The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was today branded a ”˜papal puppet’ after he became the first leader of the Church of England to accept visions of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes as historical fact.
He asserted that 18 visions of Our Lady allegedly experienced by Bernadette Soubirous in 1858 were true.
His words shocked millions of Protestants worldwide because they not only signified a break with Protestant teaching on the Virgin Mary but also Dr Williams’s personal acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is explicitly linked to the apparitions.
The archbishop made his remarks during a three-day visit to the shrine in the French Pyrenees – the first ever by a leader of the Church of England.
Catholic guilt no doubt after he sold the Anglo Catholics to the women priests for a farthing or two.
Intercessor
[i]The archbishop’s simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “the Mother of God†is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy.’ [/i]
Maybe Rowan is trying an old trick: to avert civil war, start a foreign war.
Any other ideas on why he’d do this?
[i]Dr Williams spoke about the apparitions without any qualifications.[/i]
Does that mean he believes in them? 🙂
head like a hole
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
god money i’ll do anything for you.
god money just tell me what you want me to.
god money nail me up against the wall.
god money don’t want everything he wants it all.
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take that away from me
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take that away from me
head like a hole.
black as your soul.
i’d rather die than give you control.
head like a hole.
black as your soul.
i’d rather die than give you control.
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
*********************************
So the druid priest not only bows down in obescience to the GLBT lobby, he also bows down in Mariolatry. Wish I could say I am surprised. What surprises me is how many genuine Christians actually care what this guy has to say about anything. The buildings are nice and all, but what a price to pay to play church in a nice building. Better to meet outside in a cemetery in genuine Christian fellowship than follow such a blind figurehead.
#4, well said. It’s been clear for a while that RW is no Christian, especially an Anglican. I used to revere the position of ABC when I was growing up. Even the position of Bishop was very highly regarded for me. Now, it’s all a joke. As for RW, well, if he likes the Roman Catholic church so much, then why doesn’t he just resign from ABC and move on over. He’s doing nothing but harm where he is now.
Oh no – I just left the Episcopal Church for the Roman Catholic (currently taking the RCIA classes) – please don’t encourage ++Rowan to head this way!
Lutherans have always accepted the title “Mother of God” for Mary – properly understood. That does not mean we accept the “immaculate conception” of Mary. For the LCMS view, see:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2195
subscribe
All orthodox Christians subscribe to the claim that Mary is the “Mother of God” (theotokos). It is in the Chalcedonian definition and avoids the heresy of Nestorianism. The animosity toward Rowan Williams has become irrational. It makes folk deny the faith delivered to the saints because they don’t know that faith, but they know what they oppose. Is it not time to be more ordered by what Christians believe? Then perhaps such obvious errors will not be committed.
“…and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “the Mother of God†is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy” Since when? The appliation “mother of God” is ancient and is generally understood to affirm the human and divine natures of Jesus. Too many protestants define themselves by the ways in which they are not catholic.
Any Protestants who are “shocked” by Dr. Williams’ sermon must not understand Anglicanism.
“Mariolatry?” “Druid priest”? #4, please, if you’re diss on the Archbishop, at least use the truth to do it.
Sorry – I forgot “going to” in the last sentence.
“Mother of God” is a legitimate title for Mary, dating back to the early centuries of the church. “Theotokis” is not much different, calling her the “God Bearer”.
As for accepting the visions as factual, it may be my RC upbringing, but does believing it negate protestant theology? I thought that, at least in the Anglican Church, we [i]could[/i] believe in it, as long as we don’t make it a point of ‘dogma’ — that is, something that MUST be believed in order to be considered a Chrisitan.
By the way, Catholics never considered veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be worship. That is a distortion of their teaching. In the Catechism it states that ‘only God is to be worshipped’:
[blockquote]963 Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. “The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.”[i]502[/i] “Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.”503
971 “All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.” The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.[/blockquote]
and likewise:
[blockquote]2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is. [/blockquote]
Rowan Williams, “papal puppet.” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (cough cough, not able to catch breath) ha ha (slipping off chair.)
You know, one of my sons is always talking about the military — really loves guns, bombers, missles, etc. Personally I try to steer him away from what I think is (for him) an unhealthy preoccupation, but every once in awhile I think “YES! I think you SHOULD join the military when you grow up! In fact, I think just 24 hours of being in the military would do you a world of good.” In the same way, I try to imagine Rowan Williams in the Catholic Church. Oh yeah, that would work out really well. 🙂
Yawwwwwn…You can say you believe or even actually believe anything you want in the Anglican organization. He, Spong and Schori are *all* “orthodox” Anglicans. To be one means nothing. To stop being one means everything.
Is this anattempt to escape from his problems? Before he swims the Tiber he better deny his former views on homosexuality. If he does and if I were Benedict I’d send him for re-education under a very tough order. At least we would be rid of him!
IIRC, libraryjim is correct on the meaning of “theotokos” and brings out a necessary distinction in meaning between “mother of God” and “God-bearer”. Mary accepted the role of God-bearer in humble submission and exemplary obedience, knowing the shame she would have to endure unjustly for it. Too many would be tempted to use “Mother oif God” as an excuse to deny the pre-existence of the Son of God as the 2nd Person of the Trinity and so deny Jesus His divinity. Too many others are tempted to pervert veneration of Mary into worship of her or, on a lower level, to use her as many use the popular conceptions of angels or spirit guides, as a talisman or a substitute for the one Lord and one and only Saviour and the one and only Way to the Father and Truth and Life Jesus the Christ the son of God, whose divinity and narrow terms (yes, Jesus is narrow!) for salvation and eternal life they reject in their rebellion against God. How —Rowan’s tongue doesn’t stick in his mouth or catch fire in the middle of one of these emissions can only be due to God’s mercy, which I pray will not end in the result of the mrecy shown to Pharoah!
Speaking as very much a Protestant Anglican, I’m not sure our more ‘Catholic’ brothers and sisters realise what a red rag all this is to some of us.
For very deep reasons, the devotion offered to Mary (to other saints, too, but especially to Mary) in Catholic worship looks to some of us like a major distortion of apostolic faith, according to which there is ‘one name given among men by which we must be saved’. It often strikes me that there is a profound difference of unspoken assumptions between Catholics, for whom saints, statues and the rest are all aids to true worship and protestants for whom they are distractions. It’s difficult for the two groups to speak to each other about this because the difference is at the level of what you take for granted before you think about anything else.
Having read what has been posted here about ‘theotokos’ being proper Anglican theology, I am still dubious. Without wanting to be condemned for Nestorianism, I would ask people to take a careful look at Article 2: the Son ‘took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided’.
Article 2 makes a clear and proper distinction between the two whole and perfect Natures – of which it is man’s nature which the Son took in the womb of the blessed Virgin. The alarm bells which the term ‘theotokos’ starts ringing are set off by a fear that this term makes it sound as though that careful distinction, made in Article 2, is being blurred and lost.
I am sure that sophisticated interpreters like SF posters, can explain theotokos in a quite sound way which does not ride roughshod over Article 2. But I suggest that if we are concerned to be consistent Anglicans, it is best avoided.
RE #17 What??? Theotokos, God-bearer and ‘mother of God’ are synonyms. Tokos in Greek means “birth”. Nestorius denied its appropriateness as a description of what Mary did because he understood what it suggested — Mary gave birth to God. Every faithful Christian should affirm this, Catholic or Protestant. If you cannot affirm it, you certainly cannot claim to stand in the catholic, orthodox or magisterial Reformed tradition. They all unequivocally affirmed Chalcedon. The arguments in the 5th century had nothing to do with a denial of Christ’s pre-existence. Quite frankly, Rowan Williams is the one defending the orthodox, catholic faith. Those taking potshots at him on this blog are siding with the heretics. It is truly that simple.
#17 and #18, thanks for the analysis, which carefully and clearly expresses classic Anglican thought on this issue. The RC/Orthodox Maryology is simply not scriptural. High Maryology arose from ‘popular’ piety (read: largely illiterate medieval European peasants) who were not allowed access to the Bible, were superstitious to the core and terrified of the pains of hell (being well aware of the pains of their miserable, short and cramped lives here on earth). Devotion to ‘Mother Mary’ arose largely as a balance to the improper, narrow portrayal of Jesus as Final Judge. It has been a large dividing point between Protestant Catholic/Orthodox theologians since the days of Luther and before.
The ABC is trying to distract the world from the central issue of biblical authority, which is splitting the AC. Good grief, what a disaster he is in this office!
stevelong, I tried to be clear and yet concise and obviously I failed at least partially. William S and Little Cabbage, thanks for the clarifications and expansions on what I wrote, with which I agree completely. William S, I gather that you are referring to the Anglican 39 Articles found (tellingly of revisionist influence) in the Historical Documents section of the (current)Episcopal(before GC09 finishes eviscerating it) Book of Commmon Prayer, no?
Milton, thank you for your attempt to explain. Notice what Article 2 says. It is a thoroughgoing statement of the theotokos. Mary did not give birth to a nature. She gave birth to a person, Jesus. He has two natures: divine and human. To say she only gave birth to the human nature would be the position of Nestorius. I apologize for being so direct and involved in this. But I truly think the heart of the Christian mystery is at stake and readers would be well advised to listed to what Archbishop Williams says here.
