|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Perpetual virginity and vaginal birth
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
It's the faith delivered once to the saints handed down through the Church. The tradition of the Apostles.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Which Apostle said that Mary kept perpetual virginity, and where did he say it?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
Here's a shoddy attempt ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The Greek term Aeiparthenos ("Ever Virgin") is attested to by Epiphanius of Salamis from the early 4th century. He's a saint in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and was Bishop of Cyprus - St Mark the Evangelist, a figure identified with John Mark (mentioned in several times in Acts, often in the company of St Peter), was a founder of the Church in Cyprus.
From Mark (as companion to St Paul, who first spread Christianity in the area) there's an unbroken line of apostolic succession through St Barnabas, cousin of St Mark (in 45). At this time it was under the jurisdiction of the Church of Jerusalem and in conformity to their teachings under the leadership of James the Just, to Macarius I - then in 325, we have independent bishops with Gelassios (325) and St Epiphanios (368) - the guy in question, who was using what must have been a concept current amongst the faithful and not scandalous (nobody questioned the belief for some 2,000 years until some people post-Reformation. After all, not even Luther thought it decent to dispute Our Lady's perpetual virginity).
Full of historical holes? Well, who knows. But that's one version of the story!
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity comes from the blessed Theotokos herself. It is also easily deduced from the scriptures by looking at who Christ is - God. Tradition, which is really only the scriptures properly understood does not "develop".
This is that Orthodox argument that I always find so annoying:
a) The Truth™ is that which has always been believed by Christians;
b) We believe X;
c) We don't change;
d) QED ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Protestants who don't recognise the divine institution and divine authority of an apostolic legacy in the Church as founded by Christ (with the living sense of its infallibility, indefectibility and teaching prerogatives) really can't be expected to understand or agree with Tradition.
I understand the ordinary English meaning of the word perfectly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Here's a shoddy attempt
The Greek term Aeiparthenos ("Ever Virgin") is attested to by Epiphanius of Salamis from the early 4th century. He's a saint in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and was Bishop of Cyprus - St Mark the Evangelist, a figure identified with John Mark (mentioned in several times in Acts, often in the company of St Peter), was a founder of the Church in Cyprus.
From Mark (as companion to St Paul, who first spread Christianity in the area) there's an unbroken line of apostolic succession through St Barnabas, cousin of St Mark (in 45). At this time it was under the jurisdiction of the Church of Jerusalem and in conformity to their teachings under the leadership of James the Just, to Macarius I - then in 325, we have independent bishops with Gelassios (325) and St Epiphanios (368) - the guy in question, who was using what must have been a concept current amongst the faithful and not scandalous (nobody questioned the belief for some 2,000 years until some people post-Reformation. After all, not even Luther thought it decent to dispute Our Lady's perpetual virginity).
Full of historical holes? Well, who knows. But that's one version of the story!
It's at least an attempt.
But the sticking point, for me personally, is that I still end up asking where did he get that from?
'Tradition' cannot possibly mean 'cloning' or 'mind meld', however much some might like it to mean that. Individuals are exactly that - individuals. With different thought patterns, and with different ways of understanding things and of expressing things. And with constant slight variations. An unbroken line of succession does little to assure me that every word and every idea expressed by a person in the 4th century can be traced back to the 1st century. That's simply not how the human brain works.
The great value of writing is that it enables you to preserve the expression of something for a longer period of time. In theory, in exactly the same way it was originally expressed, although if the writing has to be copied that too enables variation to occur.
But one only has to spend some time considering the constant paraphrasing and changing of emphasis that occurs on the Ship to notice the way ideas change as they move from one person to another, to the point that they are not recognisably the same idea. And one can also consider well-known cases of wrong or questionable ideas that have developed far, far more quickly than this. Shakespeare did not write "Alas poor Yorick I knew him well". Humphrey Bogart did not say "Play it again Sam". Just watch virtually any episode of QI for more examples of traditional ideas that are either provably wrong or for which there is no evidence.
