Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly. Luther, Augustine, my Pastor, you and me, are all subject to the norma normans of Scripture.
Peace be to all in the grace of Jesus Christ,
Hey, Josiah, ... good old friend ... thought I'd never see you again ... where have you been?
Josiah and I have had a very very lengthy discussion on this matter in another Christian Forum and he knows how I believe about the matter.
I believe that the Truth of Mary's Perpetual Virginity is solidly biblical ... and therefore true ... and therefore ... the Word of God.
There is ONE VERSE which contains all the proof that a diligent seeker needs to discover how biblical the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is.
Luke 1:34, "And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (St. Luke 1:34, DRB)
By stating this Mary reveals her INTENTION to REMAIN a Virgin (eventhough in Jewish eyes she was already practically a married woman ... remember that in Mt. Joseph was going to "divorce" her privately ...)
This intention is so KEY.
I will not go into the plethora of reasons that I have for this biblical argument. I am just putting this out there for someone to arrive at the same conclusion that I did.
The Holy Spirit will help you if you seek diligently.
If you believe that this is shown to be true from the Holy Bible then one is responsible to the light that is given by Sacred Writing ... (Catholics are bound to believe it as Dogma because Catholics believe that the Word of God also comes to us through Divine [not human] Tradition and not Scripture Alone).
Not only Martin Luther believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary but also Calvin, and Zwingli.
God bless you.
Good to see you again Josiah.
Ok. Since I have been hanging around EO bishops (most of my life) almost for ever...I would say this...The EO do not excommunicate someone for he does not believe in a dogma. Bishops do not go around chasing faithful around to see if they agree with this canon or the other.... Unless this person would openly preach against the EV they would not "lift a finger" to harm such individual. I know personally some of the converts who do come to the EO but deny to venerate any icons or believing the EV or Mary. Our faith is not so legalistic and deviations to the EO tradition and dogma can indeed happen....
Faithful to be called "heretics" they have to preach that heresy and trying to divide the faithful...thus the word "heretic". It is NOT someone who for this or that reason beliefs something different (we all do to a point as we are NOT the same in our background and level of understanding)...There are shades of the Truth for sure and ONLY God understands it 100% we are all vulnarable humans after all....
The fathers named someone heretic who constantly preaches the "wrong" truth according to the canons and the dogma of the church. Unless a person does if he keeps to his own counsel and whatever he believes he keeps it private although not good ...still not in the verge of being ex-communicated.Rather the Church using despensaton would allow it to go on seeing it as a weakness of one's faith. Like any other things that are sinful...For example we do have many agnostics in our midst who are in our church as in a lot of churches even the RC or OO...These faithful are trying depserately to hang to our church and community as long as they do not harm and divide the flock they are to remain in the "ship of salvation"
My 0.2 cents on the matter
Thanks Mark and Kristos for the interesting discussion
There is no implication it is a legit question coming from someone who does not belong to a church with "doctrinal latitude" as the Lutheran Church. It is a 'different" theological tradition for sure. Also the Lutherans about 200 years ago I am sure they believed differently about the EV than Lutherans today... They adopted their beliefs to include all opinions about the EV. I never implied anything but what it is...a pious opinion then(at the time that all Lutherans probably believed it) and now who some do and some do not. None of the above is valid that you claim as anyone who reads the op can see that I do not say that Lutherans believe that "dogma" but belief...And THAT'S the issue.
While all agree that Luther personally embraced this pov as pious opinion, the implication of the OP that ergo all Lutherans should embrace it as dogma is a misunderstanding of the epistemology of Lutheranism.
Thank you.
.
There is no implication it is a legit question coming from someone who does not belong to a church with "doctrinal latitude" as the Lutheran Church. It is a 'different" theological tradition for sure. Also the Lutherans about 200 years ago I am sure they believed differently about the EV than Lutherans today... They adopted their beliefs to include all opinions about the EV. I never implied anything but what it is...a pious opinion then(at the time that all Lutherans probably believed it) and now who some do and some do not. None of the above is valid that you claim as anyone who reads the op can see that I do not say that Lutherans believe that "dogma" but belief...
This has generally been my experience as well, although I don't get to hang with bishops very oftenHistorically, I don't see a propensity in the east for inquisition into personal belief. Condemnation normally results from preaching, not necessarily believing. The iconclast controversy is the major exception, but other than that, there were almost always people left on the "losing" side who probably never really changed their view and were not persecuted for it. Justinian for example, was largely viewed a hold monophysite Christology, but he didn't preach it and so was never condemned. Today, I think that most controversy has nothing to do with doctrine at all - people fight over stupid and meaningless things...