The Archbishop’s sermon from Lourdes is available at
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1972
Thank you, Fr. Einerson, for posting that. What a wonderful message of hope!!
stevelong, thank you for your charitable words and tone on an issue that is as important and as fervently held and defended for you as it is for me and as it was for the early church, which well and correctly defined Christology and rebutted heresy. I think we actually hold the same view as each other and as stated in Article 2, though we may need to define our terms more strictly to see that.
Note William S’s quote of Article 2 in his comment:
Article 2 correctly makes a distinction between person and nature. The 2nd Person of the Triune Godhead was never born, being eternally co-existent with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, three Persons. Mary gave birth to a human man whose human nature Christ welded seamlessly together with His divine nature (eternally self-existent, to which no woman could give birth) in one Person, simultaneously true God and true man. One could well say that Christ became one flesh with humanity, marrying each of and all of us as our true and faithtul Husband, who is the model of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians 5, of whom the Church is His bride. So the Incarnation realizes in the fulness of time the eternal plan of salvation and re-union with God for fallen humanity, for as many as received Him, He gave them the right to become children of God, no longer children of wrath, even as the rest who did not and do not receive Him. The Incarnation, as much as the Crucifixion (Jesus is the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world) and the Resurrection were accomplished in eternity “past” in the mind of God “before” the Creation and also at the appointed moment in serial time in the events recorded in the Gospels.
So Mary did indeed give birth to a man, Jesus the Christ, like us in all things except sin, who was also fully God from the moment of His conception (temporally). “‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.'”
“Who among us is adequate for these things?” Not little me! Glory to God forever!!!
May I say thanks to Kendall and the elves for making this forum possible, truly blogs at their best!
A small (or large!) self-correction: “since the foundation of the world” should read “at the foundation of the world”.
Second the motion, Milton. Thanks.
Littlecabbage,
Your argument is only appropriate in dealing with ‘sola-Scriptura’ groups. Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox churches are prima or supra Scriptura, but not sola. therefore, there can be truthful Christian teachings that are NOT based on Scripture, as long as they are not contrary to Scripture.
Sicne the two natures of Jesus cannot be separated, Mary gave birth to Jesus the Christ, God incarnate. To argue the point that she only gave birth to the human Jesus is contrary to Church teaching from the beginning, and is in fact, part of the reason for the adoption of the terms “theotokis” and “Mother of God” — to affirm that Jesus was both Human and Divine, not one or the other. In other words, it was about Jesus, not Mary.
Oh, and one more thing,
Martin Luther had a high devotion to Mary, and maintained this devotion all his life. 🙂
libraryjim, I think if you read your #29 and my #25 they are saying the same thing using a slightly different emphasis that gives them the surface perception of difference. To my reading they are not in conflict at all. The thing that makes them seem contradictory is the difference between our temporal perspective and the eternal perspective of God revealed in Scripture.
Oh, ok, Milton. I’ll take your word for it. and give you another 🙂
His peace guard you tonight.
Jim <><
So much ignorance, so little time: Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Bucer and John Calvin all vehemently defended the title “Mother of God” for the BVM, and thought it heresy to oppose it (they also vehemently asserted her perpetual virginity, but that is another issue). As for the Church of England, the Act of Supremacy, in effecting the breach with Rome in 1559, reserved to Parliament the right to declare matters “beyond those declared to be heresy by the first four General Councils” to be considered heresy in the future (i.e., not the bishops of the Church of England). Now the third of these first four General Councils was the Council of Ephesus of 431; its whole point was to condemn Nestorius for the denial that the BVM was rightly entitled “Theotokos” or “Mother of God,” and it did so. So, as far as Anglicans are concerned both the Catholic consensus of the Early Church and the Erastian authority of the English Parliament (the supreme authority, with the Crown, over the Church of England since 1559) have both clearly marked the denial of this as heresy.
The same question always strikes me when most these issues are raised. Where has the Church held firm? Where has it withstood the absolute [i]worst[/i] that a thousand years of Islamic domination, hundreds of years of Ottoman oppression and, quite recently under Communism, the most sustained, total persecution ever unleashed on the Christian Church?
It has held firm where the Ecumenical Councils’ teachings are respected, and where the Bible is intact with the same Old Testament read by the Greek speaking portions of the New Testament Church. It is where the faith was entrusted to millions of [i]illiterate peasants[/i] —especially the old women and their granddaughters who prostrated themselves in front of the icons, stood up to reverence them with a kiss, light a candle and offer up billions prayers a day to our Lord and to seek the prayers of His mother, blessed Mary the ever-virgin Mother of God and the saints in front of the icons in their churches, and along the roads, and, above all, in a corner of their homes. And, when the soldiers came or the police knocked at the door, those icons were hidden away, and then taken out again when more prayers were needed.
(And, of course, these peasants were not so illiterate in fact since the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council teach that Orthodox icons do in color and form what Scripture does in words.)
Little Cabbage, caliphs and sultans and commissars have not been able to overthrow these “illiterate†peasants. “If it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” Acts 5:39.
Father Dean A. Einerson
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Fr. Dean: Thank you for your moving witness of the faithful in Eastern Europe…please note that I was not calling them ‘illiterate peasants’, but was earlier pointing out that it was from the abyss of medieval illiteracy, superstition, ignorance about the Bible and fear from which the devotion to the BVM originally sprang. It’s come a long way since (though I’m not so sure; so often the worship of icons reminds me of the pagans and their statutes….but I suppose that’s my Protestantism showing, isn’t it? That’s history.
I’m not trying to ‘overthrow’ anyone. However, along with several more learned folk on this thread, I do point out the gulf between Protestant Christians and the RC and Orthodox views on this matter, which has its basis in Protestant insistence on the primacy of Scripture.
As for Luther’s ‘devotion to Mary’: please remember that he lived long, long before the absurd lengths to which the RCs have taken her cult, with the totally unscriptural ‘assumption’ ‘immaculate conception’, etc. WOW, would I love to her him preach on those topics!!!
Little Cabbage wrote:
“As for Luther’s ‘devotion to Mary’: please remember that he lived long, long before the absurd lengths to which the RCs have taken her cult, with the totally unscriptural ‘assumption’ ‘immaculate conception’, etc. WOW, would I love to her him preach on those topics!!!”
You really ought to read a bit more widely, LC, for in fact Luther did “preach” (and “teach”) on “those topics.” And, you know what? He believed in both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (and his tomb has a carving on it of the Assumption, among other things). As a friend recently sent me:
“Subject: Mary & Protestantism (The Reformers vs. the Fundamentalists)
One of the great ironies of modern Fundamentalists’ claims to be the heirs of the Reformers is that the Reformers themselves NEVER rejected the Virgin Mary the way modern Protestantism (both liberal and Evangelical) does. While they disagreed with the Catholic Church’s invocations of Mary and the saints on Christological grounds, NONE of the Reformers ever suggested that the Church’s Marian doctrines were derived from “Isis” or “Venus” worship. (This latter Fundamentalist notion is purely a modern fiction which goes back no further than the late 1800’s, if even that far. And –quite ironically– it seems to have been used by Neopagans and Feminists to justify “Goddess” worship and by Feminist “theologians” to rationalize their own ideology.)
Mary & Protestant Reformers
Here are some examples of what the Reformers actually believed and practiced vis-a-vis the Virgin:
(1) Luther was radically Christocentric and opposed to the idea of any mediators between God and man except Jesus Himself, and therefore didn’t pray to Mary (or the saints) in this context, he was never-the-less devoted to Mary: He often referred to her as the Mother of God, as did most of the Reformers; instructed that the Magnificat be included in Lutheran liturgy; retained the Marian feast days on the Lutheran Church calendar; preached many Marian sermons; and wrote hymns of praise to Mary –as did other Reformation hymnists. He believed in the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s perpetual virginity (this last view was also held by nearly all the Reformers), and –according to some Luther scholars– the Assumption.
(2) Lutheran churches retained Marian statues and images, and even offered limited devotions to Mary (such as the Ave Maria and the Magnificat), for about 100 years after Luther’s death. Lutheran teaching, following Luther’s lead, also promoted the Virgin as an example and model of Christian virtues for as long, if not longer.
(3) Calvin was not devoted to Mary as was Luther, but always referred to her with respect and honor, consistently calling her “the Holy Virgin” or “the Virgin,” (rarely only as “Mary.”) Unlike Luther, he didn’t accept the Immaculate Conception (but instead considered her free of most sin) or the Assumption, and was undecided on her perpetual virginity (his position was that it was a matter of speculation since Scripture was silent on the issue). Yet, like Luther, he considered the Virgin Mary to be the model Christian who should be emulated and respected by all.
(4) Zwingli endorsed the Ave Maria, and embraced the Virgin’s perpetual virginity, but seemed undecided on both the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception; yet he often referred to her as sinless, especially while she was bearing the Christ Child. Like Luther, he had no objections to images of Mary.
(5) The English Reformers retained belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, and most in her Immaculate Conception. Some continued to favor prayer and devotion to the Virgin, but didn’t make them an official part of Anglicanism. Partly because of lack of consistent ecclesiastical support and teaching, and partly because of the gradual influences by the Enlightenment on Protestant thinking in later centuries, Protestant Marianism eventually disappeared altogether. But contrary to modern Fundamentalist fantasy passed off as “history,” honor, respect, praise, and even devotion, to the Virgin Mary was originally an integral part of classical Protestantism.”