My own work as a legislative drafter is full of constant examples of people getting things slightly wrong, and has taught me on an almost daily basis the value of primary sources to guard against taking things communicated to me as if they're true if I don't know where the person communicating to me sourced their information and can't verify it myself. If I believed everything my clients told me, most laws I draft would be ineffective - they would fail to achieve what they're supposed to achieve - because they would be based on wrong information. Everything in our office is examined by several people independently because we're well aware that even we, with all our experience, are prone to make unwarranted assumptions and assume that things are right when they're not.
This has nothing to do with me being Protestant, particularly, unless a Protestant is inherently more likely to think in this way. And one of the finest drafters I know is Catholic.
The big stinking problem for me is that there is sometimes this assumption that the human beings in 'the Church', being all holy, are somehow immune from this process of accumulating errors/unverified ideas that I see occurring all over the rest of the planet on an extremely regular basis.
Because my life experience is that the vast majority of human beings simply lack the skills/experience necessary to do the kind of guarding against assumption that is necessary.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
Well... what about the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, when it comes to preventing intrinsic errors?
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Well... what about the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, when it comes to preventing intrinsic errors?
Good point. The problem is that it is clear that not everyone everywhere listens. Otherwise there would never, ever be a divergence in opinion. And we wouldn't have ended up with all these separate churches. In fact, we wouldn't even have ended up with all those councils in the early centuries of the church that were needed to resolve points of theology and suppress heresies.
So then, once you've established that not everyone was following the Holy Spirit's guidance, how exactly do you establish who was and who wasn't?
It becomes difficult. Very difficult.
And about the best thing you can do is go back to the earliest sources and trace antecedents and precedents.
I don't know for certain that the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity is wrong. I consider it questionable. The biggest reason for considering it questionable is not only is there no reference to it in Scriptures, but there is explicit positive reference to 'brothers and sisters'. The doctrine of perpetual virginity is, on its face, not consistent with information we generally consider reliable.
There are 2 ways of getting around that reference. One is linguistic, on the basis that 'brothers and sisters' refers to 'male and female relatives'. This is somewhat viable on its face, although I am not a scholar in 1st century Greek. One would also have to consider why more distant relatives are hanging around with Jesus' mother in the context, but again it's at least viable.
The other way of getting around it is an assertion that Joseph had a previous marriage, an assertion that I find very problematic because there is no clue to this in the texts that the early church considered trustworthy enough to treat as Scripture. I am again faced with a "where did that come from" question that I can't answer with a chapter and verse citation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Such such as when We* come across a Question on Doctrine, and send it down on Remit for consideration by the Elders in Session and Presbytery, for the concurrence of the same, an absolute majority being necessary in both groups, abstentions counting as "No", by which process the Kirk** devotes herself to studious reflection and opens herself to the Will of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to harmoniously fulfill God's Will, as was ordained before all Creation? Is that what you mean?
Why yes, it's a process I understand quite well as I participated in it two years ago. And a spiritually uplifting experience it was too!
But then I wouldn't expect a benighted Roman, who follows Patriarchs and Popes, who err and hath erred, and who has no vote in his Kirk (who since it is not the True Kirk must be some purported Kirk, what an unpleasant thought!) to understand that.
*Those blessed with descent from the Kirk, which has always been and ever shalt be.
**The Gathered People of God
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To take but one example, who was listening to the Holy Spirit about the filioque clause?
There has to be a technique of deciding that question beyond "well MY daddy said that HE was right" or you get nowhere.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I would look to the ecumenical councils. Why are they considered ecumenical? The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos was.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church.
Can you not see the problem in this form of reasoning? All disagreements are automatically resolved in the negative, regardless of merit. It doesn't matter whether the positive has 10% of the numbers or 90% of the numbers.
EDIT: I can also think of examples where everybody in an organisation had accepted something until I, as a drafter external to the organisation, came along and demonstrated to them that what they had accepted was wrong.
The essence of my point of view is that I don't just want to know your conclusion. I want to know your reasoning process.
