Protestant Monasticism
pe...@freeshell.org
Searching the net has revealed precious few resources on this topic.
It is curious that the monastic tradition isn't stronger in
Protestantism ... at least as far as I've been able to determine.
If you know of any Protestant monastic communities, please let me know
in private email. I'll be happy to post to the newsgroup a summary of
what I learn.
If you have some insight on why this tradition isn't stronger in
Protestantism, that might make for a good topic of discussion on the
group.
Thank you.
--
Mark Perew <pe...@freeshell.org>
To the world you may be just one person,
but to one person you may be the world.
Cunneen
in private email. I'll be happy to post to the newsgroup a summary of
what I learn.
If you have some insight on why this tradition isn't stronger in
Protestantism, that might make for a good topic of discussion on the
group.>>
It's an interesting area of discussion. There are orders of priests and nuns
in both the Episcopal/Anglican tradition and the Lutheran tradition. The most
famous Protestant monastery (actually ecumenical monastery) is that of Taize in
France.
I ran across the following citation indicating someone whose research parallels
yours. You might want to try to get hold of her:
Mary Forman, OSB, Monastery of St. Gertrude, Cottonwood, ID, has several
projects in process. She is investigating different ways in which women
affiliate themselves to monastic life and the rise of Protestant monasteries
after World War II, especially in relation to the founding of ecumenical
monasteries. She is also reviewing the history of blessings for women monastics
through history and the form of lectio divina for medieval women.
Why isn't the monastic life more popular with Protestants? One of the most
important reasons is that monastic life stands for a number of things that the
Reformation rejected: a life of spiritual works, celibacy, daily Eucharist, a
hierarchial structure, regular use of the sacrament of confession, and strong
commitment to the bishops of the church.
Martin Luther and many other Reformers were former monks and nuns, and the
Reformation called for the emphasis to be on Christian marriage and family
life, and not on the lonely spiritual athleticism of the monastic vocation.
Karen Mercedes
Franciscans, and you may want to do a Google (www.google.com) search on
the term "Anglican Franciscan" and "Episcopalian Franciscan" to turn up
some information. There are also Lutheran Franciscans in Scandinavia.
There is also a movement for Inter-Franciscan ecumenism among non-Catholic
and Catholic Franciscans (as well as among only non-Catholic Franciscans).
Similarly, I think were you to do a series of searches you could turn up a
significant amount of information on Anglican, Episcopalian, and Lutheran
members of other orders such as the Carmelites, the Benedictines, etc.
I suggest you start with searches for "protestant+[monk] [nun] [monastery]
[convent]" "anglican [monk] [nun]..." etc. and you will find that while
their numbers may not be great, they ARE definitely out there!
Karen Mercedes
http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
________________________________
One must be something if one
wishes to put on appearances.
- Ludwig von Beethoven
Steve Hayes
>I'm looking for modern day Protestant monastic communities in the US.
>Searching the net has revealed precious few resources on this topic.
>It is curious that the monastic tradition isn't stronger in
>Protestantism ... at least as far as I've been able to determine.
>
>If you know of any Protestant monastic communities, please let me know
>in private email. I'll be happy to post to the newsgroup a summary of
>what I learn.
>
>If you have some insight on why this tradition isn't stronger in
>Protestantism, that might make for a good topic of discussion on the
>group.
It's not stronger in Protestantsm because Protestants generally didn't like
monasteries, and Protestant rulers (like Henry VIII of England) saw the
Reformation as a good excuse to plunder the monastreries and distribute the
loot to their cronies for favours. It was only after 3 centuries had passed
that monasticism began to make a tentative comeback among the Anglicans.
It really isn't surprising at all.
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> If you have some insight on why this tradition isn't stronger in
> Protestantism, that might make for a good topic of discussion on the
> group.
Many Protestant groups are vehemently opposed to monasticism.
Independant Baptists are. I have the impression that, due to the
inherent nature of Protestantism, particularly the belief in the
priesthood of the believer and the equality of all the children of
God, Protestantism is or tends to be hostile to monasticism.
AJA
wrote:
>>If you have some insight on why this tradition isn't stronger in
>>Protestantism, that might make for a good topic of discussion on the
>>group.
>
>It's not stronger in Protestantsm because Protestants generally didn't like
>monasteries, and Protestant rulers (like Henry VIII of England) saw the
>Reformation as a good excuse to plunder the monastreries and distribute the
>loot to their cronies for favours. It was only after 3 centuries had passed
>that monasticism began to make a tentative comeback among the Anglicans.
>
>It really isn't surprising at all.
Well beyond the political issue noted above, was the protest against
abuse of exclusiveness increasingly fostered by the monastic system.
Christian reformers protested against monasticism as being opposed to
Christ's ministry on earth which was to bring Light to the oppressed.
Such as John Wesley spoke against "solitary religion" of those who
troubled themselves only "to work virtues in the [personal] will" and
not in the world. In the gospel of Christ, Wesley said, solitary
religion is not to be found. "The gospel of Christ knows of no
religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness." (John Wesley,
_Hymns and Sacred Poems_, Preface 4,5, XIV:321)
All the best,
Ann
"I walk in wonders beyond myself." --C. S. Lewis
Dennis Parker
pe...@freeshell.org writes:
> I'm looking for modern day Protestant monastic communities in the US.
> Searching the net has revealed precious few resources on this topic.
> It is curious that the monastic tradition isn't stronger in
> Protestantism ... at least as far as I've been able to determine.
>
> If you know of any Protestant monastic communities, please let me know
> in private email. I'll be happy to post to the newsgroup a summary of
> what I learn.
There is a small Lutheran monastry in Oxford, MI (just north of Detroit)
called St Augustine's House. Their web page is
http://www.staugustineshouse.org
- Dennis Parker
remove the SpamTrap to communicate with me.
Daryl
>Well beyond the political issue noted above, was the protest against
>abuse of exclusiveness increasingly fostered by the monastic system.
>Christian reformers protested against monasticism as being opposed to
>Christ's ministry on earth which was to bring Light to the oppressed.
>Such as John Wesley spoke against "solitary religion" of those who
>troubled themselves only "to work virtues in the [personal] will" and
>not in the world. In the gospel of Christ, Wesley said, solitary
>religion is not to be found. "The gospel of Christ knows of no
>religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness." (John Wesley,
>_Hymns and Sacred Poems_, Preface 4,5, XIV:321)
I attend a charismatic church (The Vineyard) which has many points (of
course) that differ from the See of Rome, however our minister, in a sermon
mentioned one of the enviable qualities of the Catholic Church is that they
nurture constant communication with God. It is much rarer to find this in
Protestant churches, and I think the monastic tradition has a great deal to do
with that. Oh we try to get by with our retreats and mission trips but we tend
to slip into worldliness Monday morning.
Daryl
Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. Psalm 127:1
(remove nopax for e-mail)
Eric Bohn
<snip>
> Such as John Wesley spoke against "solitary religion" of those who
> troubled themselves only "to work virtues in the [personal] will" and
> not in the world. In the gospel of Christ, Wesley said, solitary
> religion is not to be found. "The gospel of Christ knows of no
> religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness." (John Wesley,
> _Hymns and Sacred Poems_, Preface 4,5, XIV:321)
The Gosple doesn't really tell much about the prayer life of Christ's
disciples. However, we do see several times where Jesus goes off by
himself to pray for extended periods of time. Sometimes he took with
him a select group of disciples. The focus of the NT was the good
news of Christ, not descriptions of religous ritual or prayer life.
To the people, it should make no difference whether Christ does the
praying and instructs his discples who then preach, or the apostles do
the praying themselves and instruct the people. In both cases God's
message is delivered to the people.
The Church today is a bit different -- it is global organization, but
the same applies. Ultimately all that matters is that the Word is
delivered. The means of deliverance and identity of the messenger are
of secondary importance. This really is a basic Christian principle
-- our focus should be on the Word.
Manners of Christian ritual and prayer life have always been entrusted
to the Church. I see no reason why it shouldn't be this way.
Steve Hayes
Methinks Wesley exaggerated.
What about Christ's sojourn in the desert after his baptism, or his going
aside to pray?
That idea may be part of the reason why monasticism has been less popular
among Protestants, but I'm not sure that it has a valid foundation.
It may also have been the experience of many of the Protestant reformers that
there was a lack of genuine piety in the monasteries, which may in turn have
been caused by a prevailing assumption that any serious Christian would enter
the monastic life, and thus there might have been many monasteries that has
lots of people who were not really called to the monastic life, but dfrifted
in by accident.
Nevertheless, the forced closure of monasteries by Protestant rulers like
Henry VIII of England is the main reason for the lasck of any significant
Protestant monasticism for nearly 300 years.
AJA
wrote:
> I attend a charismatic church (The Vineyard) which has many points (of
>course) that differ from the See of Rome, however our minister, in a sermon
>mentioned one of the enviable qualities of the Catholic Church is that they
>nurture constant communication with God. It is much rarer to find this in
>Protestant churches, and I think the monastic tradition has a great deal to do
>with that. Oh we try to get by with our retreats and mission trips but we tend
>to slip into worldliness Monday morning.