Can we all agree that this quote is laughably (or seriously) over-the-top”
[blockquote]Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation ejected, including apparitions, mariolatry and the veneration of saints. … The archbishop’s simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “the Mother of God†is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy.[/blockquote]
The Protestant Reformation “ejected” apparitions? Does that rule out Elijah and Moses on Mount Tabor at Jesus’ transfiguration?
As for “mariolotry and the veneration of saints” – obviously the former is rejected by all Christians, and I’m afraid the assertion that that protestant refuse to venerate (honor) the saints is truer than we realize.
As Dr. Tighe succintly pointed out, Anglicans have affirmed at least the first four ecumenical councils, where the question of calling Mary the mother or birth-giver of God was settled. It’s becoming somewhat entertaining to see protestants re-arguing questions that were settled around the same time as the New Testament canon was.
There seems to be a distinction drawn on this thread (and over at Stand Firm) between the titles “God-Bearer” and “mother of God.” I have never seen Christians distinguish between the two, and I always considered them virtually synonyms. I don’t know of any informed person who thinks Mary is the mother of the entire Trinity, or else somehow Jesus became God at the point of his human conception, because of hearing the title “mother of God.” Even Protestant Philip Schaff renders the word theotokos as “mother of God” in his translation of the Chalcedonian definition, without making a big deal of it. Is there a historical basis for this distinction (e.g. debates prior to the Reformation or among the Reformers)? Perhaps Dr. Tighe knows?
Interestingly, today if the Feast of Our Lady of Walsingham, the Marian apparrition shrine in England. This Shrine has chapels for the Anglican, Roman, and Orthodox Churches. Walsingham has been called England’s Nazareth (the shrine is built in honor of the Home of the Holy Family) and also known as England’s Lourdes.
For more information, go to
http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk
sorry, that should be “today IS the Feast….”
Re: #38, I just posted this elsewhere, here:
http://themcj.com/?p=138#comments
I hope it helps:
“Also, while some wiseacres on that T1:9 thread try to make a distinction between ‘Theotokos’ (good) and ‘Mother of God’ (bad), they should be aware that all Orthodox icons on the Theotokos have, in the upper left-hand corner, the Greek letters mu and rho (corresponding to M and R), and in the upper right-hand corner theta and upsilon (corresponding to Th and U), and these are abbreviations for ‘Meter’ and ‘Theou,’ or ‘Mother of God.'”
There is no historical basis whatsoever for such a distinction. Even the Assyrian Christians (“the Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church of the East”), although they reject the Third Ecumenical Council and refuse the title “Theotokos” (in Aramaic “Yaldath Alaha” or “Mother of God”) out of devotion to the memory of Nestorius, do entitle the BVM as “Mother of Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.”
I might add also that although there is an equivalent word in Latin to “Theotokos,” namely, “Deipara,” it was very seldom employed to translate “Theotokos.” Much more frequently we find “Mater Dei” or “Dei Genetrix.”
Defenders of “Mother of God” – I think I can see your point and agree with you that it actually affirms the divinity of Jesus if one has in mind that it was through Mary that the Incarnation was realized, her child being God, and rejects the notion that the terms “birth” or “bearer” or “Mother” imply that the 2nd Person of the Triune Godhead or God had His origin, or beginning, at Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb, making Him non-eternal, with a beginning, and thus a created being. “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Since mothers [i]bear[/i] children, it’s not too far a leap from theotokos to mater dei. It’s pretty much a literal match.
But this I find interesting:
[blockquote] he lived long, long before the absurd lengths to which the RCs have taken her cult [/blockquote]
From the 3rd century (a bit before Luther), the prayer [i]Sub Tuum Praesidium[/i]:
[blockquote] WE fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.[/blockquote]
In fact, there is a good bit of Marian doctrine and piety from the early centuries. Here’s one compendium of quotes from the Church Fathers. Google “mary,early church” for more. Disagree with “the absurd lengths” if you will, but the record suggests that it is not the Catholic Church that went the absurd lengths, but the “Undivided Church” of the first 5 centuries.
No. 5’s comments are typical of the frantic, hysterical, and ignorant anti-cathooicism still present in some of Anglicanism. I’ts so easy to throw around comments like RW “is no Christian”. To take a tack from your post, if you hate the Cathoicism of Anglicanism so much, why don’t you join the Presbyterian or the Baptist Church?
Thanks, Library Jim, Dr. Tighe, & Fr. Einerson, for correcting the silliness of some of the other posts.
But the issue is whether Mary appeared at Lourdes – or any place else, for that matter. This is so silly, it is hard to oppose. Mary appearing in a tree? Or where-ever? How can any rational being give credence to such propositions. Indeed, belief in such “appearances” cheapens Christianity substantially because it turns the hard truths into emotional mush.
And, I made add to Library Jim, if you have been in a Catholic Church, then you know that Mary is in fact worshipped, that veneration is simply another word for worship, and that the Mother of God has become an idol. Not something SHE has done mind you, but something a system has done to fortify its powers and control by surrounding them with emotional mystery and glitter. Mariolatry is the work of the religious charlatan, the religious prestidigitator, not Mary, who was a humble, otherwise insignificant, newlywed, and who the Bible makes clear contained none of the mummery which now surrounds her role and image. Poor Mary: that the professionally pious cannot leave her alone to be what she is – as if that is somehow not good enough. How can one face the declaration of Perpetual Virginity without laughing? She herself would probably be shocked at such an insult – for it IS an insult to her, isn’t it. Larry
#46 – Well, Larry, most of Christendom does in fact “face the declaration of Perpetual Virginity without laughing.” And I would dare say that most of us, Anglican or Catholic, who have been in Catholic church know that Mary is in fact not worshipped.
If you need to understand the difference between worship and veneration, Merriam Webster does a decent job at explaining the difference.
Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception?
Wow…
Cheers to Dr Tighe for his admirable defenses of the faith here. It is frankly a marvel to me that a dogma as ancient and ecumenical as “Theotokos” should receive such sustained attack from those who dare to call themselves “orthodox.” But that does seem to be the case. When, at the Lambeth Conference this summer, Cardinal Dias made reference to the Mother of God in the close of his address, one bishop submitted a question, “Do you think that Anglicans can call Mary the Mother of God?” I was dumbfounded: here was someone sworn to uphold the apostolic faith who was apparently ignorant of the 3rd ecumenical council, unambiguously affirmed by all Anglican formularies! The Cardinal gave a succinct summary of the doctrine from the lectern, but how can such grave disparity in teaching be quickly remedied?
When one kisses one’s mother, is that considered idolatry? I suggest that all of those so antagonistic towards the devotion of saints should refrain from all such human devotion: if God is the only being who can be venerated (as distinct from “worship” which I take as “latreia,” or service/slavery), then not only should we not venerate the holy icons and the saints in prayer, but we should also certainly refuse to embrace any other human beings, refuse to give them honorific titles, refuse to address them with terms of affection, refuse to ask them for their prayers; we should not tell them “please” and “thank you,” we should not share with them our hopes and fears, we should not even look at them because heaven forbid their vision might remove us from the vision of the invisible God.
But no! This is not the Christian faith! This is not the faith of the apostles! For in the economy of God the love and fellowship that we have with other humans does not compete with the love and fellowship we have with God. Indeed it only deepens it. The God whose saints cannot be loved is not the God of the Bible, and certainly not the God whose Son became incarnate in order that our flesh might see the salvation of our God.
Um…if you went into any Catholic Church on most Sundays, you probably wouldn’t even know Mary existed except for (maybe) a statue somewhere in the church and, if you listened closely, the words “make us worthy to share eternal life, with Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, with the apostles and martyrs, with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages, and the entire people your Son has gained for you” occuring in the liturgy.
As far as the “Assumption” being part of a post-Luther RC cult, the Assumption is celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches (called “the Dormition of Mary”) and on the exact same day that it is celebrated in the RC Church — August 15, which is a major holiday.
Due to Protestant propaganda, even I had assumed this was an RC innovation, so I was quite surprised to be travelling in Cyprus and find stores and businesses closed on August 15th for this reason.
[blockquote]For in the economy of God the love and fellowship that we have with other humans does not compete with the love and fellowship we have with God. Indeed it only deepens it. The God whose saints cannot be loved is not the God of the Bible, and certainly not the God whose Son became incarnate in order that our flesh might see the salvation of our God. [/blockquote]
Sam, thank you for this. A beautiful and stirring reflection!
“The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury indicates that mainstream Anglican and Catholic leaders remain committed to closer relations in spite of differences over the ordination of women and sexually-active gay men as priests and bishops.”
Really. If the current Pope can’t see through what all that “Anglican” has come to mean in the actions/inactions of Rowan as ABC, they’d deserve it.
Me, I think B16 has sufficient vision to avoid that debacle. This statement is a pipe-dream of it author. The question is, “What’s in that pipe?”
#20 High Maryology arose from ‘popular’ piety (read: largely illiterate medieval European peasants) who were not allowed access to the Bible, were superstitious to the core and terrified of the pains of hell)
Mmmm. And we are just _sooo_ much smarter than those medieval European peasants, aren’t we?
We have figured out that by cleverly reinterpreting the Bible, we can make Hell vanish away completely !