There is a tendency to parse ideas into a diametrically opposing categories. In this case it seems to be dogma vs. pious belief. An idea must either be a pious belief or dogma by definition. I feel like this case blurs the line a bit but that defies the dualistic view.
There is no implication it is a legit question coming from someone who does not belong to a church with "doctrinal latitude" as the Lutheran Church.
It is a 'different" theological tradition for sure. Also the Lutherans about 200 years ago I am sure they believed differently about the EV than Lutherans today... They adopted their beliefs to include all opinions about the EV. I never implied anything but what it is...a pious opinion then(at the time that all Lutherans probably believed it) and now who some do and some do not. None of the above is valid that you claim as anyone who reads the op can see that I do not say that Lutherans believe that "dogma" but belief...
I don't think that I would call either of the three positions that CJ cited as either meaningless or stupid. One's own faith is something of grave seriousness to one's self. Fighting over such things is, however stupid, particularly when one's theology holds such things as adiaphora.
Addendum: In reality, such dialogue does continue here at CF, but in a less "official"way!
There can only be "doctrinal latitude" where there is doctrine. In this case, such exists in only 2 of the 50,000 + denominations (as Catholics tend to claim there is).
I'm not aware that there has EVER been ANY doctrine on this matter in ANY denomination other than the EOC and RCC. 2,000 years ago or 200 years ago.
The point of the opening post seemed to be that Luther believed it AND YET many Lutherans do not. There being some indication that one would be expected to follow the other. I tried to address that.
.
Even if you could show from this verse (and you can't) that Mary INTENDED to remain a virgin up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath, which?), that does not substantiate that She did so. So, even if your point was valid (and it's not), it's irrelevant to the dogma herein being discussed. I INTENDED to buy a new car last year (in this case, you know my intent - in Mary's case, no one does). Did I? No. You're entire apologetic is empty.
Can I frame this Mark ?? I think that is the healthier attitude for a Christian to do in general...Ok. we disagree yours is of importance mine is not... There is no reason to hit each other over the head about. Like I said in my OP I wanted to know and understand the Lutheran position...and you just said it... in a way that I can understand it finalyWile I hold fast to our Lutheran position regarding adiaphora, I tend to view beliefs that we consider adiaphora that other Churches have deemed "dogmas" still as adiaphora. This I can do without prejudice, since in matters of adiaphora there is no prohibition to holding such belief; they have made a choice in accepting this teaching, just as I have. If they are at odds with what we consider adiaphoral teachings, no one is forcing them to stay where they are. It's their choice, I respect that; my choice is mine and I would hope that others respect that as well (if they don't that's ok too).
Can I frame this Mark ?? I think that is the healthier attitude for a Christian to do in general...Ok. we disagree yours is of importance mine is not... There is no reason to hit each other over the head about. Like I said in my OP I wanted to know and understand the Lutheran position...and you just said it... in a way that I can understand it finaly
Thanks
Josiah said:Even if you could show from this verse (and you can't) that Mary INTENDED to remain a virgin up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath, which?), that does not substantiate that She did so. So, even if your point was valid (and it's not), it's irrelevant to the dogma herein being discussed. I INTENDED to buy a new car last year (in this case, you know my intent - in Mary's case, no one does). Did I? No. You're entire apologetic is empty.
.
CaliforniaJosiah,
You are responsible for the full import of St. Luke 1:34.
The Word of God as transmitted by Sacred Writing is inerrant, is it not? Then I urge you to make true sense of this verse and see where it leads you.
Your signatures seem to indicate that you believe that the Holy Catholic Church is a cult. I consider this to be absurd unto the infinite degree
Wile I hold fast to our Lutheran position regarding adiaphora, I tend to view beliefs that we consider adiaphora that other Churches have deemed "dogmas" still as adiaphora. This I can do without prejudice, since in matters of adiaphora there is no prohibition to holding such belief; they have made a choice in accepting this teaching, just as I have. If they are at odds with what we consider adiaphoral teachings, no one is forcing them to stay where they are. It's their choice, I respect that; my choice is mine and I would hope that others respect that as well (if they don't that's ok too).
Dear CaliforniaJosiah,
Holy Catholic Church: "The Teaching of the Church is the very Teaching of Christ, ... therefore it is True. The Church is as Christ in our midst and the Instrument/Channel of His Grace via the 7 Sacraments."
Protestant: "I interpret the Bible for myself, therefore no External Authority such as the Pope can correct me, teach me, or guide me in matters of faith or morals. It's me and Jesus, ... no inbetweens."
This, I think, is more akin to the reality as it is.
Peace be with all.
Or you could say....
Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.
Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."