I don't know if there is a fix for worldliness even apart from the
world. The thought occurs to me that you and I are apart from the
world sitting here in our rooms. I think that constant communication
with God may be more an individual choosing. Doesn't that seepage of
worldliness assail Catholic and Protestant alike?
On the other hand, Catholic friends tell me that constant
communication with God is the Eucharist. And that is something the
Protestant has to work out in the heart.
Daryl
>I don't know if there is a fix for worldliness even apart from the
>world. The thought occurs to me that you and I are apart from the
>world sitting here in our rooms. I think that constant communication
>with God may be more an individual choosing.
But doesn't it seem there is an element of traning and discipline involved as
well? One of the plays about Thomas a' Becket (I think T.S. Eliot's but I'm not
sure) has him saying monastic life was sinful to him because it was too easy,
being with God all the time.
>Doesn't that seepage of
>worldliness assail Catholic and Protestant alike?
Yes, but I think less in a monastery.
> Catholic friends tell me that constant
>communication with God is the Eucharist. And that is something the
>Protestant has to work out in the heart.
I find it gets easier as one ages.
(this might be a good discussion for another newsgroup ;-) )
Richard Alexander
> I attend a charismatic church (The Vineyard) which has many points (of
> course) that differ from the See of Rome, however our minister, in a sermon
> mentioned one of the enviable qualities of the Catholic Church is that they
> nurture constant communication with God.
That is just plain bizarre. One of the distinctives of the Protestant
Reformation is the priesthood of the believer, that each believer has
equal access to God, and does not need to have a priest intercede. It
was the Protestants that made the push (against lethal Catholic
opposition) to get a copy of the Bible into the hands of every layman.
It was (and sometimes still is) the Protestant churches that told the
laymen that they need to read the Bible every day. It was Protestant
groups that established Bible societies and encouraged Bible
memorization.
> It is much rarer to find this in
> Protestant churches, and I think the monastic tradition has a great deal to do
> with that.
Most of the Catholics that I know (and I've known several) do not pray
every day. They don't read their Bibles very often, if at all. And,
most certainly, they don't live in a monastery. So, if the monastic
life is what accounts for a Catholic's communication with God, only a
very small percentage of Catholics fall in that category.
Several people have mentioned that monasticism involves separating a
small group into seclusion for the purpose of--what? Deeper
communication with God? So, what does that say about the larger group
that *does not* go into seclusion?
One of the remarkable attributes of Catholicism is how very negligible
religion is in the lives of the average layman. The priesthood held
the role of serving God and living holy lives. If you want to be holy,
you become a priest. The average Catholic does well to attend a few
services a year and burn some candles.
If Protestants have fallen short of living sacred lives, it is due to
modernism and secularization. From the beginning, it was not so.
> Oh we try to get by with our retreats and mission trips but we tend
> to slip into worldliness Monday morning.
What makes you think the average Catholic layman does any better?
You do realize that only a small percentage of Catholics ever entered
or enter a monastery? Monasteries are not like mission trips or
retreats, in which a person might go for a week one year but not go at
all the next year.
In any event, people allow themselves to behave as they do. If a
person needs a retreat to keep himself mindful of God, he should work
on disciplining himself. Misbehavior is not excusable on the basis
that the person was in a crowd at the time.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> What about Christ's sojourn in the desert after his baptism, or his going
> aside to pray?
There is a difference between solitude and privacy and monastic life.
Jesus spent a night in prayer, then returned to preaching to the
crowds, and told His followers to go into their closets to pray. Even
the most virulant anti-monastics I've known would encourage private
devotional time.
Chris Smith
> > I attend a charismatic church (The Vineyard) which has many points (of
> > course) that differ from the See of Rome, however our minister, in a sermon
> > mentioned one of the enviable qualities of the Catholic Church is that they
> > nurture constant communication with God.
>
> That is just plain bizarre.
I don't think so... but then, I'm Catholic. I guess you'd expect that.
I think what you'll find is that there are things about the Catholic
Church that encourage communication with God on a constant basis, and
that there are things about Protestant Churches that do so. They do so
in different ways, and Protestants are more likely to appreciate the
ways that God is present in their lives, and Catholics the ways that God
is present in their lives.
> One of the distinctives of the Protestant
> Reformation is the priesthood of the believer, that each believer has
> equal access to God, and does not need to have a priest intercede.
I agree that the priesthood of the laity is an important concept; and
it's a shame that it wasn't fully taught in the Catholic Church until
Vatican II. On the other hand, I don't think the priesthood of the
laity requires the rejection of the ordained priesthood established by
Christ. I also don't think that the existence of an exterior priesthood
at all diminishes the common and universal priesthood.
Catholics have never believed that they could not be in the presence of
God without a priest around. Catholics, indeed, have a strong private
devotional tradition that has persevered for many centuries... and is
among those things most frequently criticized by protestant observers of
the Church. The entire purpose of these private devotions was and is to
be consciously in the presence of God. Catholics also believe in the
Mass, and in far more frequent communion, which is a very real sense of
God's presence.
> It was the Protestants that made the push (against lethal Catholic
> opposition) to get a copy of the Bible into the hands of every layman.
This is a factual point on which I've seen few unbiased accounts... so I
don't have much of an opinion; except that it seems to me that it's
partly true, that it's partly an exaggeration of the efforts of the
Church to restrict what it saw as flawed *translations* of the Bible,
and it's partly flat backwards stemming from misinterpretations of the
actions of the Church that were designed to *encourage* as many people
as possible to read the Bible.
In any case, this is a different matter than prayer and communication
with God. Scripture *can* be used in prayer, but it can also be read in
a spirit that is far from prayer. It is a good thing to read in either
case, but it's not communication if the reader in not receptive to God
speaking while studying scripture.
> Most of the Catholics that I know (and I've known several) do not pray
> every day. They don't read their Bibles very often, if at all. And,
> most certainly, they don't live in a monastery.
Right... but the same could be said of most Protestants that I know.
This isn't a consequence of the aspects of that faith; it's a
consequence of the general secularization of our world. Historically, I
can point to quite a few massive efforts, some largely successful, on
the part of the Catholic Church to encourage regular prayer by all
people. Many of these, for example, are focused on the Rosary... and
the Rosary *was* a daily prayer experience for many Catholic families of
about fourty years ago. Unfortunately, that's now been subsumed by the
same busyness and warped values that equally keep everyone else from
praying as much as they should.
> So, if the monastic
> life is what accounts for a Catholic's communication with God, only a
> very small percentage of Catholics fall in that category.
No, it's not. A good number of Catholics (though still a definite
minority) attend daily Mass. A good number keep devotions in the Rosary
or other forms of prayer. Catholics are in my experience more likely to
work occasions of prayer into their daily lives; morning and evening
prayers, prayers before and after meals, etc.
> Several people have mentioned that monasticism involves separating a
> small group into seclusion for the purpose of--what? Deeper
> communication with God? So, what does that say about the larger group
> that *does not* go into seclusion?
It says that they haven't gone into the monastic life. If they don't go
into monastic life, and *then* fail to keep up their relationship in God
in other ways as well, then there's a problem; but not even devoted
monastics would look to condemn someone for not joining a monastary.
Nevertheless, it is true that living a life in the presence and
acknowledgement of God is more difficult in the world at large. If it
is too difficult for a specific person, then perhaps they are better off
devoting themselves to monastic life than living a worldly life without
God.
> One of the remarkable attributes of Catholicism is how very negligible
> religion is in the lives of the average layman. The priesthood held
> the role of serving God and living holy lives. If you want to be holy,
> you become a priest. The average Catholic does well to attend a few
> services a year and burn some candles.
>
> If Protestants have fallen short of living sacred lives, it is due to
> modernism and secularization. From the beginning, it was not so.
I think you're falling into a trap of comparing the flawed pictures of
Catholics that you know (who, incidentally, seem to be very poor
examples of Catholics in the first place if you're describing them
accurately), against an ideal picture of Protestant faiths which is
unmarred by the very real difficulties that people have in living *that*
calling.
The fact is that there *are* plenty of Christians in all traditions who
fail to live lives that can be called holy. In many cases, for both
Catholics and Protestants, it is exactly that secularization and
modernism that you mention which makes worldly faith difficult.
It's interesting that, through all of history until the present, you'd
have a very hard time accusing Catholics of not living in the constant
awareness of God's actions in the world. In fact, it's Catholics who
have this public image formed of the many small devotionals and
reminders of God that have always been a part of their lives: the sign
of the cross, lips moving in silent prayer, refusing meat at certain
times, and regular attendance at Mass (even "bad" Catholics at least end
up in church at least once a week). Indeed, the dangers in Catholic
history have tended to be in the errors that Catholics make in their
faith, since they were poorly catechized, rather than the extent of
their faith and awareness of God.