Thank goodness for a liberal education that frees us from all that stupid religious stuff!
#11 Charles wrote:
[blockquote]“Mariolatry?†“Druid priest� #4, please, if you’re diss on the Archbishop, at least use the truth to do it.[/blockquote]
Truth: The Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams is a druid.
[blockquote][b][i]Archbishop becomes druid[/b][/i]
“The new Archbishop of Canterbury has been inducted as a druid in a centuries-old Celtic ceremony.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm%5B/blockquote%5D
Truth: Dr. Rowan Williams was ordained a priest in 1978.
[blockquote]He lectured at the College of the Resurrection in Mirfield, West Yorkshire for two years. In 1977 he returned to Cambridge to teach theology, first at Westcott House, having been ordained deacon in Ely cathedral that year and was ordained priest in 1978. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams%5B/blockquote%5D
Hence, “druid priest”.
Truth: Rowan Williams has been a significant figure in the effort to make the Anglican Church’s moral stance on homosexuality more accepting.
[blockquote]Williams’ contribution to Anglican views of homosexuality was perceived as quite liberal before he was enthroned as Archbishop. These views are evident in a paper written by Williams called ‘The Body’s Grace’, which he originally delivered as the 10th Michael Harding Memorial Address in 1989 to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, and which is now part of a series of essays collected in the book “Theology and Sexuality” (ed. Eugene Rogers, Blackwells 2002). In the conclusion of this address, he asserted:
“In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.”
The same year as he made the above comments, and as a practical consequence of the views he expressed, Williams founded the ‘Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality’ (which in 1996 became the ‘Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality’. He was then Professor of Divinity at Oxford University, and this work characterised him amongst liberal Anglicans as a significant figure in the effort to make the Anglican Church’s moral stance on homosexuality more accepting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams%5B/blockquote%5D
Hence, Dr. Rowan Williams has bent his knee to the GLBT lobby.
Mariolatry is defined by Merriam-Webster as “excessive veneration of the Virgin Mary”.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mariolatry
Truth: Dr. Rowan Williams has engaged in Mariolatry.
[blockquote][b][i]Rowan Williams becomes first ever Anglican leader to accept visions of Virgin Mary as fact[/b][/i]
“…he became the first leader of the Church of England to accept visions of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes as historical fact.
He asserted that 18 visions of Our Lady allegedly experienced by Bernadette Soubirous in 1858 were true.
His words shocked millions of Protestants worldwide because they not only signified a break with Protestant teaching on the Virgin Mary but also Dr Williams’s personal acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is explicitly linked to the apparitions.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1060951/Rowan-Williams-Anglican-leader-accept-visions-Virgin-Mary-fact.html%5B/blockquote%5D
For him to have “shocked” millions of Protestants, his conduct must be something novel, out of the ordinary, or new for a Protestant leader. He has publicly asserted the veracity of apparitions of Mary and the truth of the statements eminating from those apparitions. Most Protestants would consider his conduct as “excessive veneration of the Virgin Mary”.
Hence, Dr. Rowan Williams has bent his knee to Mariolatry.
Charles, you may disagree with me, but please refrain from accusations that I am being untruthful.
I apologize, Sick & Tired. I thought Mariolatry meant “worship of the Virgin Mary.” And I was unaware of of his becoming an honorary druid.
How is “asserting the veracity of apparitions of Mary” excessive veneration of her?
[blockquote]When one kisses one’s mother, is that considered idolatry? I suggest that all of those so antagonistic towards the devotion of saints should refrain from all such human devotion: if God is the only being who can be venerated (as distinct from “worship†which I take as “latreia,†or service/slavery), then not only should we not venerate the holy icons and the saints in prayer, but we should also certainly refuse to embrace any other human beings, refuse to give them honorific titles, refuse to address them with terms of affection, refuse to ask them for their prayers; we should not tell them “please†and “thank you,†we should not share with them our hopes and fears, we should not even look at them because heaven forbid their vision might remove us from the vision of the invisible God.[/blockquote]
If one went around kissing a statue of one’s mother, I think there would in fact be a few raised eyebrows. As far as refraining from kissing one’s family members or other humans in general, there is specific Biblical support for the concept of kissing other people. As just one example declares:
“Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings.” Romans 16:16
However, God implicitly condemns those that kiss a statue: “Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.”
There are specific Scriptures that tell us to ask one another to pray for each other:
“Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” James 5:16
Please show me where it is written in the Scriptures that we are to pray to the dead, ask the dead [even those Christians who have died] to pray for us, bow or kneel before statues or pictures, or kiss statues or pictures as a form of “veneration”. Show me anywhere in the Bible where kissing a statue or kneeling before a statue is promoted or even tolerated.
Sick and Tired of Nuance — it’s not everyday that I address such nameless abstractions, but anyhow:
Your “truth” is distortion: it is actually what St Augustine would call “opinion,” which is either based on unreliable authority or faulty reasoning. Archbishop Rowan is a “druid” in the sense that he was inducted into an honorary Welsh society of cultural figures (like the French Academy or getting some kind of Congressional Medal): read the article that you so hastily linked. He is not a “druid” in any religious sense at all. What you say is “true” but only in a partial sense: you presume to hide the significant part of the story and thus engage in what Christian theology describes as “bearing false witness.” I.e., sin. You are free to criticize Rowan Williams for accepting such an honor, but I’d question as to whether any member of Western society could make such absolute pronouncements about civil honors. If someone gave you the key to the city, would you refuse on the grounds that it made you a pagan?
Regarding the charge on the ABC’s views on sexuality, these are nothing new. I think he’s wrong. But what you ignore — and what the vast majority of “progressives” ignore (which is why they feel betrayed by him) — is that he does not presume that his personal view on the subject should be Church teaching. As he says in his final Lambeth address:
Say what you will about the way he has led the Communion (and I am certainly not convinced that it’s always been for the best), but surely this must be taken into account in the odd charge that he has “bent his knee” to the LGBT lobby. Also: have you ever read his other work? It always strikes me as a bit dodgy when people quote from “The Body’s Grace” as if it’s +Rowan’s most significant work. I think it’s him at his weakest…
Let us not deal with the charge of “mariolatry” as it is some kind of self-evident standard. It is a polemical term to begin with and thus cannot be “proved.” Did Webster tell you what constitutes “excessive”? No, you decided that on your own. You decided it on your own in isolation from two millenia of Church teaching in which Christians everywhere have venerated Mary as the Mother of God. It’s a good thing that we have you to come along and tell us what true worship is.
Hi Charles,
I think my last paragraph covered my opinion.
[blockquote]For him to have “shocked†millions of Protestants, his conduct must be something novel, out of the ordinary, or new for a Protestant leader. He has publicly asserted the veracity of apparitions of Mary and the truth of the statements eminating from those apparitions. Most Protestants would consider his conduct as “excessive veneration of the Virgin Maryâ€. [/blockquote]
Again, we may disagree, but the fact that it has shocked millions of Protestants sort of speaks for itself that his actions would be considered excessive.
Sick and Tired – are you an Anglican? I’m Catholic, but I’ve never met an Anglican who makes those sorts of arguments. Why does it need to be explicit in Scripture in order to be holy or good?
By the way, the issues with statues in the Bible that you mentioned can’t be compared with what we’re talking about. They are worshipping idols – meaning false gods. Christians who venerate statues of saints are not worshipping idols or false gods. They worship the one, triune God and are being led to Him by the icon or statue they are venerating. Apples vs. oranges.
# 58 – who said anything about anything being considered excessive. You accuse him of “bowing the knee to Mariolatry” which would mean that you are accusing him of excessive veneration of Mary, according to your definition. Shocking millions of Protestants does not equal excessive veneration of Mary.
What did Dr. Williams do to warrant the charge of Mariolatry – excessive veneration of Mary?
#54 Sick & Tired of Nuance says:
To be fair to +++Rowan, the article provides no evidence that his actions “schocked millions of Protestants.” His actions seem to have shocked the Rev. Jeremy Brooks, director of the “Protestant Truth Society,” whatever that is; but the article simply takes it on faith that Brooks+ speaks for those “millions” of faceless Protestants.
On the more general topic, I have to say that I’m genuinely surprised that the phrase “Mother of God” is controversial. Obviously Catholics and Protestants differ on many points about Mary, but I thought that was pretty much the one thing about her that we all did agree on.
But then I’m a reappraiser, so I imagine most of you are uninterested in my theological opinions.
How exactly did I “you presume to hide the significant part of the story” when I provided a link for you to read the story?
His inclusion of those who are pushing the GLBT agenda and exclusion of certain others to Lambeth, and his lack of action on the current crisis in Anglicanism brought about by the ordination of a divorced and now active homosexual to Bishop, clearly demonstrate his bias.
I would counter your accusation that my definition of “excessive” was arbitrary by pointing out that according to the article, Rowan Williams was the first EVER to do what he has done and his actions have shocked millions of Protestants around the globe.
So, I think it is clear to see that your accusations of my alleged distortions are…wait for it…a distortion.
According to Merriam-Webser, Excessive is “exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal”.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excessive
Thus, since Dr. Rowan Williams is the first Anglican Arch Bishop to go to Lourdes and declare the visions of Mary to be true and the messages from those visions to be true…is is by definition, excessive.
