Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Thekla]

It is all right to say Mary was blessed to bear Jesus. The Bible tells us so. We say that when we recite the Magnificat which comes directly from Luke.

But we MUST stop there. Otherwise, as history shows us, we are in danger of adding more to Mary than merely the blessedness of bearing Jesus. That's all.

As I stated before, Christ says "yes and/further" -- He amplifies and turns to the spiritual what the woman says. And you are narrowing Mary just as the woman did, to whom Christ responded. You seem to be regarding Mary as merely 'womb and paps'.

Is this to say that flesh cannot be blessed by God ? No, indeed; the healings should be enough to allay that notion. And Christ took on flesh, and sanctified it toward the resurrection of all and the promise of a "new earth" at the end of time.

Can we say that Mary is happy/makarios because her body is to bear the Christ ? Certainly. But to leave it at that is to ignore that she is blessed/makarios 'spiritually', in the sense that the word is used throughout the NT and as recorded by Luke in the Beatitudes. Compare Mary's statements as an anticipation of the Beatitudes -- which blessing is not stated or implied as applied to Mary ? In her statements alone we find poor in spirit (lowly), she anticipates the promise to Abraham (hunger), she witnesses the crucifixion (weeps), she is 'cast out and hated' through her identification with her Son, both as a perceived adulterer and as witness of the crucifixion. What parent cannot respond to this - how many parents must add the knowledge that their crucified Son is God and could call myriad of angels to intervene but does not. Compare to the Matthew version as well - which step on the "ladder of the Beatitudes" does she not climb ? She brought to the world He who fills all things.

Is she righteous in God's eyes? Although we are not explicitly told, does not Moses pray to God that, "an angel is not enough, You/God accompany us on the flight from Egypt. And God does. Mary, like Moses, asks Christ to "change His plans", and His first miracle is performed before His time. It is not descent from Abraham, but the faith of Abraham that is pleasing to God. Does not Mary exhibit this faith ? Elizabeth says, "And happy is she who believed, for there shall be a fulfillment of these things ...". Is this fulfillment not for Mary ? No, for she states "my soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Her body is blessed, but as Christ points out, in hearing and keeping the word of God she is moreso blessed. Are we not taught by Paul to esteem (synonymous in English with venerate) those who walk in the Lord ? Does Paul not teach the righteousness of Abraham ? Does Christ not call the bosom of Abraham a resting place of comfort ? Do we account Abraham, who was given the promise because of his faith/righteousness greater than Mary who received and bore the promise knowingly through faith ?

What you call an "ikon of Mary" is called in the EO an ikon of the Incarnation. It is an ikon of the fulfillment of the promise, and this promise to each of us - Christ with us, Christ within us. We are given this possibility by God, and to hear and obey God and bear fruit. But only one in all eternity received the fulfillment by bearing the Fruit, the Christ. EO theology is known as "Incarnational" - man may be described using body soul and spirit, but he is one thing - these are aspects but not all of him. Mary as the complete person received Christ in a manner that is not repeatable.

I do not know its parallel, but we describe fulfillment by God in the person (the whole, not the aspects) theosis. Mary is one of many for whom the promise of theosis is fulfilled - and we honor all who were granted this fulfillment.

So, are the early Lukan passages just a family moment ? Yes, for the family of Christ, and offered freely to the entire family of man - if they will have it. And does Christ consider His mother a "womb and paps" only ? No, but regards her faith, her hearing and keeping. Is she a vessel ? Not just, but an agreement freely given to God's wondrous plan for all.

 

[MamaZ]

What Jesus is saying in the scripture is not yes and, but rather all who do the will of God is blessed. Showing us that all whom obey and do the will of the Father are as blessed as Mary. For the Spiritual kingdom is not wrought by the flesh but by the Spirit.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

I hope you will be able to get some answers, but once we get to the difference between 'blessed' and 'blessed-ed', it would be brave to hope for much.

We have established that at least one person here will call the Virgin Saint 'blessed', and they have not established that any single ECF wrote anything that would suggest we are wrong to call her 'blessed'.