Since I have been hanging around EO bishops (most of my life) almost for ever...I would say this...The EO do not excommunicate someone for he does not believe in a dogma. Bishops do not go around chasing faithful around to see if they agree with this canon or the other.... Unless this person would openly preach against the EV they would not "lift a finger" to harm such individual. I know personally some of the converts who do come to the EO but deny to venerate any icons or believing the EV or Mary. Our faith is not so legalistic and deviations to the EO tradition and dogma can indeed happen....
Faithful to be called "heretics" they have to preach that heresy and trying to divide the faithful...thus the word "heretic". It is NOT someone who for this or that reason beliefs something different (we all do to a point as we are NOT the same in our background and level of understanding)...There are shades of the Truth for sure and ONLY God understands it 100% we are all vulnarable humans after all....
The fathers named someone heretic who constantly preaches the "wrong" truth according to the canons and the dogma of the church. Unless a person does if he keeps to his own counsel and whatever he believes he keeps it private although not good ...still not in the verge of being ex-communicated.Rather the Church using despensaton would allow it to go on seeing it as a weakness of one's faith. Like any other things that are sinful...For example we do have many agnostics in our midst who are in our church as in a lot of churches even the RC or OO...These faithful are trying depserately to hang to our church and community as long as they do not harm and divide the flock they are to remain in the "ship of salvation"
My 0.2 cents on the matter
Easy G (G²);60878281 said:IMHO, it'd be illoigical trying to exalt a Protestant above a Catholic when making it out as if the Protestant alone is abel to say they believe in/read what the Bible says...sumbitting to the authority of YHWH while making it out as if the Catholic submits to things that don't have spiritual authority. For scripture was NOT written in a vaccum...and Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Reformation, was not against all things within the Catholic faith to begin with. Moreover, there were others who noted the danger of trying to pride oneself on "scripture alone" since nearly all dangerous heresies were formed on the basis of someone picking up a Bible, reading it and thinking they "submit" to it because they read it....and were passionate about anyone being able to have their own interpretation of the scripture since it's scripture alone.
There can be A LOT of assumptions/circular logic when saying one must submit to a body that's "pure" while saying Catholics don't since that term is always changing from one context to the next...each group saying of another in the Protestant camp/world that they're not as "pure" as the other in their creeds/view points ( more discussed here, here, here, and here).
I think you missed my point bro which was to submit something as unbalanced as AHJE did when he gave his definition of the difference between Catholics and Protestants....I was trying to show that we can all play the same game and it isn't fruitful.
Or you could say....
Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.
Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."
I am not one of those that subscribes to the unnatural division of the Body into Catholics and Protestants...I never tire of explaining that the Body is One entity made up of those that have been born again of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit and sealed with the Spirit....we are the Sheep who know the Shepherds voice....irrespective of what particular tradition or denomination we have come from.
I think as Believers per se our main reason for arguing against some traditions and beliefs should be out of love and the desire to see both our brethren and ourselves appear before YHWH with works that will remain after the Holy fire has consumed the wood, hay and stubble. It should not be to win an argument or put others down.
Hope this clarifies....Zazal
Originally Posted by Zazal
This is what you posted:
Originally Posted by Zazal
Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.
Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."
I am not one of those that subscribes to the unnatural division of the Body into Catholics and Protestants...I never tire of explaining that the Body is One entity made up of those that have been born again of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit and sealed with the Spirit....we are the Sheep who know the Shepherds voice....irrespective of what particular tradition or denomination we have come from.If you do not acknowledge that it was the Protestant movement that left the Ancient Church (SENT from the Beginning) then I invite you to read your history. The Church has remained while the fruits of the protestant movement speaks for itself in terms of the thousands, tens of thousands of divisions that it has produced.
There is such a thing as SCHISM and it must be acknowledged as a grave sin contrary to the 1st Commandment, since it is a sin against FAITH. When you do not receive the Successor of Peter or the Bishops in communion with him, you are rejecting Christ also and the Father who Sent Him. See St. Luke 10:16
I think as Believers per se our main reason for arguing against some traditions and beliefs should be out of love and the desire to see both our brethren and ourselves appear before YHWH with works that will remain after the Holy fire has consumed the wood, hay and stubble. It should not be to win an argument or put others down.Your intention is good but I think that you have misunderstood my post. I was not really putting anyone down. I was stating the reality of the situation. Do you not think so? Which part of my post do you feel was inaccurate or misrepresentative of the way that the Protestant person practices?
Hope this clarifies....Zazal
May all the sheep who hear the Voice of the Good Shepherd find their way to the ONE SHEEPFOLD of the Redeemer. In Jesus Name, I humbly pray. Amen.
God bless you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?