Oops…
“…it is by definition…”
Since most ANglican bishops don’t think the Virgin *Birth* was a fact, isn’t it a waste of time to worry about visions of Her? A dime for each bishop who can tell the difference between the Virgin Birth and Immacualte Conception! No, don’t confuse the little dears…
Sick and Tired, I can’t really argue with you, as you seem to have more interpretive authority than even the Holy Father. Since you have much greater access to truth than this humble Anglo-Catholic, I hope you will simply pray for me.
Dear Sam,
I most certainly will pray for you. In fact, I just did. I prayed to the Father asking him to bless you and keep you and to fill your heart with grace and a continued desire to know His word. I asked this all in the name of [for the sake of] our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I hope you will also pray for me. Specifically, please pray that I not be arrogant. Pride is a great fault of mine. Thanks.
I claim no greater authority than simply being able to read the Scriptures with a heart longing for God. The only access to truth I claim may be found in those Scriptures. I am glad we won’t argue. Argument involves the emotions and those are tricky things. Much better a debate with supporting evidence. I hope I have not given cause for argument with you. I have found much of the postings here on T19 to be quite educational, even when I disagree with them.
God bless,
George
Anglicans do not claim that the only access to truth lies in the Scriptures. As Hooker pointed out, Scripture is our first access, but the teaching tradtion of the Church universal and Spirit-led reason are also access points to the truth.
The reason Marian devotion was not mentioned in the Scriptures was simply because she was still living while the New Testament was being written. Therefore, teachings such as the assumption/dormition would not have been in the Scriptures, but developed by the Church afterwards.
It’s only logical.
Same with iconography. It was settled that the veneration of icons in no way implied worship of the images, but that the icons were ‘windows to the divine’ that assisted worshippers in coming before the one, Triune God.
In His Peace
Jim E. <><
From The XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius. Part of the canons of the Council of Ephesus, the third Ecumenical Council:
I. If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made fleshâ€] let him be anathema.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ix.i.html
A question for you all, if comments are still getting read. Most comments here are about Mary as mother of God, and few about the visions of Bernadette. Now that I’ve read his sermon, the whole idea that he ‘asserted that 18 visions…were true’ seems a bit of a stretch. It seems he’s just using the stories to illustrate his point, knowing that his audience accepts them. Is that a problem?
Just a thought:
we cannot, as Anglicans, say “you must believe the Marian teachings in order to be considered a Chrisitan” — since they are not included in Scripture, and Article VI makes clear that
[blockquote]Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.[/blockquote].
But on the other hand, we also should not say “You must dis-believe the Marian teachings in order to be considered a Christian”. That, to me, is just as much error.
Dear libraryjim,
I never said that Anglicans claim that the only access to truth lies in the Scriptures. I made that claim for myself in the context of this discussion and looking for the truth of the matters at hand.
As for Mary being alive while the New Testament was written; yes, was very likely alive while the four Gospels were penned. Let’s do a little math. Let’s say she was 16 when the Lord was born. That would make her 49 years old when the Lord was crucified sometime near 33-34 AD. Matthew’s Gospel was likely written between AD 55 and AD 60. That would make Mary 70-75. Several of the books were most certainly written after her death. No mention of veneration of any statues or icons of Mary.
By the way, there is no mention of making statues of Jesus and venerating them either. He was most certainly dead [and resurrected] when the New Testament was penned. No, making statues then kneeling before them and/or kissing them is off the list of acceptable religious practices described in the Scriptures. But, no one has to answer to me. The matter is between the individual and God.
The ABC has just set started a war between the Anglo-Catholics and the hard core Protestant Anglicans. After they all unite in the new American Province there will be more to come.
I wonder what Bishop Duncan thinks about all this? He is slightly on the side of the Anglo-Catholics, but presides over a fairly Protestant Diocese. I bet he will not take a stand on Marian issues!
#72, you claim that “making statues then kneeling before them and/or kissing them is off the list of acceptable religious practices described in the Scriptures.” Where is this list of acceptable religious practices in the Scriptures? Where does the Scriptures prohibit venerating a statue of a saint? The only thing you’ve mentioned (in an early comment) is bowing down and worshipping idols (false gods). How is that related in any way to venerating a statue of Mary?
#74, for me the 2nd Commandment says all that needs to be said:
That’s enough for me to know that I should not, under any circumstances, bow down to, kiss, or in any other way, “venerate” any graven image.
When God tore the curtain at the time of Jesus’ death on the cross, he opened himself up to us to have a direct relationship with Him. We are to pray to Him. We are to worship Him. Jesus is the only intercessor. He stated clearly in Scripture that he is also the only one who has ever ascended to Heaven. No other human who has died will hear you, so why bother praying to them. They are waiting for the first resurrection at the return of Jesus Christ to earth.
According to Jesus himself:
Mugsie,
The scriptures you quote are speaking of worshipping the idol AS a god. Saints and their representations are clearly not seen as gods or as having power in and of themselves.
The catacombs of Rome have tombs dating back to the late 1st and early 2nd centuries with etched inscriptions such as “St Peter pray for us!” with the Peterine cross (upside down cross) showing that the intercession of the saints is an early Chrisitan practice.
The intercession of the saints (aka ‘the communion of saints’) is the same as my asking you to pray for me (as Sam asked Sick and Tired to pray for him earlier, to which he quickly assented — if Jesus is the only intercessor, then asking another person to pray for them is wrong, too. But the fact is, Jesus is the only MEDIATOR, not intercessor, a big difference there).
The fact that WE perceive these men and women of God as being dead is erroneous, as they are very much alive and in the presence of God in heaven.
As to the dates of the NT:
John A. T. Robinson, a noted NT scholar stated that “there is no valid reason to believe that any book of the New Testament was written after 70 AD”, a sentiment which many scholars agree.
Consider: Peter and Paul were both martyred around 64 – 66 AD, so all of their epistles had to be written before then. Acts makes no mention of the executions, yet Luke is meticulous in his detailing the life of Paul up to his imprisonment. If Paul had been executed before Luke finished Acts, he surely would have mentioned Paul’s death, and the Gospel of Luke was written before that. Therefore, Acts was completed before 64 AD. The only possible books written after 70 would be Revelation and III John.
So it’s possible that Mary was still alive at the time of the last of the books.
But there are many, many books written that make this case far better than I could.
His Peace to you!
Jim E. <><
“Where is this list of acceptable religious practices in the Scriptures?”
Hi Charles,
It was a figure of speech, but I think mugsie makes a valid point. The 2nd Commandment is quite clear.
As for bowing down before a statue, God told Elijah, in the context of Israel worshipping baal, that he had reserved 7,000 who had not bent their knee or kissed the baal. God, in this comment, makes it clear that He views the act of kissing the statue or kneeling before it, an act of worship.
Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego refused to bow before the statue of King Nebuchadnezzar. They could have pretended that the act of bowing before the statue was merely rendering honor to the king. But they knew it would be an act of worship and refused.
Joshua 23:7 Do not associate with these nations that remain among you; do not invoke the names of their gods or swear by them. You must not serve them [b]or bow down to them.[/b]
Again, bowing down before a statue, all by itself, is considered an act of worship.
2 Kings 17:35 with whom the LORD made a covenant and commanded them, saying, “You shall not fear other gods, [b]nor bow down yourselves to them[/b] nor serve them nor sacrifice to them.
Again, bowing down before a statue, all by itself, is considered an act of worship.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, [b]EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,[/b] AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”
Again, we see that the act of bending the knee [bowing down] is an act of worship. In this case, it is proper worship of the true and living God. The point is, God considers the act of bending the knee, bowing down, as an act of worship.
Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus [b]every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,[/b] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
So, like I said, if folks want to bow down to a statue, they don’t have to answer to me. Me, I will bow to God alone.
By the way, an interesting study of this issue can be found by studying the early Christian’s argument for/against the use of icons. Those who were against it were known as the ‘iconoclasts’, and it is believed they took their position to stave off additional persecution from the Muslim invaders. They prevailed for a time, but those who argued FOR icons reasserted themselves and their position eventually won the argument.
Look it up sometime. It makes, as I said, for an interesting study.
Peace
Jim E. <>< Oh, PS, none of the NT writers mentioned the fall of Jerusalem or the destruction of the temple. If they had written AFTER that fact, they most certainly would have mentioned it.
Again, though, it’s intent. No one I know of worships the icons or statues in Christianity.
Remember the leper healed by the word of the Lord through Elijah?
He was the servant of a king who worshipped a false god and had to accompany him to the temple, assisting the king in bowing and worship.
He was healed and told Elijah, “I still have to do this, but when I bow, it will be to the Lord in my heart”.
So there are exceptions in Scripture.
#76, mediation and intercession are quite similar. Perhaps mediator would have been a better word for my purposes here.
However, as to ascension to heaven of the dead, I know that’s what the mainline denominations teach. BUT, the Scriptures don’t actually say that. Jesus clearly stated that HE was the ONLY one who has ascended to heaven. So, I’m afraid I must state that I will consider the Scriptures to be the Truth that Jesus says they are, and to look on the humans leading the denominations as being erroneous. There is absolutely NOTHING in Scripture which states that the dead have ascended into heaven.