These days, just as Protestant churches are seeing problems with
worldliness and lack of faith, Catholic churches are seeing the same.
It seems silly to blame one and not the other.
--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
Richard K Bethell
> That is just plain bizarre. One of the distinctives of the Protestant
> Reformation is the priesthood of the believer, that each believer has
> equal access to God, and does not need to have a priest intercede. It
The priesthood of the believer is not an unknown concept in Catholicism.
It played a significant role in Vatican II. The role of vocational
priesthood is to administer the sacraments. However to claim Catholics
believe themselves to be without a share in the common priesthood is simply
wrong. Our Bible also contains 1 Peter 2:9.
>> It is much rarer to find this in
>> Protestant churches, and I think the monastic tradition has a great deal to do
>> with that.
>
> Most of the Catholics that I know (and I've known several) do not pray
> every day. They don't read their Bibles very often, if at all. And,
> most certainly, they don't live in a monastery. So, if the monastic
> life is what accounts for a Catholic's communication with God, only a
> very small percentage of Catholics fall in that category.
You're overstating your case based on personal anecdotal information that
you appear to be trying to shape into the form you would like it to take.
I have come to know many Catholics (and like-minded Anglicans and
Lutherans) with a vigorous prayer life that includes the matins, evensong,
and nighttime vespers, not to mention novenas aplenty. And these are
people attending retreats, Cursillos, and spending a week or two of their
year in monastic retreat. No insignificant portion of these peoples' lives
is devoted to prayer.
And I know no shortage of Protestants that think the occasional utterance
of Jabez to score some weekend cash constitutes a prayer life. There
are many strong in the spirit and weak in the spirit on both sides of the
fence.
--
Richard K Bethell (cj...@freenet.carleton.ca)
Postmen are tasty. Just ask your dog.
* http://www.ncf.ca/ | NCF Website Team Coordinator
* Visit my PostScript page at http://www.ncf.ca/~cj434/
Daryl
>That is just plain bizarre. One of the distinctives of the Protestant
>Reformation is the priesthood of the believer, that each believer has
>equal access to God, and does not need to have a priest intercede. It
>was the Protestants -snip-
Weren't speaking of history, just of an observation that this particular sort
of thing (closer communion with God) seemed rarer in even Godly Protestants. It
was not the result of scientific study, but he does meet a fairly large sample
of ministers etc.
Nor was he proposing that he did not disagree with them (Catholics) on a good
many points, he just found this one commendable, (would you suggest penance
:-))
>In any event, people allow themselves to behave as they do. If a
>person needs a retreat to keep himself mindful of God, he should work
>on disciplining himself.
Which was the main thrust of the sermon.
>Misbehavior is not excusable on the basis
>that the person was in a crowd at the time.
I was speaking of an omission, are we on the same wavelength here?
Misbehavior seems a bit more active than what I was picturing, not that failure
to pray is not misbehavior, but it seems strange to characterize it like that.
Cunneen
religion is in the lives of the average layman. The priesthood held
the role of serving God and living holy lives. If you want to be holy,
you become a priest. The average Catholic does well to attend a few
services a year and burn some candles.>>
We have a term: "practicing Catholic" to describe what a REAL Catholic is.
Practicing Catholics pray, attend Mass each week, are generous with their time,
talents and treasure, and care for the poor and the needy. Your "Catholic"
friends are Catholic in name only, it seems.
Richard Alexander
> Richard Alexander wrote ...
> > dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote in message news:<RT6S9.7271$LY3....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> > > I attend a charismatic church (The Vineyard) which has many points (of
> > > course) that differ from the See of Rome, however our minister, in a
> > > sermon mentioned one of the enviable qualities of the Catholic Church
> > > is that they nurture constant communication with God.
[snip]
> In any case, this is a different matter than prayer and communication
> with God. Scripture *can* be used in prayer, but it can also be read in
> a spirit that is far from prayer. It is a good thing to read in either
> case, but it's not communication if the reader in not receptive to God
> speaking while studying scripture.
I would say that is true of any religious exercise.
[snip]
> Historically, I
> can point to quite a few massive efforts, some largely successful, on
> the part of the Catholic Church to encourage regular prayer by all
> people. Many of these, for example, are focused on the Rosary... and
> the Rosary *was* a daily prayer experience for many Catholic families of
> about fourty years ago.
I admit that I was not recalling the old traditions of which I've
heard, much of which was fading away before I was born. I have never
seen a Catholic pray the Rosary, though I have seen stickers
encouraging it. So, there are at least two reasons for my not
recalling such practices: 1) they aren't so common today in my
experience; 2) I never was very impressed with their spiritual
usefulness. I come from a background that insists that praying the
Rosary is nothing more than a superstitious exercise, no different
than a Buddhist spinning his prayer wheel, and equally vain,
particularly in that the Rosary usually is not directly addressed to
God, but to Mary. Devotion to Mary is distraction from God.
[snip]
> > So, if the monastic
> > life is what accounts for a Catholic's communication with God, only a
> > very small percentage of Catholics fall in that category.
>
> No, it's not.
What you point out in the following would, I think, show that the
monastic life is not the source of Catholic religious mindfulness.
> A good number of Catholics (though still a definite minority) attend
> daily Mass. A good number keep devotions in the Rosary or other forms
> of prayer. Catholics are in my experience more likely to work occasions
> of prayer into their daily lives; morning and evening prayers, prayers
> before and after meals, etc.
I have never seen a Catholic pray before eating, and hardly any other
time, either. I have seen a few Lutherans do so, and maybe that is
close enough to count as evidence. In fairness, I have to admit that I
haven't seen terribly many non-Catholics pray before eating in public,
either. I do not recall visiting a Catholic home during meals, so I do
not even have anecdotal experience for that.
It may be interesting and useful for you to know that I was enrolled
in several Christian schools between the 2nd and 8th Grades
(inclusive), and I attended a church-run Bible college. When I was in
the schools, prayer was inescapable, as it should be. Of course, those
were prayers initiated and often led by the administration, not
spontaneous prayers. Maybe spontaneous prayers are more difficult to
witness?
I suggested to my Bible college professors that it might be nice to
hang framed Scripture verses on the walls of the school. They asked me
why I would desire such a thing, and concluded by rejecting my
suggestion. That seemed rather odd to me at the time, just another
oddity I found in Southern Christianity.
[snip]
Ed Prochak
> dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote in message news:<RT6S9.7271$LY3....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>
>> I attend a charismatic church (The Vineyard) which has many points (of
>>course) that differ from the See of Rome, however our minister, in a sermon
>>mentioned one of the enviable qualities of the Catholic Church is that they
>>nurture constant communication with God.
>
>
> That is just plain bizarre. One of the distinctives of the Protestant
> Reformation is the priesthood of the believer, that each believer has
> equal access to God, and does not need to have a priest intercede. It
> was the Protestants that made the push (against lethal Catholic
> opposition) to get a copy of the Bible into the hands of every layman.
Note: initially, at least, bibles were not available for laymen
(pre-printing press, so all copies were done by hand). The Catholic
Church did not oppose the availability of the Bible.
That opposition was targetted more to the many heresies that sprang up
along with the changes suggested by Luther and others.
> It was (and sometimes still is) the Protestant churches that told the
> laymen that they need to read the Bible every day. It was Protestant
> groups that established Bible societies and encouraged Bible
> memorization.
Yes and this was a good thing. Many Catholics now also study the bible
directly. Others use the daily missal which includes the scripture
readings for each day of the year. There are many groups in the Catholic
tradition the study the bible regularly. And there are those like me who
just pick it up on our own (sometimes with prodding from protestants
like you. Thanks.)
>>It is much rarer to find this in
>>Protestant churches, and I think the monastic tradition has a great deal to do
>>with that.
>
> Most of the Catholics that I know (and I've known several) do not pray
> every day. They don't read their Bibles very often, if at all. And,
I know many protestants that don't pray or read the bible daily. I heard
a radio talk show just yesterday mention that a little over half (IIRC
it was 51%) of the members of a large protestant denomination do not
read the Bible. So this is not a significant arguement. (and yes I would
grant the the pecentage of Catholics is lower. but the point is other
churches have their work cut out for them too.)
> most certainly, they don't live in a monastery. So, if the monastic
> life is what accounts for a Catholic's communication with God, only a
> very small percentage of Catholics fall in that category.
>
> Several people have mentioned that monasticism involves separating a
> small group into seclusion for the purpose of--what? Deeper
> communication with God? So, what does that say about the larger group
> that *does not* go into seclusion?
The members of the monastic groups pray for those of us who reamin in
the world. I sure appreciate all the help I can get!
I do not know exactly the point the minister was making. I would expect
that it is beyond the monastic tradition. Other prayers, like grace at
meals, rosaries, and other short prayers may be part of what he
discussed. The tradition of saying "God bless you" for sneezing for
example. Catholics can have a very rich prayer life.