The eisegesis that stems from using part of Holy Tradition and applying one's own meanings to it provides, if any were needed, evidence of why the book received by the Church is best read within the rest of the Tradition. The ECFs, writing at a time when they were helping us recognise what was, and was not, Scripture, venerated the Blessed Theotokos; the Liturgy of the Church does the same. We follow the word of Scripture within the Tradition of which it is a vital part. Those who choose to do otherwise have their own tradition; it is only when they claim there is no biblical warrant for calling her 'blessed' that we have to point out, in all charity, that it is in the Bible. If they then choose to explain away the plain meaning of the Holy Scriptures, they offer nothing in support of such views - hence my reference to their views as eisegesis.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Where is it written that we are to venerate any human being? Can someone show me this? Where do we ever see written in the Pages of scripture that Mary is the Holy Teotokos?

 

[Thekla]

Where is it written that we are to venerate any human being? Can someone show me this? Where do we ever see written in the Pages of scripture that Mary is the Holy Teotokos?

Theo - God
tokos - bearer/birther

the scriptures are quite clear that

1. Christ is God
2. Christ was born of Mary

Paul tells us to be esteeming the other above ourselves

Main Entry: respect
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: approbation, care, caution, deference, devoir, devotion, esteem, fealty, feature, genuflection, homage, obeisance, obsequiousness, particular, prestige, reference, regard, respectability, reverence, tribute, veneration
Antonyms: disrespect

from here: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/respect

 

[MamaZ]

Theo - God
tokos - bearer/birther

the scriptures are quite clear that

1. Christ is God
2. Christ was born of Mary

Paul tells us to be esteeming the other above ourselves


Jesus is one third of the Godhead.. We have the Father and the Holy Spirit.. So therefore if men want to assume and add this they should really look into scripture and see that Jesus is the God MAN and that this is whom Mary was mother to.. The God man Jesus Christ the Messiah..Who was Made flesh so therefore Mary was not His mother until He became man. Pretty simple in fact..
We are to esteem others but we are not told to venerate them.. Hold them up as something to be adored.. We are to think of others as better than ourselves.. Why? Because we are to love as Christ loved and came not to be served but to serve..



from here: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/respect

...

 

[MamaZ]

so once again I ask where in the written pages of Scripture do we see anyone calling Mary Holy Theotokos?

 

[Thekla]

so once again I ask where in the written pages of Scripture do we see anyone calling Mary Holy Theotokos?

right next to the passage that uses the term "Trinity"


Christ did not "become God after He was born", Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit ...

 

[Secundulus]

She is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. She is the mother of God.

 

[Montalban]

Dear Montalban,

I hope you will be able to get some answers, but once we get to the difference between 'blessed' and 'blessed-ed', it would be brave to hope for much.

We have established that at least one person here will call the Virgin Saint 'blessed', and they have not established that any single ECF wrote anything that would suggest we are wrong to call her 'blessed'.

The eisegesis that stems from using part of Holy Tradition and applying one's own meanings to it provides, if any were needed, evidence of why the book received by the Church is best read within the rest of the Tradition. The ECFs, writing at a time when they were helping us recognise what was, and was not, Scripture, venerated the Blessed Theotokos; the Liturgy of the Church does the same. We follow the word of Scripture within the Tradition of which it is a vital part. Those who choose to do otherwise have their own tradition; it is only when they claim there is no biblical warrant for calling her 'blessed' that we have to point out, in all charity, that it is in the Bible. If they then choose to explain away the plain meaning of the Holy Scriptures, they offer nothing in support of such views - hence my reference to their views as eisegesis.

Peace,

Anglian

It's the 'selectivity' of responses that is so annoying. Personally, I also think it's dishonest

 

[Montalban]

She is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. She is the mother of God.

Indeed. But people here like Beamishboy choose to ignore such things and then demand we show what was so special about her.

 

[Anglian]

Dear MamaZ,

Again, you demonstrate why an understanding of the ECFs really does matter.