There is also confusion about the resurrection. We have been taught that there is only ONE resurrection. However, there are actually going to be TWO. The first is for the “saints”, those whom Jesus has determined to overcome satan. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, et al will definitely be part of the first resurrection which will occur when Jesus returns to earth. They will reign on the earth with Jesus during the millennial reign. Then after the millenial reign is over, the SECOND “great white throne” resurrection will occur. That is the big judgement period when all of mankind will be judged.
Revelation 20:1-10 –
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut {it} and sealed {it} over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time. 4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I {saw} the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. 7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Satan has deceived all the nations.
Revelation 12:9 –
And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
The reason nobody believes this is because it’s “deception”. It would not be called deception if it was not fooling everyone.
Great White Throne judgement:
Revelation 20:11-15 –
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is {the book} of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one {of them} according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
#77, sick and tired, THANKS! You did a wonderful job of providing evidence right from Scripture to support God’s second commandment. I’m with you. I won’t bow down to any statues either, not even in jest.
#78, libraryjim, you keep bringing up these article, books, etc. written by early Christians. However, they are not GOD! God’s Word overrules anything they say if it cannot be supported by Scripture. That’s where I stand.
Another thing. This ICON stuff is nothing but NONSENSE! NOWHERE in Scripture is this supported. If Jesus wanted us to use icons, he would have used them himself, and would have instructed us in His Word to do so. But no, Jesus prayed directly to God, the Father, on His knees, as we are to do.
Is anyone posting seriously making the claim that Jewish Christians would EVER make a statue of Mary and bow down to that statue or kiss the feet of that statue?
The Scriptures are full of thundering silence about asking deceased Christians to pray for us or actually praying to them.
Example of Roman Catholic practice in regard to praying TO a “saint”:
“The Prayer to Saint Michael is a Catholic prayer addressed to Michael the archangel. It is used most prevalently among Catholics.”
“Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael
“Prayer to Mary
of St. Louis De Montfort
Hail MARY, admirable Mother of the Son. Hail MARY, faithful Spouse of the Holy Ghost. Hail MARY, my Mother, my loving Mistress, my powerful sovereign. Hail, my joy, my glory, my heart and my soul. Thou art all mine by mercy, and I am Thine by justice. But I am not yet sufficiently Thine. I now give myself wholly to Thee without keeping anything back for myself or others. If Thou seest anything in me which does not belong to Thee, I beseech Thee to take it and make Thyself the absolute Mistress of all that is mine.”
http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/montfort.htm
Where in Scripture are we directed that Mary was the “faithful Spouse of the Holy Ghost”? She was the spouse of Joseph the carpenter.
“I now give myself wholly to Thee without keeping anything back for myself or others. If Thou seest anything in me which does not belong to Thee, I beseech Thee to take it and make Thyself the absolute Mistress of all that is mine.”
Can you truly say that this is not idolatry of the first order? This prayer gives to Mary what rightfully belongs to God alone!
Here is another prayer TO Mary. It is not a request that she pray for us. It is an outright prayer to her for her power. It is idolatry.
“HOLY Mary, Virgin Mother of God, who was conceived without sin, I choose thee, this day, for the lady and Mistress of this House; I beseech thee through thy Immaculate Conception, to preserve it from pestilence, fire and water; from lightning and tempests, from robbers, from schisms and heresies, from earthquakes and from sudden death. Bless and protect, O holy Virgin, all its inmates, obtain for them grace to avoid sin, and save them from every other misfortune and accident.
Amen. ”
http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/ourlady.htm
Here is one, praying TO Joseph, that states salvation is by Jesus, Mary, and Joseph:
“Novena to
St. Joseph
*NOVENA PRAYER
*(prayer to be said at the end of each day’s devotion)
Saint Joseph, I, your unworthy child, greet you. You are the faithful protector and intercessor of all who love and venerate you. You know that I have special confidence in you and that, after Jesus and Mary, I place all my hope of salvation in you, for you are especially powerful with God and will never abandon your faithful servants.”
This is a direct contradiction of Scripture.
Acts 4:10-12
“then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is
” ‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for [b]there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”[/b]
The claim in this prayer to Joseph, “after Jesus and Mary, I place all my hope of salvation in you” is blasphemy. Salvation is found in no one else but Jesus Christ…ALONE.
#84, sick and tired, THANKS AGAIN! The truth MUST come out. So many are being deceived by their church leaders. They won’t pull out their Bibles and study Scripture for themselves. That’s such a shame. There is just so much they are missing.
The fact that RW is the one leading the AC into this nonsense is what’s most concerning. He will suffer gravely for this on his judgment.
Folks, I’ll say it again. STUDY your OWN Bibles!!!! There’s so much in there that you just don’t know about. The churches won’t tell you. It reveals them for exactly what they are; hypocrites! The Pharisees tried to do this to the people of their time. We all know what Jesus thought of them. Don’t let the same thing happen again now.
Remember these words:
Revelation 12:9 –
And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Memorize this verse and keep it in your heart.
Dear libraryjim,
You said, “He was healed and told Elijah, “I still have to do this, but when I bow, it will be to the Lord in my heartâ€.
Here is the actual passage:
“In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.”
He said to him, “Go in peace.” So he departed from him some distance. 2 Kings 5:18-19
Naaman is not “bowing” TO Rimmon. The king of Aram would lean on Naaman’s arm. Naaman, the kings servant, was concerned that in helping the king, he would of necessity bow so that the king who was leaning on his arm would not fall down and would be able to rise up again. This is not really a bowing down to Rimmon. It is the assistance of an infirmed person that is bowing to Rimmon. Therefore, Elijah tells Naaman to “go in peace”.
The text does not support the idea that Naaman is bowing to the statue of Rimmon. It supports that Naaman would be bending, bowing, possibly kneeling in the temple of Rimmon, but only as an act of aid to the king who was holding his arm. And even this sort of bowing, in rendering aid of the king, worried Naaman’s conscience.
But, the bowing Naaman did was not at all directed at or to the statue of Rimmon. Nor was it directed to “the Lord in my [Naaman’s] heartâ€. Hence, Elijah’s directive to “go in peace”.
1) [i]Naaman is not “bowing†TO Rimmon. [/i]
Your scripture quotation actually does not support your supposition. Naaman says “When [b]I bow myself down[/b] to the house of Rimmon” he says he IS bowing down, and asks the Lords pardon for doing so.
2) Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit because she bore the Son of God through the power of the Holy Spirit (“..made incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit” –Nicean Creed). There is Scriptural evidence that Joseph and she never consumated the relationship, although she was under his protection, and he raised Jesus as his own.
Catholic and Orthodox readings of the Scriptures support that she remained “ever virgin”. A reading accepted by Martin Luther, by the way.
3) [i]libraryjim, you keep bringing up these article, books, etc. written by early Christians. However, they are not GOD! [/i]
Again, this argument would be effective if I was an adherent to the false teaching of ‘sola scriptura’. I’m not. Their teaching has been accepted as valid interpretations by 3/4 of the worlds Christians over 1600 – 2000 years. We should throw those out because YOU don’t agree? I’ll take their word over yours. 😉
4) [i]Folks, I’ll say it again. STUDY your OWN Bibles!!!! There’s so much in there that you just don’t know about. The churches won’t tell you. It reveals them for exactly what they are; hypocrites![/i]
Aw, comeon, Mugsie, tell us what you really think!
And by the way, I disagree strongly.
I’ve been studying the Bible since my infilling with the Holy Spirit in 1975. I have studied under Pentecostal, Charismatic, Baptist, traditional Catholic, traditional Episcopal and other traditions. I have come to the conclusions I have through intense study, debate and prayer. Your calim is frankly, nonsensical at best, uninformed at worst (or the other way around?), and what makes YOUR opinion better than 3/4 of the world’s Christian population and scholars? As I said, I’ll take their word over yours. and again 🙂
His peace!
Jim E. <><
that last smiley should have been a wink 😉 not a smile 🙂
Dear libraryjim,
You said: “When I bow myself down [b][i]to[/b][/i] the house of Rimmon†[emphasis mine]
The quote actually states: “I bow myself [b][i]in[/b][/i] the house of Rimmon”
I am not alone in my understanding of Naaman. This is from the New Advent website, a Catholic resource, “Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”:
[blockquote]17 And Naaman said: As thou wilt: but I beseech thee, grant to me, thy servant, to take from hence two mules’ burden of earth: for thy servant will not henceforth offer holocaust, or victim, to other gods, but to the Lord. 18 But there is only this, for which thou shalt entreat the Lord for thy servant; when my master goeth into the temple of Remmon, to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand: if I bow down in the temple of Remmon, when he boweth down in the same place, that the Lord pardon me, thy servant, for this thing. 19 And he said to him: Go in peace. So he departed from him, in the spring time of the earth. Go in peace… What the prophet here allowed, was not an outward conformity to an idolatrous worship; but only a service which by his office he owed to his master: who on all public occasions leaned on him: so that his bowing down when his master bowed himself down was not in effect adoring the idols: nor was it so understood by the standers by, since he publicly professed himself a worshipper of the only true and living God, but it was no more than doing a civil office to the king his master, whose leaning upon him obliged him to bow at the same time that he bowed. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ki005.htm%5B/blockquote%5D
Mary was married to Joseph, therefore, Joseph was her spouse.