> One of the remarkable attributes of Catholicism is how very negligible
> religion is in the lives of the average layman. The priesthood held
> the role of serving God and living holy lives. If you want to be holy,
> you become a priest. The average Catholic does well to attend a few
> services a year and burn some candles.
Again you generalize about Catholic practices. Replace "Catholicism"
with your church and priesthood with minister. It reads almost exactly
the same, ie, it seems true.
We have to learn to look beyond our differences and the pain we caused
each other in the past. The greatest fights are often between family
members. We are brothers and sisters in Christ.
>
> If Protestants have fallen short of living sacred lives, it is due to
> modernism and secularization. From the beginning, it was not so.
Here we can agree, if by "the beginning" you refer to the time of the
apostles and the first century church. There have been a lot of changes
since then. We are after all a prigrim people.
>
>
>>Oh we try to get by with our retreats and mission trips but we tend
>>to slip into worldliness Monday morning.
>
> What makes you think the average Catholic layman does any better?
Hopefully you do not mean that Catholics on average do any worse?
(Let's not get into this because it would come down to how do you
really compare? I can see nothing good coming out of that discussion.)
> You do realize that only a small percentage of Catholics ever entered
> or enter a monastery? Monasteries are not like mission trips or
> retreats, in which a person might go for a week one year but not go at
> all the next year.
Yes the number of monastics is very small. But similarly to the widows
that Paul mentions, they are able to devote all their attention and
activities to God.
> In any event, people allow themselves to behave as they do. If a
> person needs a retreat to keep himself mindful of God, he should work
> on disciplining himself. Misbehavior is not excusable on the basis
> that the person was in a crowd at the time.
If there is one point we can agree on, it is personal responsibility. We
each will be judged, not by the opinions of others, not by our parents
or other ancestors, not by our wealth or position in society, but by our
our actions and choices. If we do not choose Christ, we're in a heap of
trouble.
--
Ed Prochak
running: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
family: http://web.magicinterface.com/~collins
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost
Cunneen
Rosary is nothing more than a superstitious exercise, no different
than a Buddhist spinning his prayer wheel, and equally vain,
particularly in that the Rosary usually is not directly addressed to
God, but to Mary. Devotion to Mary is distraction from God.>>
Another example of misinformation. The Rosary is a method of meditating on
Christ's birth, death and resurrection. It consists of fifteen (recently
increased to twenty) "scenes" from the life of Christ and the early church.
Each "scene" (we call it a "mystery") sets a tableau to think about and immerse
oneself in. For example the first Joyful mystery is the "Annunciation of the
Angel to Mary" from the beginning of Luke. We picture ourselves there in the
presence of Mary and the angel and we lift our minds and hearts to God in
praise and thanksgiving.
The prayers we say are really background to the meditation. We start with the
Lord's Prayer and end with a Doxology. In between, to more or less keep time,
we say the 10 Hail Marys, each of which consists of two parts: the first echoes
the angelic salutation ("Hail, Mary, full of grace ...") and the greeting of
Elizabeth ("blessed art thou among women ..."), while the second is a request
for Mary's prayers for us. "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now
and at the hour of our death. Amen."
Except for the second half of the Hail Mary, I know very few Christians who
theologically could object to any of the rosary. I know Methodists who pray
the rosary, but only use the first half of the Hail Mary. "Hail, Mary, full of
grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb, Jesus." That would be a very ecumenical rosary.
All of the "mysteries" are from scripture except the last two: the Assumption
of Mary into Heaven, and the Crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven. The other 18
are right out of the bible. My Methodist friends I think take two scenes from
Revelation instead of these two. I don't remember what they are, but I think
it's the white throne judgement and the descent of the New Jerusalem, some sort
of alternate heavenly scenes.
Cunneen
> small group into seclusion for the purpose of--what? Deeper
> communication with God? So, what does that say about the larger group
> that *does not* go into seclusion?>>
Protestant sects like the Amish or the Shakers have definite monastic
similarities. They usually dress simply and work with their hands. In the case
of the Shakers, they also practiced celibacy, although that's admittedly rare
in Protestantism. They all have a regular cycle of prayer and work, even
including set times for gathering as a community.
Monasteries often provide retreat facilities, so that others can come and share
in their prayer and even in their work. They are usually quite open to new
members, and many come for awhile but do not stay. That's perfectly
acceptable; only after a long period of initiation is a person accepted as a
permanent committed member of the monastic community.
Ron Chaplin
> It may also have been the experience of many of the Protestant reformers
that
> there was a lack of genuine piety in the monasteries, which may in turn
have
> been caused by a prevailing assumption that any serious Christian would
enter
> the monastic life, and thus there might have been many monasteries that
has
> lots of people who were not really called to the monastic life, but
dfrifted
> in by accident.
>
> Nevertheless, the forced closure of monasteries by Protestant rulers like
> Henry VIII of England is the main reason for the lasck of any significant
> Protestant monasticism for nearly 300 years.
You have right here the clue as to why monasticism is rare in Protestant
denominations.
Henry's decision to destroy the monasteries was, by most historical
accounts, widely popular. Why? Because the various monasteries and abbeys had
abused their power and privileges, exacting crippling economic burdens
on the communities in which they were located.
These kinds of abuses were exactly what lay at the root of the Protestant
Reformation.
The same fury against the monasteries would be demonstrated, almost
two centuries later, during the French Revolution, when most of
France's monasteries and abbeys were destroyed by the mobs. The
Protestant Reformation in France was a "failed" project, and
Protestantism was suppressed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of
Nantes in the late 17th century. This suppression of reform in the
Church was one of the reasons for the anti-clerical fury of the
revolution more than a century later.
Ironically, one of the few Protestant denominations in which monastic
religious orders can be found today is the Anglican/Episcopalian
communion.
Ron Chaplin
Ottawa
Loren
> <<I come from a background that insists that praying the
> Rosary is nothing more than a superstitious exercise, no different
> than a Buddhist spinning his prayer wheel, and equally vain,
> particularly in that the Rosary usually is not directly addressed to
> God, but to Mary. Devotion to Mary is distraction from God.>>
>
> Another example of misinformation. The Rosary is a method of meditating on
> Christ's birth, death and resurrection. It consists of fifteen (recently
> increased to twenty) "scenes" from the life of Christ and the early church.
> Each "scene" (we call it a "mystery") sets a tableau to think about and immerse
> oneself in. For example the first Joyful mystery is the "Annunciation of the
> Angel to Mary" from the beginning of Luke. We picture ourselves there in the
> presence of Mary and the angel and we lift our minds and hearts to God in
> praise and thanksgiving.
And yet, as I watch RC TV on cable, the watch/listen to its use (and
it sell) one rarely, if ever, hears mention of Christ. It is in
realistic usage, centered around Marianism. Certainly I have read the
RC apologies and they wager the paradigm that you yourself counsel us
to believe. However, what is denied is the actually use by the
populace, including the popular priesthood as opposed to the RC
apologetic theologians. In all my years of conversing with RC's, the
Rosary *always* homes in on Mary and her intercession to such an
extend that the one Mediator and Advocate become merely an asterisk.
>
> The prayers we say are really background to the meditation. We start with the
> Lord's Prayer and end with a Doxology.
I don't know a single RC who does that. Not a one. They pray the
Rosary and begin and end it with "Hail Mary." I'm not discounting the
fact that in theologically initiated that some do as you insist, but
again, the truth is that the popular use of the Rosary is nothing less
than idolatry -thinking or supposing God to other than He is. There
is only one Mediator and to involve Mary in any way is contrary to the
teachings of the apostles and early church.
> Except for the second half of the Hail Mary, I know very few Christians who
> theologically could object to any of the rosary. I know Methodists who pray
> the rosary, but only use the first half of the Hail Mary. "Hail, Mary, full of
> grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
> fruit of thy womb, Jesus." That would be a very ecumenical rosary.
But in light of Protestant theology, even here it is wrongly supposed.
To "hail" Mary is wrong because never are we called, encouraged,
admonished to use a dead saint as an inter-mediary. The one who is
now born of God and is "in Christ" comes boldly him/herself before the
throne of God. Christ is our mediator. It is a personal relationship
with God Himself and no longer requires human intercessors as was true
in the OT paradigm. This is where the Catholic priesthood is
anti-Biblical. It reincorporates the sacrifices with a priesthood
which both have no place in the economy of the new covenant. Sola
gratia.
>
> All of the "mysteries" are from scripture except the last two: the Assumption
> of Mary into Heaven, and the Crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven.
It depends.
Jer. 44:25 thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, as follows:
'As for you and your wives, you have spoken with your mouths and
fulfilled {it} with your hands, saying, "We will certainly perform our
vows that we have vowed, to burn sacrifices to the queen of heaven and
pour out libations to her." Go ahead and confirm your vows, and
certainly perform your vows!'