Like the word 'Trinity' the word 'Theotokos' is drawn from Scripture, although neither word is used as such there.

The Nicene Creed teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one essence. What does this mean? Here the Fathers who established the doctrine of the Trinity are again our guide.

The Incarnation is at the heart of our salvation, but how are we, the created, to understand this ineffable mystery? St. John tells us that the Word 'became flesh', and, as St. Cyril explains:

We affirm that the Word from God the Father united to himself in some inscrutable and ineffable manner, a body endowed with mental life and that he came forth, man from woman, become what we are, not by change of nature but in gracious fulfilment of God’s plan. In willing to become man he did not abandon his being God by nature; though he descended to our limited level and worse the form of a slave, even in that state he remained in the transcendent realms of Godhead and in the Lordship belonging to his nature.
So we unite the Word from God the Father without merger, alteration or change to holy flesh owning mental life in a manner inexpressible and surpassing understanding, and confess one Son, Christ and Lord, the self-same God and man, not a diverse pair but one and the same, being and being seen to be both things (Selected Letters, p. 73)

Salvation is the work of the whole Trinity, not of one part of it, so either St. Mary was the Godbearer, or she gave birth to a mixture of God and man; that is not what the Church Council at Ephesus in AD 431 decided, nor is it what the Church has taught ever since. This is in the Nicene Creed, which is recited in all Apostolic (and other) Churches; this is our Christian Faith as enunciated through the Fathers from the Scriptures.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

I don't think she's interested in showing this.

It seems that if they simply re-state their position, backed as it is by their position, it is enough. This is because they believe that they achieved their position with the help of the Holy Spirit, and thus it is unassailable

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't think she's interested in showing this.

It seems that if they simply re-state their position, backed as it is by their position, it is enough. This is because they believe that they achieved their position with the help of the Holy Spirit, and thus it is unassailable

Greetings. Well the early RCC had it and look what happened to them.

Btw, I wouldn't mind the Orthodox giving me their view of that great City in Revelation

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7164949&page=2
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

Luke 19:41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments on Her,

Reve 18:9 and shall be lamenting and shall be wailing over Her the kings of the land, the ones with her fornicating and indulging, whenever they may be observing the smoke of the fireing of Her

 

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

It is difficult, I fear. When someone asserts their understanding is right based on their own interpretation, it is difficult to respond without sounding personal, since it is a personal response one is offering a critique of. The views that you, myself, and others offer here are those of our Church, which have been established for nearly two thousand years and which are borne witness to by the Fathers, the Saints, the Councils and the Liturgy; that is the entirety of Holy Tradition.

No one, of course, need accept them, but in a thread about why the ECFs matter, the constant eisegesis offered in some quarters here shows us just exactly why they do.

Patience is a virtue, and we have, on both sides, shown that virtue. I'm not sure how much more edification there is in this discussion though; we have shown why there is no division between tradition and Scripture, and yet, without once meeting that argument, we are constantly being told the two are different.

Well, for Protestants whose Churches are of recent origin, perhaps they are; but we were asked where Holy Tradition came from, and we have answered that question. Those who will to repeat that there is a division will do so because it is what they think, which, alas, means we have failed in our endeavour to explain. If there was an actual argument against our position, that would make things more interesting, perhaps?

Any way, thanks for your fellowship on this one, and I am happy that this thread has brought it to me, along with that of our sister, Thekla and of the doughty Secundulus.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The views that you, myself, and others offer here are those of our Church, which have been established for nearly two thousand years and which are borne witness to by the Fathers, the Saints, the Councils and the Liturgy; that is the entirety of Holy Tradition.

Greetings. Remember also that is all the early Christians had to go by until the Canon was put together in about the 4th or 5th Century.
Did all of them have access to all of Paul's letters for example? Notice Peter says both Paul's letters AND the rest of the Writings. Is he talking about believers or unbeliers here? Peace

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 Peter 3:16 As also/and in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are difficult to understand any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rest of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [# 684 used reve 17:8, 11]

Reve 17:8 The wild beast which you perceived was, and not is, and is being about to be ascending out of the abyss, and into destruction/apwleian <684> it is going away.