Matt. 1:20&24;-25
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to [b]take Mary as your wife;[/b] for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
“And [b]Joseph[/b] awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and [b]took Mary as his wife,[/b] but kept her a [b]virgin until she gave birth[/b] to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
The Scriptures clearly state that Joseph took Mary as his wife, therefore Joseph was her spouse. They also plainly state that she was a virgin [b]until she gave birth[/b]. The word “until” means something. Merriam-Webster defines it: 1chiefly Scottish : to 2—used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time
3: before 2
Joseph “kept her a [b]virgin until she gave birth[/b]” according to the Gospel of Matthew. Who is right?
You said, “I’ll take their word over yours.” That’s fine. No problem from me. We just disagree. I will take the Scripture over their word.
When my mother was in the hospital having me, my father was faithful to her until she came home. Then he committed adultery, right?
“Until” has many meanings.
#80:
[blockquote]Jesus clearly stated that HE was the ONLY one who has ascended to heaven…. There is absolutely NOTHING in Scripture which states that the dead have ascended into heaven.[/blockquote]
Really? What about, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.�
#83:
[blockquote]If Jesus wanted us to use icons, he would have used them himself, and would have instructed us in His Word to do so.[/blockquote]
Where in Scripture does it say that the Scriptures record every devotional practice that Jesus wants us to do?
#84:
[blockquote]The Scriptures are full of thundering silence about asking deceased Christians to pray for us or actually praying to them. [/blockquote]
How does one discern the difference between a “thundering silence” in Scripture and a teaching that was merely handed down orally?
#85:
[blockquote]The Pharisees tried to do this to the people of their time. We all know what Jesus thought of them.[/blockquote]
Yes, Jesus thought that many of the Pharisees were hypocrites. But what did Jesus teach? Did he tell people to read the Scriptures for themselves and follow their own interpretations? No. Actually, he said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” He affirmed the authority of the church leaders. He established a new church, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and it hasn’t.
No #47, most of the Christian world does NOT believe in Perpetual Virginity any more than it believes in the Immaculate conception. The reason is simple: There is nothing in scripture to justify such a belief. And a reasonable question to you is: Why would anyone WANT to establish perpetual virginity? Mary certainly wouldn’t. She was married and has clear obligations to her husband. Does having children somehow diminish Mary and make her human? But she WAS human, entirely so, or Christ would not have had an entirely human nature, one essential characteristic if we are to understand Christ’s special role to mankind. Larry
#92, maybe you want to stipulate who comprises the Christian world? Unless you’re excluding non-Protestants, most of the Christian world have not departed from the teachings of the Church during the first millennium, which certainly include the perpetual virginity and a belief about Mary that could arguably be called an immaculate conception. The notion that these specific teachings must be written down in Holy Scriptures would be foreign to most of the Christian world.
Earlier I tried to withdraw from this discussion… I appreciate Sick and Tired’s gracious response.
I don’t really intend to take up argument again: the Church has already had this argument in the leadup and followup to the 7th ecumenical council, the 2nd of Nicea. Read St John of Damascus, On the Divine Images. Do you really think that your arguments here were not considered at the time? This is what it comes down to for me. When we start rejecting such clear teaching from the Tradition we risk throwing out the whole of the Tradition, including the Scriptures themselves. Do you think that the Scriptures fell down in your lap from the sky yesterday? No, they were passed down, through the worshiping Church, through the centuries, by those venerating both Mary and the holy icons. The Council was clear: those who reject the veneration of icons are anathema, for in doing so they reject the Icon of God: Jesus of Nazareth. The restoration of the icons following the second iconoclasm is the reason that the East celebrates the Sunday of Orthodoxy. I say this again, and I intend it with all charity: those who call yourselves “orthodox” and spurn the holy icons, beware. Your orthodoxy may be a thing more of your own invention than something recognized by the Church through the ages.
#87; I rather think there is no scriptural evidence that she remained a virgin and plenty to suggest that she had children – presumably by her husband’s assistance. The text is right there in front of you ,Library Jim. The people ask if they do not know this family, the father, the mother, the brothers and sisters. They are saying that this family is quite ordinary, this particular gene set so to speak, and they ask because of Jesus’s reputation. The context is unambiguous. They are addressing a family. and I would ask you too, why would you WANT Mary to stay a virgin. She never suggests it, and her family responsibilities suggest that it would be a social disgrace if she did not allow her husband his conjugal “rights.” To demand that she stay a virgin is a considerable insult to h er. Nor is there a TRACE of a sign that God, through the Holy Ghost, had any such thing in mind for her. Poor Mary. Made into the image to suit the religious power structure!
And Mary IS worshipped. Indeed, I know RC’s who explicitly pray to Mary as a matter of course. They ask her for favors and believe that she has the power to grant them. For them, she is Christ’s equal and His superior for granting wishes. This is worship. plain and simple. It is also idolatry, for her idol is everywhere in RC churches and front lawns, candles and all. This is not simple veneration. But then, even the veneration is misplaced. She is simply Christ’s mother, the one who gave him his human genes. Nothing more, nothing less. Why isn’t that good enough?
#92-Larry:
According to the CIA World Fact Book, the world contains “Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%)).” If you count just the Catholics and the Orthodox, at least 61% of Christians belong to a group that officially believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Immaculate Conception (though the Orthodox view is technically slightly different – it’s similar enough for the sake of this argument). That’s not counting the Anglicans who believe in those two doctrines.
I’m too tired to discuss the rest of it – maybe someone else will. Hope everyone has a great evening.
#95, are you confident that your understanding of the history, culture, and language of the New Testament is greater than that of the church fathers and the reformers? Are you confident that your perspective is clearer than those of Christians for the first 1500 years? The church fathers and reformers believed that Joseph wanted Mary to remain a virgin, because her womb had contained the Word made flesh. The reformers accepted the teaching of the Church that Joseph was a protector of Mary who chose not to exercise any “conjugal rights”, at least in part out of awe that God had become incarnate in her womb.
“When my mother was in the hospital having me, my father was faithful to her until she came home. Then he committed adultery, right?”
The word “until” in that sentence indicates that your father stopped being faithful to your mother when she came home.
Merriam-Webster defines until: 1: chiefly Scottish —to 2:—used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time 3: before 2
I think we can safely rule out Joseph and Mary being Scottish. So, the word “until” indicates a continuance of a condition [Mary’s virginity] to a specified time [until she gave birth] or it means she was a virgin before she gave birth, with the clear implication that she was no longer a virgin after the birth.
That’s my take on the subject. I know others disagree, but such is life.
Larry,
The Orthodox Churches have the explanations to your objections on their websites. Perhaps you should look these up, (one can be found [url=http://www.orthodoxcatechism.com/evervirginmary.htm]here [/url], but the main thrust is that the word ‘adelphos’ (sp?) can mean literal brothers, brother-in-law, cousin, nephew, etc. in other words, it can refer to any extended family member, not just the children by the same parents. (See further below in this post for more examples.)
Another [url=http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/Mary_files/Mary.htm]website[/url] (superior to the other, IMO) gives this explanation:
[blockquote]The reason for this “brother” word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a “cousin”. When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. “son of the [father’s] uncle” or “son of the brother of the mother”. For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word “brother” when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means “brother†or some other form of relation. [/blockquote]
and then goes on to give examples from Scripture and further explanation as to context.
Again, the ‘plain reading’ of Scripture in this case is not so plain, and that is why understanding how the early Christians (who spoke the language of Scripture without needing a translation) understood it is important. Again, the Reformers did not have any problem with this teaching.
I’m taking these quotes from another [url=http://christian-apologetics-society.blogspot.com/2008/03/apologetics-perpetual-virginity-of-mary.html]website[/url] (why reinvent the wheel?):
[blockquote]Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary: “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.(Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
John Calvin wrote of Mary’s perpetual virginity: “Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.” {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
Ulrich Zwingli wrote of Mary’s perpetual virginity: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
John Wesley wrote of Mary’s perpetual virginity: “The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.” (Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749)[/blockquote]
and further on the point of adelphos, this same website reads:
[blockquote]In the Bible, the word adelphos is used for:
(1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
(2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
(3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
(4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
(5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29);
(6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
(7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
(8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
(9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and
(10) believers (Mt 23:8).
(From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)[/blockquote]
AS to SaToN’s (hmmm, interesting spelling when using abbreviations. Did you notice that when you chose your screen name?) objection to my quotation of the Naaman verse, that was simply a typo. I did not cut and paste. Sorry about that. But I don’t think it changes that much.
By the way, the second website I mentioned above also gives a good Greek lesson on Matthew 1:25 to answer the objections of the word “until”. Since they use the Greek alphabet, I’m not sure if it will paste, so I’ll just say, “go to the site and read it there”.
Peace
Jim E. <>< post 100???
libraryjim, are you saying that Joseph and Mary were or were not Scottish?
😉 (sorry)
The point #98, is that “until” doesn’t necessarily indicate a termination point.
As to the “brothers and sisters of Jesus”, the words in Greek can readily mean “close relatives” rather than “siblings”, which answers the strange action of Jesus giving the care of His mother to John the apostle, as if he had no siblings. We know that at least one “brother”, James, was a believer, since he was president of the Jerusalem Church.
And Mr. Morse, the narcissism of your #95 reminds me of the narcissism of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson: he says what is and is not God’s word with abandon, as do you. Perhaps Bp. Robinson, and you, does represent an authentic aspect of Anglicanism. In fact, the same aspect, in which each man worships his own opinions, not letting facts (like the meanings of words, historical events, and the testimony of 2000 years of Christian witness) stand in the way. Ironically, the modern rationalism that you call Christianity is no more related to the actual protestant reformers than it is to the 15 centuries of theologians before then.