This idea of a "Queen of Heaven" is a very very old one. It is yet
another example of the false teachings of the ancient mystery
religions finding home and practice within the RCC. Again, read
Humboldt's "Mexican Researches" wherein he documents the foundings of
the conquering RC Spanish. They found a very developed Mother/Child
religion which the RC priests recorded and sent back to Rome the
account of how parallel the pagan religion found in Mexico was to RC
goddess-mother. And even earlier yet, Augustine himself (Des Civitate
Dei) Vesta, the virgin goddess is none other than the pagan Venus.
Thus the RCC maintains that the Gen prophecy given to Adam immediately
after the fall was not referring so much to the "seed" of the woman
but rather the woman herself who would bruise the head of the serpent.
"She shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise her heel." Again,
as in the Rosary, Mary is dominant and the Messiah is an asterisk.
This is the historic paradigm of the heresy of the "queen of heaven."
The "branch-bearer" or the dove is often depicted resting upon her
head which is an ancient way of declaring her deity. Layard in
"Discoveries in the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon" records that the
deified queen mother was identified as actually being the Dove and the
sculptures and the plates discovered depict the dove as representing
the member of the Assyrian trinity. Thus the Assyrian "Juno" or
"Virgin Venus" were co-identified and understood by the later Greek
term "pneumos" or "spirit. Clericus in his "Philos. Orient"
documents: "The Mother of gods was worshipped by the Persians, the
Syrians and all the kings of Europe and Asia with profounnd religious
veneration."
History records a more public record of truth behind the absorption of
this heresy by Rome.
> The other 18
> are right out of the bible. My Methodist friends I think take two scenes from
> Revelation instead of these two. I don't remember what they are, but I think
> it's the white throne judgement and the descent of the New Jerusalem, some sort
> of alternate heavenly scenes.
Actually, it is Rev 17:5.
The greatest robbery about all of this which I think is almost so
obvious that no Protestant recognizes it, is that we have reacted so
negatively to this deification of Mary, thus Marlotry, that we are
brought almost to the point of not being able to honor Mary and her
place in history at all. It is such a aversion for us to think of
Mary worshipped or prayed to as "Mediator" that we don't think of her
at all or very rarely. She does indeed deserve honor. But she
deserves no more veneration than any other saint where it be Paul or
John or even myself! Yes, myself. For I too have been called by the
grace of God to be a saint, a member of the royal priesthood. But
that goes for all true believers. Certainly some will receive greater
rewards in heaven than others, but we are all equal before God. It
necessarily required by the Trinitarian not to deify any creator,
including Mary. And I know there will be vehement denial of her
deification by the RCC, but that simply is not either the practice
nor the record.
Msgr. Joseph Pohle, PhD., DD,. in "Mariolgy" writes: kecharitomena
means a woman full of grace -endowed not merely with extrinsic graces
proper to her state of life but with a full measure of sanctifying
grace, which precedes the grace of vocation, strictly so called, by
way of preparation and endowment. . . " such that ". . .the fullness
of grace enjoyed by the Blessed Virgin Mary must be conceived as a
superabundance of Interior Holiness." Such a statement is contrary to
the whole principle of grace as taught by the apostles in the NT. We
not only merit nothing by grace but grace itself bestows no merit. The
fact that grace is a gift denies any possibility of it being merited
nor does it in anyway provide merit to be dispensed. Grace is
undeniably unmerited and those to whom it is granted have no claim to
it whatsoever. (Rom 11:35) Yet it was Pius IX who defined the RC
dogma by stating "We define that the Blessed Virgin Mary was in the
first instant of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege
of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour
of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."
(Catholic Catechism, p 81). Certainly RC apologist themselves
footnote that "the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not expressly
enunciated in the Sacred Scriptures" (Pohle, "Mariology" p 42) and
further, "True, the exegetical argument from these texts, taken by
itself, scarcely exceeds the limits of probability; but the lack of
scriptural evidence can be abundantly supplied from the writings of
the Fathers" as Pohle's editor, Preuss, notes. Thus the RC
denunciation of sola scriptura: "this circumstance will have no
weight against its acceptance, except with those who assume, without a
scrap of reason, that the whole of the revelation given by God is
contained in the inspired Books." (Fr. SJ Hunter). So RC writers feel
absolved and write things like:
"Vested with this wonderful glory, the holy Virgin arrived at the
throne of the divinity, and the three divine Persons received her into
their eternal and indissoluble embrace. She seemed as if absorbed
within the three divine Persons, and as if submerged in the infinite
ocean of the abyss of the Divinity; the saints heard these words of
the Eternal Father: 'Our Daughter Mary has been elected and chosen by
our eternal will as the only and singular one among all creatures, and
she is also the first in our delights. She has never degenerated from
her title of Daughter, which in the Divine Understanding has been
given her from all eternity; therefore she has a right to our eternal
kingdom, of which she is to be acknowledged and crowned the legitimate
Sovereign and Queen." (Mary of Jesus of Agreda, "The Life of the
Blessed Virgin Mary" p 430).
What blasphemy. What utter blasphemy to equate Mary with the Trinity
by teaching that she is absorbed by Them and is therefore equal in
reverence, title and worship. What blasphemy! To equate "Daughter"
as a counter part to the "Son." What blasphemy! This is the true
dogma of the RCC and part of the doctrine of the Rosary. This is also
the historical record regarding the ancient mystery religions and
their doctrines concerning the "Queen of Heaven." The son is always
subserviant to her. And before there is written a reply, note that I
used RC references. These are the teachings of the RCC itself.
Cunneen
another example of the false teachings of the ancient mystery
religions finding home and practice within the RCC. >>
Yes, very old. Why, it's even in Revelation 12! If you want to see Scripture
and Mary depicted, check out Our Lady of Guadalupe. "She gave birth to a son,
a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was
caught up to God and his throne." And whose child was caught up to God? Hint:
Acts 1. And who was this woman? Rev. 12 starts:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon
under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." Sounds like Queen of
Heaven to me....
Cunneen
other saint where it be Paul or
John or even myself! Yes, myself. For I too have been called by the grace of
God to be a saint, a member of the royal priesthood.>>
We expect our saints to have "finished the course, to have fought the good
fight" before we call them Saints. But I'll grant that we Christians are a
holy people, a royal priesthood, but only as a work in progress. The clay is
still being molded by the Potter.
Cunneen
throne of the divinity, and the three divine Persons received her into
their eternal and indissoluble embrace. She seemed as if absorbed
within the three divine Persons, and as if submerged in the infinite
ocean of the abyss of the Divinity; the saints heard these words of
the Eternal Father: 'Our Daughter Mary has been elected and chosen by
our eternal will as the only and singular one among all creatures, and
she is also the first in our delights. She has never degenerated from
her title of Daughter, which in the Divine Understanding has been
given her from all eternity; therefore she has a right to our eternal
kingdom, of which she is to be acknowledged and crowned the legitimate
Sovereign and Queen." (Mary of Jesus of Agreda, "The Life of the
Blessed Virgin Mary" p 430).
What blasphemy. What utter blasphemy to equate Mary with the Trinity
by teaching that she is absorbed by Them and is therefore equal in
reverence, title and worship. What blasphemy! To equate "Daughter"
as a counter part to the "Son." What blasphemy! This is the true
dogma of the RCC and part of the doctrine of the Rosary. This is also
the historical record regarding the ancient mystery religions and
their doctrines concerning the "Queen of Heaven." The son is always
subserviant to her. And before there is written a reply, note that I
used RC references. These are the teachings of the RCC itself.>>
You just quoted a seventeenth century devotional work as though it were an
official church document. What if I quoted a nineteenth century Southern white
preacher on the subject of slavery? Would you stand condemned for what your
ancestors said?
You also didn't even try to figure out what this nun was trying to say or where
this fits in the overall belief of Catholics. You immediately yell
"blasphemy!" without considering where this fits in Biblical theology. You
were quick to say "It
necessarily required by the Trinitarian not to deify any creature, including
Mary" without considering that "deifying" is exactly what God is doing with all
of us!
Aren't we ALL adopted sons and daughters? Isn't our destiny to "be like Him
because we will see Him as He is"? Aren't we made partakers of the divine
nature? That's all Scripture.
Classic Reformation theology accents the distance and chasm between God and man
and has an overwhelming horror of idolatry and humanism, and thereby neglects
to give sufficient credit to what Christ has done, not just FOR us, but also TO
us and IN us through His death and resurrection. We are truly IN Christ, which
means that even now that Divine Life is growing in us. Augustine said (and so
did Athanasius in slightly different words) that "the Son of God became man
that men might become Sons of God."
Classic Protestantism is VERY uncomfortable with statements like that.
Whenever there is any consideration of COOPERATION between humanity and
Divinity, it backs off and raises the Idolatry flag. The theology is more "God
vs. man" rather than "man in God".
But you have to be very selective in your Scripture reading to come to this
conclusion. Salvation becomes merely not going to hell, and heaven where
Adoption is a word but not a reality.