 

[Montalban]

Greetings. Remember also that is all the early Christians had to go by until the Canon was put together in about the 4th or 5th Century.
Did all of them have access to all of Paul's letters for example? Notice Peter says both Paul's letters AND the rest of the Writings. Is he talking about believers or unbeliers here? Peace

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 Peter 3:16 As also/and in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are difficult to understand any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rest of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [# 684 used reve 17:8, 11]

Reve 17:8 The wild beast which you perceived was, and not is, and is being about to be ascending out of the abyss, and into destruction/apwleian <684> it is going away.

Did they all have Paul's letters? Not before he wrote them, obviously, the church already expanding had no 'scripture' to go by - but it had holy tradition.

And when a church heard about a letter 'written' by Paul how did they know it was so? This is the very crux that Beamishboy and MamaZ are running away from.

They used Holy Tradition to judge whether the message in the letter was genuine - plus the church was in communication within itself. People would hear of a letter and seek copies of it

 

[Montalban]

Dear Montalban,

It is difficult, I fear. When someone asserts their understanding is right based on their own interpretation, it is difficult to respond without sounding personal, since it is a personal response one is offering a critique of. The views that you, myself, and others offer here are those of our Church, which have been established for nearly two thousand years and which are borne witness to by the Fathers, the Saints, the Councils and the Liturgy; that is the entirety of Holy Tradition.

No one, of course, need accept them, but in a thread about why the ECFs matter, the constant eisegesis offered in some quarters here shows us just exactly why they do.

Patience is a virtue, and we have, on both sides, shown that virtue. I'm not sure how much more edification there is in this discussion though; we have shown why there is no division between tradition and Scripture, and yet, without once meeting that argument, we are constantly being told the two are different.

Well, for Protestants whose Churches are of recent origin, perhaps they are; but we were asked where Holy Tradition came from, and we have answered that question. Those who will to repeat that there is a division will do so because it is what they think, which, alas, means we have failed in our endeavour to explain. If there was an actual argument against our position, that would make things more interesting, perhaps?

Any way, thanks for your fellowship on this one, and I am happy that this thread has brought it to me, along with that of our sister, Thekla and of the doughty Secundulus.

Peace,

Anglian

You have vastly more patience than I

 

[Anglian]

Greetings. Remember also that is all the early Christians had to go by until the Canon was put together in about the 4th or 5th Century.
Did all of them have access to all of Paul's letters for example? Notice Peter says both Paul's letters AND the rest of the Writings. Is he talking about believers or unbeliers here? Peace

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 Peter 3:16 As also/and in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are difficult to understand any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rest of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [# 684 used reve 17:8, 11]

Dear LLOJ,

You make good points. This is why Scripture is part of Holy Tradition, because for many years the only writings available to many Churches were, at best, a part of what we now have.

We know that by the mid second century there was a general acceptance of the four fold gospel canon as we now have it. How? Because it is St. Irenaeus's writings. We know no other 'gospel' was considered for inclusion. How? Because none of the ECFs argue against any other book being included. They do, on the other hand, discuss whether your favourite book should be included, and it is not accepted until quite late. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude were all accepted in some Churches and not in others, whilst the authorship of St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews was long in question, which meant that much of the West did not accept it until St. Jerome, having talked much with St. Athanasius, accepted his verdict that it was Apostolic in origin.

Again, and again, we see how the Church Fathers are integral not only to our understanding of the Scriptures, but also to our recognising the canon we now have.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You have vastly more patience than I

Greetings. Didn't the early RCC strive to keep the Bible from the common laity people? And why issue this decree if the Bible can be freely read by all Christians? [I have this link in my siggy in case non-Christians are interested in early church history]

http://www.williamtyndale.com/0reformationtimeline.htm

1302
&#8220;Unam Sanctam,&#8221; papal bull of Pope Boniface VIII, asserts papal supremacy over every human being