Gnosticism how?

peace,

Anglian

Scripture and Tradition. But one should pick the Tradition that followed 2 Tim. 2:2, rather than the wolves' Tradition.

Wolves who tear apart brother and sister.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

I'm sure that hitting your dead so much can't be good for you

Thekla confirms what I wrote about a primacy of honour and you go Is this because in agreeing with each other we don;t confirm your prejudgement on these things? Alas for you, you will find that Thekla and I reflect Orthodox teaching; if you were more familiar with Orthodoxy you'd see that. You'll note we also agree on the dogma issue.

At the risk of making you bang your head again, I'm afraid I must contest your statement that we don't regard Protestants as part of the Church. As I have commented before, we are far less prone to the itch to define anything that moves than Western theology. My own bishop's comment on this can't be beaten: 'God alone knows where the boundaries of His Church are; all we can know is we are within it - and not all of us will be saved.' You may think this is another bit of 'semantics' - but if you'd learn more about Orthodox theology you'd see it is very much our way of doing things.

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.

Yes, but since we only know that Peter's epistle is scripture because of the tradition of the Church, that's no proof of your point.

When you ask for my personal view on the incarnation, why should that differ from that of the Church?

In terms of Marian veneration, you have yet to show either when it started or that it was controversial. Indeed, the longer this goes on, the more I wonder what your objections to it are?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

Dear Standing Up,

I'm sure that hitting your dead so much can't be good for you

Thekla confirms what I wrote about a primacy of honour and you go Is this because in agreeing with each other we don;t confirm your prejudgement on these things? Alas for you, you will find that Thekla and I reflect Orthodox teaching; if you were more familiar with Orthodoxy you'd see that. You'll note we also agree on the dogma issue.

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

We all agree that none of us three subscribes to Rome's view. It's like this. I agree with you on the dogma issue, we differ on what that means.

At the risk of making you bang your head again, I'm afraid I must contest your statement that we don't regard Protestants as part of the Church.

That's not what I said, but what you implied. You said Orthodox agree, but P doesn't. Now, if P is part of the Church, then no, O doesn't agree. If you exclude P, then yes, O agrees.

Which is it? Is P part of the Church? If so, then O is part of P.

As I have commented before, we are far less prone to the itch to define anything that moves than Western theology. My own bishop's comment on this can't be beaten: 'God alone knows where the boundaries of His Church are; all we can know is we are within it - and not all of us will be saved.' You may think this is another bit of 'semantics' - but if you'd learn more about Orthodox theology you'd see it is very much our way of doing things.


Yes, but since we only know that Peter's epistle is scripture because of the tradition of the Church, that's no proof of your point.

It's written! Is that better than ?

When you ask for my personal view on the incarnation, why should that differ from that of the Church?

In terms of Marian veneration, you have yet to show either when it started or that it was controversial. Indeed, the longer this goes on, the more I wonder what your objections to it are?

peace,

Anglian

Thanks for the response.

 

[Anglian]

They took their cue from their parents, the marriage of church and state in 325.

This seems to be something of an article of faith for you. I can assure you that the Coptic Church is married to no state; indeed, it has been persecuted by one for the past 1600 years.

Nestorius and Chrysostom taking violence against their brothers and sisters who refused to give up the way of Christ and the apostles over the death, burial, and resurrection. While at least Chrysostom admits that they used to observe it that way.

I'm not aware I've ever defended the use of violence. There is, it seems to me, a difference between an article of Faith and the issue which so preoccupies you here.

I am as sad as you that Christians have, as Byron put it: 'Burnt each other, quite persuaded that all the Apostles would have done as they did.'

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

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

We all agree that none of us three subscribes to Rome's view. It's like this. I agree with you on the dogma issue, we differ on what that means.

Of course, and I never implied anything else.

That's not what I said, but what you implied. You said Orthodox agree, but P doesn't. Now, if P is part of the Church, then no, O doesn't agree. If you exclude P, then yes, O agrees.