C.S. Lewis had a much richer concept when he said "we will all be kings and
queens, glorious and mighty". Revelation talks of those who reign WITH the
Lord, who will be priests (intercessors). Pretty strong stuff, that, on the
theosis (deification) side of the debate.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> The Rosary is a method of meditating on Christ's birth, death and
> resurrection.
Thank you for your explanation.
> "Holy Mary, mother of God,
Identifying Mary as the mother of God is blaspheme. God is eternal,
without beginning or ending. Though Jesus was incarnated, God in the
flesh, in Mary's womb, Jesus existed thousands of years before Mary
was born, and is believed to be the actual Angel who addressed and
walked with the saints of the Old Testament.
----
[In its original context, calling Mary the God-bearer (a better
translation of the Greek) was intended as a protection for the
Incarnation. Was God truly incarnated in the flesh? Then he
was truly born and truly died. Thus Mary bore him. Translating
God-bearer as "mother of God" is dangerous, because it is liable
to misinterpretation. But clearly no one, not even the most
diehard Marian fan, believes that God has his origin with Mary.
So it's pretty clear that "mother of God" is meant in the sense
I have explained. --clh]
Denver Fletcher
news:FCLU9.41376$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
.....
> What blasphemy. What utter blasphemy to equate Mary with the Trinity
> by teaching that she is absorbed by Them and is therefore equal in
> reverence, title and worship. What blasphemy! To equate "Daughter"
> as a counter part to the "Son." What blasphemy! This is the true
> dogma of the RCC and part of the doctrine of the Rosary. This is also
> the historical record regarding the ancient mystery religions and
> their doctrines concerning the "Queen of Heaven." The son is always
> subserviant to her. And before there is written a reply, note that I
> used RC references. These are the teachings of the RCC itself.
I still think that there is nothing quite like the words of Christ Himself.
When He (not at al coincidentally) spoke to the people of the danger of
evil spirits, a certain woman was moved to cry out to Him:
"Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked."
[KJV, Luke 11:27]
But in spite of the very strong congruence between these words and those of
the angel who heralded His birth, Christ had a very firm and telling
response to make to them:
But he said, "Yea RATHER, blessed are they that HEAR the word of God, and
KEEP it."
[KJV, Luke 11:28]
Now in the King James Version of the bible, the references for each part of
this verse are also quite intriguing.
Under "Yea rather" it has a reference to Romans 9:20,
"O man, WHO ARE YOU, who disputes with God?"
Under "Blessed are they" it has references to John 13:17 and James 1:25.
"If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye DO them."
and
"But whoso worketh unto the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein,
he being not a forgetful hearer, but a DOER of the work, this man shall be
blessed."
Under "that hear the word of God" it has a reference to Luke 8:21,
"And He (Christ) answered and said unto them, 'My mother and my brethren
are these which HEAR the word of God, and DO it.' "
Under "and keep it." it has references to Leviticus 22:31 and Acts 7:53,
"Therefore shall ye KEEP my commandments and DO them; I AM the Lord."
and (by way of contrast)
"Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have NOT KEPT
it."
Many other lessons might be drawn from these references, some of which are
not well received by any of you, but the most plain one is the denial by
Christ Himself of the incipient marianism of the train of thought initiated
by His admirer in verse 27 of Luke chapter 11.
Now, before you cast your rhetorical stones, just remember that it was
Stephen who spoke these last words (Acts 7:53) just before they stoned HIM.
Carry on.
Cunneen
it sell) one rarely, if ever, hears mention of Christ. It is in
realistic usage, centered around Marianism. >>
I don't know what you mean by "realistic usage centered around Marianism." Are
you saying they don't announce the mysteries when they say the Rosary? That
would be very surprising.
Or maybe since every Catholic knows how to say the Rosary, they don't think it
is necessary to name them as they go.
As for the mention of Christ, you'll have to tell me what programs you are
watching. If you see the mass on TV, the whole focus is Christocentric and
Trinitarian. There's only a couple of mentions of Mary and the saints.
There's more Marian references in Eastern Orthodox worship than in Catholic.
<<In all my years of conversing with RC's, the Rosary *always* homes in on Mary
and her intercession to such an extend that the one Mediator and Advocate
become merely an asterisk.>>
Then the RC's you know don't know their faith. The official teachings of the
Catholic Church can be found in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church
(aka CCC), which is available on the web for those who have the inclination to
read it.
You can look up any topic you'd like to see what Catholics teach about it at
the CCC Search Engine:
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/kerygma/ccc/searchcat.html
There are only four references to the Rosary in the entire book, and the last
reference is the following:
"2708. "Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. This
mobilization of faculties is necessary in order to deepen our convictions of
faith, prompt the conversion of our heart, and strengthen our will to follow
Christ. Christian prayer tries above all to meditate on the mysteries of
Christ, as in lectio divina or the ROSARY. This form of prayerful reflection is
of great value, but Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the
love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him. "
<<We start with the
> Lord's Prayer and end with a Doxology.
I don't know a single RC who does that. Not a one. They pray the
Rosary and begin and end it with "Hail Mary." >>
<g> Then your RC friends don't know how to say the Rosary.
The rosary is shaped like a circle with a tail. The tail is really where the
Rosary begins, and at the end of it is a Crucifix. That's Jesus, not Mary.
The tail looks like this:
Crucifix -- big bead -- three little beads -- big bead -- connection to the
circular part of the Rosary.
On the Crucifix at the beginning of the Rosary we pray the Apostle's Creed.
The big beads are ALL the Lord's Prayer. The three little beads are Hail
Mary's, usually said as we pray for Faith, Hope and Charity, and the bit of
chain after the last little bead is the place where we say the Doxology: "Glory
be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the
beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."
Right after that we announce the First Mystery of the five we are planning to
say and begin the Lord's Prayer. Skipping over the connector (which is
normally a holy medal) we then meditate on the First Mystery as we recite the
ten Hail Marys that correspond to the ten small beads. After the last small
bead, on the chain we say the Doxology that we said before. That finishes our
first meditation.
Then we announce the Second Mystery, say the Our Father, meditate on the second
mystery while reciting the ten Hail Marys and the Doxology, and so on.
If your friends are starting and ending the Rosary without either the Lord's
Prayer or the Doxology or particularly the announcement of the Mystery, then
they aren't saying the Rosary.
<<I'm not discounting the
fact that in theologically initiated that some do as you insist, but
again, the truth is that the popular use of the Rosary is nothing less
than idolatry -thinking or supposing God to other than He is. >>
What you are saying is that there are people who claim to be Catholic who don't
know what they should believe. No surprise. Aren't there people who claim to
be Christian who don't have the slightest idea about the Bible or faith or the
commandments or salvation?
But if they are regular members of a Catholic church and are not what you
called "theologically initiated" then they are like supposed evangelicals who
don't know their bible. It's not the bible's fault if someone doesn't read it,
and it's not the church's fault is someone doesn't listen.
Cunneen
> theologically could object to any of the rosary. I know Methodists who pray
> the rosary, but only use the first half of the Hail Mary. "Hail, Mary, full
of
> grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
> fruit of thy womb, Jesus." That would be a very ecumenical rosary.
But in light of Protestant theology, even here it is wrongly supposed.
To "hail" Mary is wrong because never are we called, encouraged,
admonished to use a dead saint as an inter-mediary. >>
Yes, and that's the point where Protestantism went into heresy. In their haste
to root out idolatry, they went in the other direction and lost the fullness of
the belief of the Creed in the "communion of saints." By basing ALL belief
SOLELY on the Bible, they emaciated the richness of Christian belief dating
back to the earliest days of the Church.
The proof of this is the fact that ALL the Ancient Churches invoke the saints
and Mary, even though they have been separated in some cases since the 4th
century.
There are four major families of Ancient Churches dating back to the beginnings
of Christianity. There is the Ancient Church of Persia, called today the
Assyrian Church of the East, that once spread into China. Today it is less
than a million, but it still maintains beliefs from the early days. It split
off from the rest of the Church in 431. There are also the Oriental Orthodox
Churches, the descendants of the great Eastern churches of Egypt, Ethiopia,
Syria and Armenia. There are even remnants of them in India. They split off
almost at the same time, in 451. There are about 50 million of these
believers. And finally we have the two Great Churches, the Catholic Church of
the West (Latin) and the Orthodox Church of the East (Greek), who finally
separated at the beginning of the second millennium.
When the Protestant Reformers attacked the Roman Church and complained about
"medieval innovations" they didn't spend enough time checking with the other
Ancient Churches. They would have discovered that many of these "innovations"
are shared between them all, which means they are a lot older than the Middle
Ages.
In fact, they date back at least to the fourth century, when the Christians
were finally rescued from being outlaws and were given full citizen rights.
This was also the century when the Bible was finalized, when the Creeds were
written, when missionaries spread out to Northern Europe and the barbarians
began to be Christianized.
It's Christianity Lite that results when you throw out all the riches of the
Ancient Churches.