[ 04. May 2013, 05:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Such such as when We* come across a Question on Doctrine, and send it down on Remit for consideration by the Elders in Session and Presbytery, for the concurrence of the same, an absolute majority being necessary in both groups, abstentions counting as "No", by which process the Kirk** devotes herself to studious reflection and opens herself to the Will of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to harmoniously fulfill God's Will, as was ordained before all Creation? Is that what you mean?
Why yes, it's a process I understand quite well as I participated in it two years ago. And a spiritually uplifting experience it was too!
But then I wouldn't expect a benighted Roman, who follows Patriarchs and Popes, who err and hath erred, and who has no vote in his Kirk (who since it is not the True Kirk must be some purported Kirk, what an unpleasant thought!) to understand that.
*Those blessed with descent from the Kirk, which has always been and ever shalt be.
**The Gathered People of God
A bunch of lay folks sitting around having a chat, even one on spiritual matters, does not necessarily = the power of the Holy Spirit.
However, I'm glad it was an uplifting experience!
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church.
Can you not see the problem in this form of reasoning? All disagreements are automatically resolved in the negative, regardless of merit. It doesn't matter whether the positive has 10% of the numbers or 90% of the numbers.
EDIT: I can also think of examples where everybody in an organisation had accepted something until I, as a drafter external to the organisation, came along and demonstrated to them that what they had accepted was wrong.
The essence of my point of view is that I don't just want to know your conclusion. I want to know your reasoning process.
Maybe he's suggesting that if the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (why not the Copts too) agree, then that's Tradition with a capital T.
Roma et Byzantium locutae sunt – causa finita est
(ed. to conjugate verb)
[ 04. May 2013, 05:41: Message edited by: loggats ]
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And if enough important people agree that the world is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the earth?
People use capital letters when they want something to impress. I am not impressed by capital letters. One of the things my job sometimes involves is stripping them out.
[ 04. May 2013, 05:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church.
Can you not see the problem in this form of reasoning? All disagreements are automatically resolved in the negative, regardless of merit. It doesn't matter whether the positive has 10% of the numbers or 90% of the numbers.
EDIT: I can also think of examples where everybody in an organisation had accepted something until I, as a drafter external to the organisation, came along and demonstrated to them that what they had accepted was wrong.
The essence of my point of view is that I don't just want to know your conclusion. I want to know your reasoning process.
That something is accepted by the whole Church is a sign of the Holy Spirit. I thought I'd already given the reasoning, that the perpetual virginity of Mary has its foundation in who Christ actually is.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if enough important people agree that the world is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the earth?
People use capital letters when they want something to impress. I am not impressed by capital letters. One of the things my job sometimes involves is stripping them out.
I wonder if some people here would have trusted the testimony of the apostles themselves if they'd had the opportunity to hear those men preach.
Re capital letters, they're sometimes used to distinguish between two quite different things and stripping them away, pretending they don't matter, would be vandalism at best.
[ 04. May 2013, 05:50: Message edited by: loggats ]
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That something is accepted by the whole Church is a sign of the Holy Spirit.
The Council of Chalcedon, then, is lacking that sign. Unless you consider the oriental Orthodox churches to not be part of 'the whole Church'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if enough important people agree that the world is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the earth?
People use capital letters when they want something to impress. I am not impressed by capital letters. One of the things my job sometimes involves is stripping them out.
They're sometimes used to distinguish between two quite different things, and stripping them away would be vandalism at best.
I don't strip them away if there's a justification for them. I wouldn't strip them away from 'God' versus 'god' when they represent translations of 2 different terms, one a proper noun for a specific deity and one a general class of supernatural beings.
But your elevation of 'tradition' to 'Tradition' lacks that kind of justification. Unless you can properly define THE Tradition, rather than one 'tradition' among many.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if enough important people agree that the world is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the earth?
People use capital letters when they want something to impress. I am not impressed by capital letters. One of the things my job sometimes involves is stripping them out.
They're sometimes used to distinguish between two quite different things, and stripping them away would be vandalism at best.
I don't strip them away if there's a justification for them. I wouldn't strip them away from 'God' versus 'god' when they represent translations of 2 different terms, one a proper noun for a specific deity and one a general class of supernatural beings.