Which is it? Is P part of the Church? If so, then O is part of P.

Again, I'm sorry that Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't work as your own appears to. God knows who is in His Church. we can only know that the Church to which we belong does, which is why we are not in communion with other churches; that doesn't mean we think they are not part of the church, just that we don't know they are.

It's written! Is that better than ?

Oh there's lots of things that are written. The Petrine epistles are amongst those questioned before being taken into the canon - that is why relying on them to show that Scripture recognises Paul's epistles as Scripture is poor methodology. Best to stick with the tradition of the Church.

We have seen that Marian veneration and intercessory prayer were never questioned in the early Church; why do you question them? If it is because they are not in scripture, we've been through that and seen you accept at least one thing not in scripture - the Canon.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

We have seen that Marian veneration and intercessory prayer were never questioned in the early Church; why do you question them? If it is because they are not in scripture, we've been through that and seen you accept at least one thing not in scripture - the Canon.

peace,

Anglian

To refocus and come full circle.

Scripture records the deaths of the first apostle and first martyr. They would have been the perfect examples upon which to build a treehouse of Saint veneration and invoking the deceased for prayer.

Scripture and the apostles are silent about it.

To the negative, we also know from the same scripture that some were invoking the deceased. The practice was forbidden. These were the children of Israel who believed in one family of God.

From Christ's teaching then, it seems that a certain mindset understood implicitely what was right and what was wrong. C350 we have an example from those who seemed not to share that same mindset, but claim to be able to do things in certain ways apart from the "it is written".

I am not interested in replowing this ground.

We disagree over the practice.
We disagree over its origins.
We disagree over its meanings.

****

I would, however, be interested in exploring my faulty understanding that folks apparently believe they can direct a prayer to X and whether X has a certain name or not, the intent is there to get it to God.

Jer. 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven,

Incense of course refers to prayer. They prayed to the queen of heaven. Another name for her is Ishtar.

Did they think they were worshipping God? Did God agree?

 

[Thekla]

To continue:

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.

****

"New dogma" is not a new belief.
If you refer back to what I noted earlier; you cannot be completely described using words. Nothing can. Much less so God, who is beyond human conception or language. There are a number of words that are used to describe the experience of God, to "describe" God; does this mean that all possible descriptive of what IS are exhausted ? Not at all ! If there is "new dogma", it is a variant description of what already IS. It is not a new 'idea'.

' 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.

If you investigate history, what you refer to as 'majority rule' is not so. There have been periods where the majority were in error. What is maintained is the "mind of the Church", the phronema or mindset which is consistent. The teachings, as they are descriptive of what is received and experienced, are consistent. And what has not formerly required language or description may, in the future have language or description used as a tool to maintain in the face of false teaching.

 

[Anglian]

To refocus and come full circle.

Scripture records the deaths of the first apostle and first martyr. They would have been the perfect examples upon which to build a treehouse of Saint veneration and invoking the deceased for prayer.

Scripture and the apostles are silent about it.

Indeed, as they are on the word 'Trinity' and the content of the NT; you accept these two. You also assume that the NT was written to tell us everything we must do by way of prayer and liturgy; there is no reason to suppose that is its purpose.

To the negative, we also know from the same scripture that some were invoking the deceased. The practice was forbidden. These were the children of Israel who believed in one family of God.

I would hesitate to accept a ruling not sanctioned by the early Church. That Church had Jer. 44 and did not use it as you do. Once again, you reject something the early Church found no problem with.

From Christ's teaching then, it seems that a certain mindset understood implicitely what was right and what was wrong. C350 we have an example from those who seemed not to share that same mindset, but claim to be able to do things in certain ways apart from the "it is written".

The practice of the early Church was to define only when necessary; since no one contested Marian veneration or intercessory prayer, we see no definitions. Since people did contest the Trinity and the Canon, we see definition.

I am not interested in replowing this ground.

We disagree over the practice.
We disagree over its origins.
We disagree over its meanings.