However, you go a step further and claim knowledge of the inner lives of Catholic Christians. Surely you know that “pray” simply means “ask”. Asking the Blessed Mother for favors is no different than asking for help from the woman who gave me birth. Here’s where you say: but she’s dead. Then I say: Well, mine is a God of the living – sorry about yours.
And I truly am sorry your religion lacks miracles and visions, signs and wonders (your earlier post). No wonder it’s dying: you have the form of religion but deny it’s power.
Just a comment on appeals to the Roman Catholic Tradition…would that be the same tradition that allowed the selling of indulgences and encouraged folks to venerate detatched body parts of deceased saints? Also, appeals to the multiple early councils of the Church have a problem. If they concils were infallible, why was there ever more than one council? Doesn’t the fact that there were multiple councils indicate that [shudder] they made mistakes of either commission or ommission?
After reading alot of these coments I guess the bishops do reflect the state of Anglicanism. You start with an Anglican layman and make a priest out of him/her. Then you make a bishop out of the priest. I guess you have to change the laity to change the bishops. If they don’t know Christianity, the bishops won’t either, and there’s no one to teach them.
S&T;,
there were multiple councils because each were called upon to settle a different situation. Arianism at one, gnosticsm at another, etc. As a false interpretation or teaching would rise up, the Church universal would be called upon to meet and combat it.
But I suspect you knew that and were just being silly.
Now, I’m off for the night.
May the Lord grant each one of us a peaceful sleep.
Jim E <>< PS, they may or may not have been Scots, but St. Paul was a Southerner, since he said: I pray daily for y'all.
How much of the 2000 years of Church witness was witnessed by illiterates in the dark ages? I recommend the book [i]Bad Popes[/i] by E. R. Chamberlin for a good read on the keepers of the faith. How many priests could actually read in say…oh, I don’t know…900 A.D.? Didn’t the Roman Church suppress the very printing of the Bible by burning folks alive?
libraryjim,
Thanks for the website. I will take a look.
God bless,
George
#103, why do you suppose that one council should have been enough to address every doctrinal question and heresy? Why do you suppose that there is more than one book of Holy Scripture? Does the fact that there are multiple books of the Bible indicate that they made mistakes of either commission or ommission?
[i]How many priests could actually read in say…oh, I don’t know…900 A.D.? Didn’t the Roman Church suppress the very printing of the Bible by burning folks alive?[/i]
I don’t know and no, respectively.
Printing was not invented in the 9th century. In fact, after it was invented, books containing large parts of scripture – in the vernacular – were printed and circulated as devotional manuals. Whole bibles like we have today are a modern invention.
We do know that monastic priests could read – Latin, specifically which was necessary to pray the Daily Office and say Mass. The order of Lay Brothers, by contrast, was established by the Cistercians as a way of including the illiterate peasant class in the monastery. I suspect a fair number of secular (diocesan) priests were literate – “clerk”, as I understand it, means one who could read and was, hence, applied to the clergy.
It’s true that the Catholic Church suppressed deviant translations of the bible and fought the heretics who promoted them. Technically, secular governments burned said heretics, but we needn’t quible about that. The Tudors, as I recall, were more given to beheading and letting Catholics rot in prison (about the same number as under the Catholic Queen Mary). I understand the Calvinists drowned anabaptists in Lake Geneva, since they were so fond of immersion baptism. Next point.
Your history is as silly as your comment about selling indulgences. If you can’t tell the difference between a thing and the abuse of the thing… well, perhaps you should re-read I Corinthians and stop celebrating Holy Communion, since it was abused.
Obviously, the italics should have been closed at the end of the initial quotation.
[i] Corrected by elf. [/i]
Ok, so who is right about the Filioque, Rome or the Orthodox? If the councils are infallible the final authority, how could the Church split?
Didn’t the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople?
How then can Rome claim to hold authority over the four Eastern patriarchs? Didn’t the 7th Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed that was drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325 and thus isn’t Rome in violation of the council in regard to the Filioque?
They can’t both be right.
Sheesh…typos gallore. I’m getting tired.
“Ok, so who is right about the Filioque, Rome or the Orthodox?” Obviously, one of them is right and the other is not. If I’m not mistaken, there was actually a Lambeth resolution (back when they did that sort of thing) that encouraged Anglicans to consider omitting the Filioque. Anyone want to confirm or deny this?
“If the councils are infallible the final authority, how could the Church split?” That seems rather like asking, if murder is illegal, how can it occur? The Church is One; no departure of Christians from the Church can negate this — not even a Great Schism.
But it’s true that the Great Schism forces us to decide who left the Church. Fortunately, it seems to me that both entities have continued to affirm the authority of the teachings of the Church of first millennium.
Those that have broken off from the ancient Church, on the other hand, seem to dispose of more of her teaching with every passing generation, and are now disposed to re-examine every theological question as though they were the first to consider it.
1978 Lambeth Conference, Resolution 35.3:
“The Conference… requests that all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed”
1988 Lambeth Conference, Resolution 6.5:
“Asks that further thought be given to the Filioque clause, recognising it to be a major point of disagreement, … recommending to the provinces of the Anglican Communion that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause.”
#113 and #114:
Enriching Our Worship 1 contains the Nicene creed without the Filioque. The notes cite a resolution from the ’94 GC authorizing this, and encouraging this form “under the direction of the diocesan bishop or ecclesiastical authority, and with an appropriate educational component.”
Library Jim: You are ignoring the context, which is abundantly clear. I am aware of the varieties of adelphos, of course. But the context, which I mentioned before, you did not comment on. The locals are clearly asking about a specific family, not about members of a tribe or clan. That is, the family is being taken as a unit, for they say that this family is ordinary, just like us, and they justify this observation by saying that they know this family well. Now, Jim, are they talking about father, mother, and children, or father, mother, and are overlooking the ABSENCE of children which they replace with more or less distant relatives. Jim, in this context, will they overlook the absence of other children, given their interest in Joshua’s peculiarities? Isn’t this the entire point: “We know the children too and the other kids are like Mum and Dad, ordinary folks. How can you explain the appearance or an oddity like Joshua?” This context is patent; the neighbors argument perfectlhyclear and reasonable and to-be-expected. They are saying Exactly what we would all say if our dentist neighbor with ordinary kids produced a Christ. Isn’t this so?
Re: #102. Elves, you have scored me for stepping outside civil boundaries. I do not question your responsibilities in this matter. But Words’ Matter’s equating me with VGR is a particular insult, a particularly unjustified slander, that I am surprised that you let pass.
And narcissism? What? Why do you not invoke your authority here?
Ordinarily #102, I would respond,especially in the matter of “miracles,” but I will not give any space to your gratuitous insults.
LM
You would know slander, Morse, since you have indulged it repeatedly in this thread. Unlike your ravings, however, what I said is true. You speak ex cathedra in precisely the same manner as Bp. Robinson, and with as much concern for the facts. Your repeating your absurdities about Catholics and the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” in the face of clear evidence otherwise confirms that as true. It’s clear that you are as much a revisionist (“reappraiser”) as any liberal, though you revise different matters.
Oh, Library Jim, while I am thinking about it, why do y ou want – why would anyone want – Mary to be a perpetual virgin? There is no sign that the Holy Ghost had any such thing in mind, is there? No any sign from Mary that this condition obtained? And we may place her conjugal responsibilities against this strange claim. The neighbors remarked that this family was quite ordinary. Now, I ask you, would they have said that if Mary stayed a virgin and had no other kids? In the neighborhood, would the neighbors know there was something very odd here and would they therefore call this family people like you and me? Jim, these were REAL people; gossip was surely what gossip always is and has been, little neighborhoods are hotbeds of gossip and little is kept hidden. This is the REAL world, not a pious construct. Even out here in the boonies of Maine, I know A LOT about my neighbors, personal stuff indeed, and if joseph and Mary had a really strange kid like Joshua, would I get to know the inside dirt on the family? Even if I didn”t ask, I would hear it all. If Joseph got no sex whatsoever, would I know all about it?
Would I hear Joseph bitching about it in the hardware store? Would that ancient Joseph’s extended family not be up in arms? Would they know his wife was frigid? No kids but this nutcase Joshua? JIm, treat these people as real and then tell me why you would want Mary to remain a virgin all her life? Why would SHE want this?
Larry
I forgot to note that Morse slanders Catholics with charges of idolatry, though we practice legitimate pieties that clearly go back to the much approved “undivided church”. At the same time, he elevates his personal opinons – worshipping himself, in effect – above facts and reason. Now THAT’S some idolatry!
Larry,
Your last post was uneccessarily vulgar and sarcastic. I will not respond further to your posts. My previous links from the Orthodox Churches on this topic gave detailed answers to your arguments if you have the courage to read them with an open mind.
His Peace be with you.
Jim E. <><
re 54: Not the druid crap again. It’s just a Welsh cultural association; it doesn’t have any religious meaning. If you want a druid, you’ll have to talk to our old buddy Oakwyse, er, Melnyk.
[i] This thread has gone considerably off topic and many comments have been removed. Additional off topic and angry comments will be deleted. [/i]
-Elf Lady