But your elevation of 'tradition' to 'Tradition' lacks that kind of justification. Unless you can properly define THE Tradition, rather than one 'tradition' among many.
I think it's funny that I've been expected (quite rightly) to qualify things with "according to the Catholic Church" this and "the Catechism says" that, but we can take it for granted that 2,000+ years of Tradition mean nothing, don't deserve any "according to the ancient apostolic Church/es" qualifications, and the faith held by the largest Christian church on the face of the planet is just treated as so much mad mumbling.
Yes I know - appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad antiquitam ad nauseam. Just felt like a little rant. Carry on.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would look to the ecumenical councils. Why are they considered ecumenical? The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos was.
In fact, I have just discovered that this was explicitly NOT accepted by the whole Church. The First Council of Ephesus. 431 AD. The basis of the schism of the far Eastern churches.
What was all that business about no-one questioning it for 2000 years or so, or at least until after the Reformation? Completely and utterly not true. There were churches that did not accept that Mary was Theotokos, never mind accept that the Theotokos was perpetually virgin.
Please note, I'm not asserting that the Nestorians were right. I am just pointing out that the 'everyone believed this' form of argument comes crashing down after a few minutes consulting Wikipedia.
[ 04. May 2013, 06:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would look to the ecumenical councils. Why are they considered ecumenical? The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos was.
In fact, I have just discovered that this was explicitly NOT accepted by the whole Church. The First Council of Ephesus. 431 AD. The basis of the schism of the far Eastern churches.
What was all that business about no-one questioning it for 2000 years or so, or at least until after the Reformation? Completely and utterly not true. There were churches that did not accept that Mary was Theotokos, never mind accept that the Theotokos was perpetually virgin.
Some people are wrong. And that's inescapable unless the only way we can see truth is through a self-destroying relativistic lens.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would look to the ecumenical councils. Why are they considered ecumenical? The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos was.
In fact, I have just discovered that this was explicitly NOT accepted by the whole Church. The First Council of Ephesus. 431 AD. The basis of the schism of the far Eastern churches.
What was all that business about no-one questioning it for 2000 years or so, or at least until after the Reformation? Completely and utterly not true. There were churches that did not accept that Mary was Theotokos, never mind accept that the Theotokos was perpetually virgin.
Some people are wrong. And that's inescapable unless the only way we can see truth is through a self-destroying relativistic lens.
...and this is why I said there was a problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit is around to guard the church against errors.
QED.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would look to the ecumenical councils. Why are they considered ecumenical? The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos was.
In fact, I have just discovered that this was explicitly NOT accepted by the whole Church. The First Council of Ephesus. 431 AD. The basis of the schism of the far Eastern churches.
What was all that business about no-one questioning it for 2000 years or so, or at least until after the Reformation? Completely and utterly not true. There were churches that did not accept that Mary was Theotokos, never mind accept that the Theotokos was perpetually virgin.
Some people are wrong. And that's inescapable unless the only way we can see truth is through a self-destroying relativistic lens.
...and this is why I said there was a problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit is around to guard the church against errors.
QED.
Or there might be a problem with whatever you think constitutes the Sacramental Church founded by Christ through His apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Theology like history, is determined by the winners. If your side lost the argument on a theological point at an Ecumenical Council, obviously the Spirit wasn't with you. And having winnowed out the spiritual dross on this point, the Church is left with the Tradition of the Apostles Once Given. Until the next Council winnows some more out. Or adds some back in like veneration of icons after the iconoclastic brouhaha. Again winners and losers. According to the Ancient Churches winning proves that you are right.
Of course, losing in the Church might just prove that you are a Saint. Just ask Joan of Arc.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand that last comment. [X-post. Replying to loggats.]
If you're trying to suggest that the Holy Spirit protects the true church from error, and that the true church is whichever church that the Holy Spirit has guided correctly each time there has been a schism, and that any church that disagreed is therefore not part of the true church, it's a fairly classic example of a circular argument because even if all that is true it gets you no closer to identifying which church was the one that the Holy Spirit guided.
[ 04. May 2013, 06:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Of course, losing in the Church might just prove that you are a Saint. Just ask Joan of Arc.