I think that was clear some time ago

I would, however, be interested in exploring my faulty understanding that folks apparently believe they can direct a prayer to X and whether X has a certain name or not, the intent is there to get it to God.

Jer. 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven,

Incense of course refers to prayer. They prayed to the queen of heaven. Another name for her is Ishtar.

Did they think they were worshipping God? Did God agree?

On the last, you'll have to ask Him. But since the Israelites could not have been praying to the Mother of God, only you know what this has to do with this thread.

You invoke a pagan practice and insist that it applies to a Christian one; use a faulty methodology and you tend to get a similar sort of conclusion.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


On the last, you'll have to ask Him. But since the Israelites could not have been praying to the Mother of God, only you know what this has to do with this thread.

You invoke a pagan practice and insist that it applies to a Christian one; use a faulty methodology and you tend to get a similar sort of conclusion.

peace,

Anglian

Another example, some Christians pray to Allah, believing that it doesn't matter the name one uses. It's all the same. The intent is there.

Is that the case?

 

[Anglian]

Another example, some Christians pray to Allah, believing that it doesn't matter the name one uses. It's all the same. The intent is there.

Is that the case?

Allah is Arabic for God. So, if you pray in arabic you say 'allah', unless you decide to pray in another language - the Copts use Coptic, the Syrian Church uses Syriac - so we get 'Abba' - as Our Lord prayed.

Have you ever heard the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic? You can find it on Youtube - it is, to use that overused word properly, awesome.

I think, my friend, we have probably come as far as we can, and I certainly understand and respect your position; I hope you can do likewise. If so, let us disagree in amity and love

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

To continue:



"New dogma" is not a new belief.
-snip-

And you're not RC because their 'new dogma' is a new belief?

 

[Thekla]

And you're not RC because their 'new dogma' is a new belief?

I hope the description made sense ...

I have to admit, I don't know the point of your question, or its relation to the discussion.

 

[Standing Up]

Thekla--"New dogma" is not a new belief.

And you're not RC because their 'new dogma' is a new belief?

I hope the description made sense ...

I have to admit, I don't know the point of your question, or its relation to the discussion.

They made a new dogma about Papal Infallibility. That is not a new belief according to you.

So, why do you disagree? It either is new or is not.

 

[Musa80]

I have to admit, I don't know the point of your question, or its relation to the discussion.

This is my best guess from my observations of this thread. His posts translate more or less to "Dangit, I've been practicing this silly line of argumentation under the assumption that all I have to do is prove the Catholics all wrong. Now the mere existence of you Orthodox throws a spanner in the works for me. Please kindly jump into the Pope's end of the pool for a while so my argumentation seems less flawed."

 

[Standing Up]

This is my best guess from my observations of this thread. His posts translate more or less to "Dangit, I've been practicing this silly line of argumentation under the assumption that all I have to do is prove the Catholics all wrong. Now the mere existence of you Orthodox throws a spanner in the works for me. Please kindly jump into the Pope's end of the pool for a while so my argumentation seems less flawed."

Not at all.

My argument has been one that the very early church used. Show me the start of your teaching. Does it trace to apostles? Scripture? Can't be shown? Then that by itself says that it came out from apart from apostolic authority. It's a witness against itself.

You know, if it was good enough for Paul and Timothy, it's good enough for me.

Some groups, however, believe other than how the very early church did on things and how to determine heresy and catholic orthodoxy.

Now, at this point, folks can toss how the very early church decided heresy by saying, dogma evolves. It's not new per se, but it becomes uncovered for us as the centurities go by.

My question is how/why did OO "draw the line" the dydwits c455? How/why did EO "draw the line" the dydwits 1054? How/why did P "draw the line" the dydwits c1600s?

The fact is they did. Else they'd be RC. RC says the dogma of Papal Infallibility is always there. Those groups disagree.