Cunneen
not well received by any of you, but the most plain one is the denial by
Christ Himself of the incipient marianism of the train of thought initiated
by His admirer in verse 27 of Luke chapter 11.>>
No, you are getting a lot of mileage out of one verse. None of the Ancient
Churches took that verse as an attack of Jesus' mother.
But there is an element of truth in what you say: Mary isn't holy because she
was Jesus' mother; she was Jesus' mother because she was holy. It is holiness
that gave her the strength for her "fiat", "be it done to me according to your
word."
It was not her motherhood that makes her blessed, but her holiness, her utter
simplicity and humility in the presence of God.
We believe that this holiness is both God's special gift and her total
response.
Chris Smith
> [In its original context, calling Mary the God-bearer (a better
> translation of the Greek) was intended as a protection for the
> Incarnation. Was God truly incarnated in the flesh? Then he
> was truly born and truly died. Thus Mary bore him. Translating
> God-bearer as "mother of God" is dangerous, because it is liable
> to misinterpretation. But clearly no one, not even the most
> diehard Marian fan, believes that God has his origin with Mary.
> So it's pretty clear that "mother of God" is meant in the sense
> I have explained. --clh]
Clearly, no one believes God to have originated in Mary, and since
neither the Catholic nor Orthodox nor most Reformation churches are
Arian, none of them believe that Jesus as a Person of the Trinity began
with Mary, either.
Nevertheless, that isn't the crux of this issue. The Catholic Church at
least (and I'm not aware of the specific positions of others, so I will
remain silent about them) would say that Mary is Jesus's mother (and the
mother of all of Jesus, human and divine) in a greater sense than having
bore Him in her womb. She is also his Mother in spirit, despite His
having existed before her, because he chose her as his mother, and
obeyed and honored her as his mother according to his responsibilities
of human nature. Furthermore, since our journey is to unite ourselves
to Jesus in this life, she then becomes the spiritual mother of all the
faithful, inasmuch as they are the faithful.
That's how I look at marian devotions. I do, though, get uncomfortable
with some of the more deifying pieces and think that marian devotion in
the absence of a strong understanding of the faith can be abused.
--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
Steve Hayes
>C.S. Lewis had a much richer concept when he said "we will all be kings and
>queens, glorious and mighty". Revelation talks of those who reign WITH the
>Lord, who will be priests (intercessors). Pretty strong stuff, that, on the
>theosis (deification) side of the debate.
Yup. Some of those who go on about "the priesthood of all believers" tend to
get a bit nervous if anyone takes it seriously.
Steve Hayes
>cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<QKrU9.33693$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
>[snip]
>
>> The Rosary is a method of meditating on Christ's birth, death and
>> resurrection.
>
>Thank you for your explanation.
>
>> "Holy Mary, mother of God,
>
>Identifying Mary as the mother of God is blaspheme. God is eternal,
>without beginning or ending. Though Jesus was incarnated, God in the
>flesh, in Mary's womb, Jesus existed thousands of years before Mary
>was born, and is believed to be the actual Angel who addressed and
>walked with the saints of the Old Testament.
And denying that she is the Mother of God is heretical,
It's amazing how many Nestoerians there are around these days.
Richard Alexander
> Translating God-bearer as "mother of God" is dangerous, because it is liable
> to misinterpretation. But clearly no one, not even the most
> diehard Marian fan, believes that God has his origin with Mary.
There is another danger that runs parallel to the danger mentioned,
and is actually my greater concern. By identifying Mary as the mother
of God, it sets up in the listener's mind that Mary is greater than
God, even as our parents are over us and honored by us. This ties in
with making Mary, "The Queen of Heaven," a co-ruler, a divinity in her
own right.
Luke tells us that when Jesus was a child on Earth, he put Himself
into submission to his parents (KJV Luke says that Jesus "was subject
unto them"). When He began His ministry, he became independent, hence
He would sometimes ignore or delay Mary's request. After His
Resurrection, He assended above all creation. Only God the Father is
over Jesus. Mary has no part of the divinity.
This is a critical division between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Roman Catholics have elevated Mary's status to that of a goddess.
Matthew Johnson
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>"Loren" <lsen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:FCLU9.41376$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>.....
>> What blasphemy. What utter blasphemy to equate Mary with the Trinity
>> by teaching that she is absorbed by Them and is therefore equal in
>> reverence, title and worship. What blasphemy! To equate "Daughter"
>> as a counter part to the "Son." What blasphemy! This is the true
>> dogma of the RCC and part of the doctrine of the Rosary. This is also
>> the historical record regarding the ancient mystery religions and
>> their doctrines concerning the "Queen of Heaven." The son is always
>> subserviant to her. And before there is written a reply, note that I
>> used RC references. These are the teachings of the RCC itself.
>
>
>
>I still think that there is nothing quite like the words of Christ Himself.
True. So why have you based your exegesis not on these words, but on
the 'references' of a tendentious edition of the Bible?
>
>When He (not at al coincidentally)
That, of course, is _your_ interepretation.
> spoke to the people of the danger of
>evil spirits, a certain woman was moved to cry out to Him:
>"Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked."
>[KJV, Luke 11:27]
>
>But in spite of the very strong congruence between these words and those of
>the angel who heralded His birth, Christ had a very firm and telling
>response to make to them:
And again, that the response is 'firm and telling' is _your_
interpretation; it is _not_ in the text.
>But he said, "Yea RATHER, blessed are they that HEAR the word of God, and
>KEEP it."
>[KJV, Luke 11:28]
Of course, neither is this CAPITALIZATION in the text! That is nothing
more than your _tendentious_ emphasis.
>Now in the King James Version of the bible, the references for each part of
>this verse are also quite intriguing.
What I find 'intriguing' about them is how _biased_ they are.
>Under "Yea rather" it has a reference to Romans 9:20,
But a _responsible_ edition, like that of the Greek NT at
http://www.bible-center.ru/bibletext?cont=greek&txt=lu+11#lu11_27,
does _not_ list Ro 9:20 as a reference here.
I wonder why.
[snip]
>Many other lessons might be drawn from these references,
Truer lessons could be drawn by considering a less tendentious set of
'references'. Try, for example, looking at Lk 1:28, 1:42, 1:48, 23:29
and Mt 7:21.
> some of which are
>not well received by any of you, but the most plain one is the denial by
>Christ Himself of the incipient marianism of the train of thought initiated
>by His admirer in verse 27 of Luke chapter 11.
There is _no_ denial of 'incipient marianism' here. After all, she
_was_ one of those who hear the word of God and keep it.
[snip]
Denver Fletcher
news:GK5V9.55433$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> <<This idea of a "Queen of Heaven" is a very very old one. It is yet
> another example of the false teachings of the ancient mystery
> religions finding home and practice within the RCC. >>
>
> Yes, very old. Why, it's even in Revelation 12!
Funny, it doesn't say anything about any Queen there!
> ... And who was this woman? Rev. 12 starts:
> "A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the
moon
> under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." Sounds like
Queen of
> Heaven to me....
Of course it sounds like it to you - that's the point!
But that is nothing like what is being referred to by the text. The
prophetic imagery of a woman is very clear and compelling, repeated in
scripture over and over, and it does NOT represent an actual woman.
The "whore of babylon" is an apostate church, and the woman clothed with
the sun is the true church, the "bride of Christ." (See the state of Adam
and Eve in Eden for a vivid echo of this righteous womans attire). The 12
stars are the 12 apostles, both the leadership and the crowning glory of
the Christian church.
See just about all of the Old Testament for a multitude of examples of this
prophetic motif of the woman/church. See, for an especially graphic
example, Ezekiel 16.
Oddly, the only actual Queen mentioned is this one:
Revelation 18:4-8
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my
people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of
her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her
iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according
to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much
torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and
am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and
famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord
God who judgeth her.
[KJV]
Denver Fletcher
> <<Many other lessons might be drawn from these references, some of which
are
> not well received by any of you, but the most plain one is the denial by
> Christ Himself of the incipient marianism of the train of thought
initiated
> by His admirer in verse 27 of Luke chapter 11.>>
>
> No, you are getting a lot of mileage out of one verse. None of the
Ancient
> Churches took that verse as an attack of Jesus' mother.
Interviewed them all, did you?
Anyone can MAKE unprovable claims, Cunneen. Some people realise they say
more about you than the putative subject of your argument.
Anyway, what I wrote was not in any way an attack on Mary. If that is what
you read in it, then you missed the point by a disturbingly wide margin.
Your apologetics are quaint, but ultimately unconvincing.
Denver Fletcher
news:FYrV9.1097$IZ5...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net.......
> > some of which are
> >not well received by any of you, but the most plain one is the denial by
> >Christ Himself of the incipient marianism of the train of thought
initiated
> >by His admirer in verse 27 of Luke chapter 11.
>
> There is _no_ denial of 'incipient marianism' here. After all, she
> _was_ one of those who hear the word of God and keep it.
Of course there is.
Tell me Matthew, what do YOU think that "Yea, rather ..." means?
And in spite of many many others being hearers and doers of the word, ONLY
Mary is worhsipped as "Queen of Heaven" by a particular church.