St Joan of Arc was executed by the English authorities, and later beatified by the Catholic Church.
I do appreciate your point though. Winners and losers, truth and lies, gathered wheat and burnt chaff.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would look to the ecumenical councils. Why are they considered ecumenical? The Filioque was never accepted by the whole Church. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos was.
In fact, I have just discovered that this was explicitly NOT accepted by the whole Church. The First Council of Ephesus. 431 AD. The basis of the schism of the far Eastern churches.
What was all that business about no-one questioning it for 2000 years or so, or at least until after the Reformation? Completely and utterly not true. There were churches that did not accept that Mary was Theotokos, never mind accept that the Theotokos was perpetually virgin.
Please note, I'm not asserting that the Nestorians were right. I am just pointing out that the 'everyone believed this' form of argument comes crashing down after a few minutes consulting Wikipedia.
The Nestorians went into schism. They were not part of the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Sheer circularity, Ad Orientem. Sheer circularity.
Both you and loggats accept the notion of the true church, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. But the circularity of the argument can be neatly illustrated by the fact that you cannot both be part of the true church as described. And without more, neither of you can establish that your church is the true one and the other church is the false one.
Proving that requires reasoned argument. Not bare assertions. I'd actually be quite interested in hearing proper arguments for and against the filioque clause, for example, but I don't hold high hopes of getting such arguments on this thread.
[ 04. May 2013, 07:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
Both Orthodox and Catholic Churches accept the technical validity of each others sacraments (because they've basically maintained their apostolic character) and in 1965, they lifted the mutual anathemas made against each other in 1054. It's not all bad.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This is really not the place to go into the filioque. Ask IngoB. He's usually happy to discuss how stupid the Orthodox are on that one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
After all, not even Luther thought it decent to dispute Our Lady's perpetual virginity).
The term "decent" in this context is irrelevant and manipulative.
The issue here is truth, not decency, and since the NT says nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity, it is either untrue or unimportant.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That something is accepted by the whole Church is a sign of the Holy Spirit. I thought I'd already given the reasoning, that the perpetual virginity of Mary has its foundation in who Christ actually is.
Ad Orientem, or Loggats or anyone else for that matter, please could you tell me which of the first Seven Councils determines that the Theotokos did or did not remain virgin after the birth of Jesus.
Unusually for a Prod, but apparently like Luther and Calvin, I think it is very possible this was the case, but I don't think it's fundamental, and I don't think it is an affront to her to think otherwise.
If one of the Seven Councils says this, I will accept it. On the say-so of a Bishop of Cyprus, that is evidence of what people believed in Cyprus, but I don't think it makes it compulsory to follow him.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
After all, not even Luther thought it decent to dispute Our Lady's perpetual virginity).
The term "decent" in this context is irrelevant and manipulative.
The issue here is truth, not decency, and since the NT says nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity, it is either untrue or unimportant.
Christ founded a Church, He didn't say anything about worshiping a book.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Enoch, this has a bit on the councils and the PVOM. See the part titled "Church Fathers and the Middle Ages."
Ah. This article claims the following: "The expression 'ever virgin' was taken up by the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which affirms: the Word of God, 'incarnate of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever virgin Mary, was born of her' (DS 422)."
[ 04. May 2013, 07:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On the say-so of a Bishop of Cyprus, that is evidence of what people believed in Cyprus, but I don't think it makes it compulsory to follow him.
That sainted Bishop of Cyprus was certainly in communion with the Church of Jerusalem and I don't see why we have any reason to believe that it was a Cypriot peculiarity.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This article is interesting. I wish there were a citation! There's never one around when you really need one.
quote:
Within the Orthodox doctrinal teaching on the economy of salvation, Mary's identity, role, and status as Theotokos is acknowledged as indispensable, and is for this reason formally defined as official dogma. The only other Mariological teaching so defined is that of her virginity. Both of these teachings have a bearing on the identity of Jesus Christ. By contrast, certain other Marian beliefs which do not bear directly on the doctrine concerning the person of Jesus (for example, her sinlessness, the circumstances surrounding her conception and birth, her Presentation in the Temple, her continuing virginity following the birth of Jesus, and her death), which are taught and believed by the Orthodox Church (being expressed in the Church's liturgy and patristic writings), are nonetheless not formally defined by the Church, and belief in them is not a precondition for baptism.[citation needed]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
Wikis have a habit of doing that.