Now, do they disagree because in fact there is NO NEW DOGMA or for some other reason? Anglian says, OO weren't invited, but if they were, apparently, they'd go to the next EC and agree, submitting to the Roman Pope. If not, why not? Thekla says, new dogma is not a new belief. Ok, and why isn't Thekla RC? Does she think the new dogma of Papal Infallibiility IS a new belief? How does she know that?

So, IMO, everyone draws a line. Some do it with better semantics and more studious words than others. But whatever. My line is simply drawn from long ago with those who first did so.

 

[Thekla]

Thekla--"New dogma" is not a new belief.

They made a new dogma about Papal Infallibility. That is not a new belief according to you.

So, why do you disagree? It either is new or is not.

The understanding of dogma that I have been discussing with you is an EO understanding; I admit I have no idea what the RCatholic understanding of dogma is.

Per the EO understanding (if Papal Infallibility is dogmatic in the RCChurch), this would be considered an "innovation", or yes, something 'new'.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

Yes, we all agree that the early Christians looked to Apostolic practice and tradition; but how did they receive it? Not from 27 books of the NT in most cases, certainly early on. We know by the 140s that the 4 Gospels we have were in circulation; we know that because the Apostolic Fathers quote them; we don't know it any other way that far back. So, if one rejects the AFs and ECFs, one actually has no idea what was and was not being received.

Then there's the question of how it was received. We know from St. Cyril's Catechetical Lectures that catechumens weren't allowed to read the sacred books until they had imbibed the wisdom to be able to do so; they got that from lectures of the sort he provided.

But we also know that some questions were not posed early on - or at least were not answered. I'm just reading some of Origen's surviving writings, and if you read what he has to say on things like the resurrection of the body or the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity, you can see immediately why his teaching was declared heretical; but that was in the 500s. When he wrote in c. 231 these things were still unconsidered, and uncontested, so the Church declared no doctrine.

As things became contested, that changed; where it was not contested, no dogma or doctrine was made. That does not mean something was not taught. The OCs had no Protestants who argued over St. Mary, so we've had no need to make dogmas of Marian beliefs; if we'd had a whole bunch of people worrying away at beliefs always held, perhaps we, too, would have felt the need to define them. That would not mean we'd not always held them.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

The understanding of dogma that I have been discussing with you is an EO understanding; I admit I have no idea what the RCatholic understanding of dogma is.

Per the EO understanding (if Papal Infallibility is dogmatic in the RCChurch), this would be considered an "innovation", or yes, something 'new'.

Fair enough. Thank you.

My understanding of dogma is akin to the way of the very early church.

Faith once delivered.
Apostolic doctrine.
Teach the same to faithful men.
And so on and so forth.

Don't you just love Peter's Trinity?

 

[Thekla]

Fair enough. Thank you.

My understanding of dogma is akin to the way of the very early church.

Faith once delivered.
Apostolic doctrine.
Teach the same to faithful men.
And so on and so forth.

Don't you just love Peter's Trinity?

Really, this is what is kept.
If it helps to explain; through the scriptures, you have access to kerygma, which gives glimpses of the interior life or mindset - the 'dogma'. The dogma is not always explicit in kerygma.

 

[Thekla]

Since it is not unlikely that the dating of Pascha is one of your concerns in this matter, I thought I might comment on that as well in the light of this conversation ...

It is part of the calling of Christians to struggle forward to become vessels of the Holy Spirit, Christ bearers. To allow God through us to sanctify creation, including space/place and time. The particular timing of the celebration of Pascha has no bearing on our ability to fulfill God's purpose for us. The shadow of the OT was both preparation and identification: for the Jews, the timing of the Crucifixion and Resurrection may have had an identifying significance (ie this is the promised one, the Christ). I do not know whether or not this is so, so it is conjecture on my part. But again, what impact does timing have ? Time is a creature, as is place/space. All creation is to be transformed, and will be at the end of time. Will the date of 14 Nisan still be after the end of time ? It is bound to time, a piece of time. Time does not sanctify ...