Thanks for finding a reliable article that sources the use of "ever virgin" in a document from the Second Council of Constantinople.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As ever, I am cursed with the ability to see both sides of this one ... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The Protestant part of me, of course, resonates strongly with Orfeo and even Kaplan - whom I would certainly defend against charges of Bibliolatry against loggats ...
And yet, and yet ...
I don't think it's fair to say that Protestants worship a Book - that's grist for another thread - but I think it is true that we can be inclined to elevate our own individual or idiosyncratic interpretations and/or experiences to an almost Papal or personal Magisterial level at times.
I can understand the wariness and why Protestants are reluctant to accept Tradition with a Big T. It narrows down the options, it can stultefy creativity and yes, Ad Orientem, innovation.
I have no problem whatsover with the idea that both what are now the RC and Orthodox - and the Oriental Orthodox - Churches are the inheritors of an apostolic tradition passed down from the earliest times. No problem whatsoever.
But that's different to the assertion that there was no change or development over that time. At a conservative estimate some scholars have suggested that there were around 30-40 discernible variations on Christianity in the first few centuries - some were unitarian, some were Gnostic, some incredibly batty indeed and some were what came to prevail as Orthodox (or Catholic, the terms being coterminous back then).
Personally - and I have to say that being a Protestant ![[Biased]](wink.gif) - I think that the fact that ALL the Churches that trace their ancestry back to the Patristic era and the formulation of the Creeds are apparently agreed on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary does attest to the antiquity of the belief. It couldn't have arisen spontaneously in churches across the Roman world at that time without precedent.
Ok, I know that leaves groups like the Nestorians out in the cold, but they were iffy about other issues too.
I find myself drawn to Rowan Williams's 'Paleo-Orthodoxy' - an acceptance of the pan-orthodox beliefs of the Pre-Schism (and probably pre-5th century) Christian Church. This means that I face the dilemma of combining that with a degree of what we might call Protestant selectivity.
Even if we get around that and say that we accept it all - Perpetual Virginity included - that still leaves us with the dilemma of whether the RCs, Orthodox or Copts/Armenians etc have got the monopoly on the TruthTM.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The issue here is truth, not decency, and since the NT says nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity, it is either untrue or unimportant.
This is my position too, and it means I find myself utterly unable to connect with the arguments being put forward here by loggats and Ad Orientem. I'm sure you both think you're putting a sensible case across but I just can't get a handle on it. All it seems to be is 'My church says so'.
Is that essentially the argument in favour of Mary's perpetual virginity? I must be missing something because that's such a weak argument, especially as it's already been shown that there was nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity for the first few centuries of Christianity. There's simply no evidence (am I right?) of it being part of the faith passed down from the Apostles.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
My somewhat different tack on this is that an over-emphasis on Mary's uniqueness obscures the other theological truth that she was also a "representative". Of those "of humble state". In other words, not just humble in obedience to God (a great virtue) but humbled by circumstances; of birth, living under occupation, being born as a woman. These things are clearly important in Luke's gospel. The flavour is not just in the Magnificat, but in the proclamation to the synagogue in Luke 4. It is the gospel to "those outside, those unconsidered".
If you buy into the common authorship of Luke and Acts, it is also signalled in the Peter-Cornelius encounter, Philip's meeting with the Ethiopian eunuch, lots of other places.
Luke's birth narrative has no wise men. Humble shepherds hear the good news first.
I think I'm in favour of a "both/and". Many Protestants ignore the significance of Mary as Theotokos and it is to our detriment. But it is also possible to elevate Theotokos to the place where "representative of the powerless" is lost. That's a detriment as well.
I suppose it is all contained in taking seriously the truth that the Incarnation of the fully human fully divine Jesus will speak both to His divinity and His representative humanity. We tend to tip one way or the other on that, rather than striving to hold them together.
[ 04. May 2013, 09:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
After all, not even Luther thought it decent to dispute Our Lady's perpetual virginity).
The term "decent" in this context is irrelevant and manipulative.
The issue here is truth, not decency, and since the NT says nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity, it is either untrue or unimportant.
Christ founded a Church, He didn't say anything about worshiping a book.
If it weren't for the truths set out in the NT there wouldn't be a church.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
loggats: quote:
St Joan of Arc was executed by the English authorities, and later beatified by the Catholic Church.
Just as Jesus was executed by the Romans and the Sanhedrin had nothing to do with it.
Joan was tried under the auspices of Bishop Cauchon for trial by Church law, and then handed over to the English for secular trial and finally execution for heresy. Ironically, the best they could do to get her to the stake was to charge her with going back to wearing men's clothing after agreeing to wear women's garb. That her English, male guards had stolen her female clothing cut no ice with her judges when they accused her of "abjuring".
Later the RCC back-pedaled. I don't think she is even titled a Martyr, just a Virgin. It's a bit embarrassing since the Church was involved in aiding the martyrdom.
[ 04. May 2013, 09:29: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Aussie iconoclasm is well known.
Tangent Alert!
Not true, actually, Gamaliel.
In a genuine people’s movement, in which the uppity public have defied their betters in the bien pensant commentariat, Australians persist in venerating Anzac Day, which commemorates a defeat nearly a century ago in 1915, and have turned it into Australia’s de facto national day.
At the traditional football match held on the afternoon of April 25, a crowd of ninety-three thousand at the MCG observed a minute’s silence before the match, during which you could hear the proverbial pin drop.
I regularly attend the Anzac Day dawn service at Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance, because it is fitting to commemorate service and suffering, and because my father fought in WWII.
There are, however, discordant elements to it.
For a start, there is an inevitable tendency to falsely glorify Australian soldiers, who have a good record, but one which many other countries’ military forces can match.
Then there are the choral renditions of Abide With Me and Be Still My Soul (to Finlandia), which serve no theological purpose but, in a classic example of “civil religion”, are just there to provide a sacred ambience.
And thirdly, there is an over-emphasis on WWI, one of the least justifiable of the conflicts in which Australia has been involved, and a relative depreciation of her involvement in subsequent wars against genuinely repulsive foes such as Nazism, communism, Baathism, Islamofascism and Indonesia’s neo-colonial subjugation of East Timor.
I realize these comments fit more appropriately in the Praying to a flag thread.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thank you Lyda*Rose - we are all guilty of this. We are the church, we are the state, there is no difference. We did this. We are not differentiated from each other at all, in the slightest, as sinless sinners by adherence to one excluding myth or another. Proven by when we declare otherwise.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Enoch, this has a bit on the councils and the PVOM. See the part titled "Church Fathers and the Middle Ages."
Ah. This article claims the following: "The expression 'ever virgin' was taken up by the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which affirms: the Word of God, 'incarnate of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever virgin Mary, was born of her' (DS 422)."
Thank you for this.
There are still plenty of puzzles (like Matthew 1:25) but these give me something more to go on.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Okay, next question:
At least some sources in favour of perpetual virginity argue that Mary had already dedicated herself to virginity - before Gabriel turned up.
I can accept, without heavy exploration for the moment, the notion that there was such a thing as a dedicated virgin in Jewish culture. But, is this consistent with getting married?
I ask because in Christian culture the two are not associated. People such as priests and nuns who have taken vows of chastity do not then go and get married.
[ 04. May 2013, 10:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Married to whom?
Joseph of course!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Kaplan, I am teasing ... I am well aware of the Anzac thing ... I could say more but it would be a tangent ... It'd be good to discuss though. I have some theories which you may or may not appreciate ... I'm intrigued, for instance, how some of the readings/poems used at Aussie Remembrance Day services are actually enshrined by law ...
It's fascinating ...
Meanwhile, on the Bible/Church thing - both/and not either/or.
'No Bible no Church, no Church no Bible.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