So, what was the reason, again?
Joe Gilman
[snip]
>
> This is a critical division between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
> Roman Catholics have elevated Mary's status to that of a goddess.
>
trinitarian struggle he writes:
The Holy Spirit even now remains an abstraction. The Spirit can be brought
in concretely only if he is defined as the Spirit of Christ; of Jesus as the
Christ; but if he is placed into the transcendent trinity, he is more an
abstraction than a person. For this reason the Spirit was never very
important for Christian piety. In the moment in which he was deified in the
same sense that Christ was considered divine, the Spirit was replaced in
actual piety by the Holy Virgin. The Virgin who gave birth to God acquired
divinity herself to a certain extent, at least for popular piety.
Cunneen
Roman Catholics have elevated Mary's status to that of a goddess.>>
No, Protestants have reduced Mary and the saints at best to the status of
bystanders. We believe that the saints are IN JESUS and therefore share in His
power; you believe that they are dead.
There are thrones in heaven for those who REIGN WITH the Lord before the end.
Rev. 20. How is that possible if the saints are dead? It speaks of those of
heroic faith, just as we do when we declare someone a saint. Who are more fit
to reign with the Lord and serve as priests (intercessors) for us?
Loren
>
> We believe that this holiness is both God's special gift and her total
> response.
But her "holiness" is and was no different than anyone elses. How is
her "holiness" different than say, David's or Abraham's? Was not the
Messiah prophesied as being of their lineage? It is *ALL* from Him,
through Him and to Him." Doesn't sound like much room there for any
creature having crowns thrown at his/her feet. Sounds more like the
creature being glorified instead of the Creator. In fact, as I read
through your response, I got the feeling that if one took your thesis
to its logical end, God was obligated to chose Mary be cause she was
so "holy." If, as the Marion premise demands, Mary is so exalted, why
is there mention of her in Heb 11? In fact, there is no mention of
her outside of the Gospels. If she is so necessary of an arbitrator
for the saints of the Church, then why do we have no canonical
reference to this supposed fact? Did God belch while dictating those
reference verses and the authors failed to hear or write them?
The silence of scripture, the very Word of God, that which is
"profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in
righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every
good work," that which provides sound doctrine rather than "worldly
fables fit only for old women," that which we are exhorted to be
diligent to so that we can "present yourself approved to God as a
workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the Word
of Truth," is so deafening that it defies the validity of the
doctrine. For if the premise of Marianism was true, it would pepper
the Epistles so heavily that there would not be a single letter
written that did not have some mention of it. But there is not one.
One the very first page of my Bible, I have written this little ditty,
"No means of verification
No safe guard against error."
This follows VanTil's just axiom, "If the Christian conscious has no
absolute standard by which to judge itself, it is soon lost in the
ocean of relativity, in which all standards of non-Christian ethics
swim." Schaeffer reduced this to simple bumper sticker theorem,
"If you have no absolute by which to judge society, the society is
absolute."
No Schaeffer made this applicable to law, but it certainly applies to
the determination of doctrine and dogma within the Church as well. If
the Church does not submit itself to the Scriptures, it does not
become but already is, pagan.
Marianism simply doesn't meet the requirements that the great
doctrines of the Church require.
Denver Fletcher
....
> Yes, and that's the point where Protestantism went into heresy. In their
haste
> to root out idolatry, they went in the other direction and lost the
fullness of
> the belief of the Creed in the "communion of saints." By basing ALL
belief
> SOLELY on the Bible, they emaciated the richness of Christian belief
dating
> back to the earliest days of the Church.
>
> The proof of this is the fact that ALL the Ancient Churches invoke the
saints
> and Mary, even though they have been separated in some cases since the
4th
> century.
Cunneen, Paul wrote that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work".
1. WHEN did he wrote this?
2. And WHERE did it apply?
HINTS:
1. Long before the "Ancient Churches" invoked anything, and
2. The church.
Your "proof" is less compelling than you imagine.
P.S. I'm not saying that everything the early church believed was wrong -
far from it - but the argument that you imply, that all that the early
church believed must necessarily be right, cannot stand.
Even if you could prove that all the early churches believed a particular
thing, this does nothing to establish that thing as gospel, and especially
so if and/or when that thing contradicts the plain speaking of the
scriptures.
Loren
There have been many suggested interpretations given as to who this
woman is. Some have even said it is Christ Himself but that's a bit
of a stretch seeing as how the woman is with child imminent for
birthing. This, even symbolically, rules out Mary for her birth is
already a historical fact. Rev 12 is under the division, "the things
which shall take place (a new) after these things (the 7 churches)."
(Rev 1:19, the key) The woman does not represent Christ, nor the
church in general, nor Mary. The woman represents Israel as the
matrix from which Christ came as prophecied throughout the OT. This
woman is counter representative to the other women that are mentioned
in Rev. In 2:20, Jezebel who there represents false religion as a
system. In 17:1-7, the harlot, who represents the false religion,
apostate Tribulation church. The other woman mentioned is the bride
as the Lamb's wife (19:7), the Church joined to Christ in glory.
You will never understand Revelation if you don't understand the OT.
Israel throughout the OT is depicted as the wife of YHVH, often, to
her condemnation, as being unfaithful to her Husband. Is Jere 31:21 a
reference to Mary? "Return, 'Oh virgin of Israel?" Does Jere 33:6-8
("I will" 7 times); 20, 21 sound like God has no future relationship
with Israel as a nation?
Now, a critical exegete would somewhere along the line ask the
question whether or not the symbolism has been previously given in the
Scriptures. If it has, then might it not provide insight as to its
meaning?
Gen. 37:9 Now he had still another dream, and related it to his
brothers, and said, "Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold,
the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."
Gen. 37:10 And he related {it} to his father and to his brothers; and
his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you
have had? Shall I and your mother and your brothers actually come to
bow ourselves down before you to the ground?"
Gen. 37:11 And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept
the saying {in mind.}
Here the interpretation of who the sun and moon is given. It is Jacob
and Rachel with special recognition of the fulfillment of the
Abrahamic Covenant. The stars represent the patriarchs, the sons of
Jacob. It is all within the Israel context. There is the glory of
Israel being restored as promised being a volitional work of God in
Jere 33:6-8. It is Israel who finally triumphs over her enemies as is
spoken of and promised over and over by the OT prophets. "But of Zion
it shall be said, "This one and that one were born in her." (read and
understand Ps 87)
The persecution of the woman which flows, does not lend itself to
Mary. It is Israel who is in the end dispersed at the end of the
Tribulation, only to be called back into the land at the coming of the
Kingdom of God. Israel is frequently seen as a woman giving birth,
even as noted above in Ps 87. Here in Rev 12, she is a woman giving
birth as representative of a woman in transition (if you've born
children of your own then you understand the picture) going through
the trials and tribulation of giving birth. Certainly, as one studies
the Gospel opening geneologies, the reference is to the nation of
Israel giving birth to the Messiah through the Virgin Mary. Here in
Rev 12, it is again, the nation of Israel giving birth only this time
it is not the already historic birth but rather the travail leading up
to His ultimate advent.
For OT symbolizations of Israel as a woman related to the Lord as her
husband, read:
Isa 54:3-6; Jere 3:6-10; 31:32; Ezek 16:32; Hosea 2:14-16; 3:1
Rev 12 speaks at Israel collectively giving birth through its lineage
rather than the Virgin Mary specifically.
Loren
> Aren't we ALL adopted sons and daughters? Isn't our destiny to "be like Him
> because we will see Him as He is"? Aren't we made partakers of the divine
> nature? That's all Scripture.
Indeed we are, but the context is the RC view of the mediatorship of
Mary. I could have quoted Bishops as to their writings. This quote
was given to augment my primary point that the practiced attitude of
the RC populace is that Mary is worshipped. It is she whom they must
attend to if their prayer are to be heard. She is set up as
Mediatrix. As I have already written towards, there is no Scriptural
support or allusion give to support this teaching of the RCC which is
even being spoken of as in the process of being made a dogma of the
RCC. If she was of such import to the administration of the Church,
then why did NONE of the apostles write toward such and end in any of
the Epistles of the canon?
>
> Classic Reformation theology accents the distance and chasm between God and man
> and has an overwhelming horror of idolatry and humanism, and thereby neglects
> to give sufficient credit to what Christ has done, not just FOR us, but also TO
> us and IN us through His death and resurrection. We are truly IN Christ, which
> means that even now that Divine Life is growing in us. Augustine said (and so
> did Athanasius in slightly different words) that "the Son of God became man
> that men might become Sons of God."
But that is the simple understanding of this quote. Mary is not
presented as just being another saint washed by the blood of the lamb
of her sins and thereby the baptism of the Spirit regenerated into
perfection and placed "in Christ."
>
> Classic Protestantism is VERY uncomfortable with statements like that.
> Whenever there is any consideration of COOPERATION between humanity and
> Divinity, it backs off and raises the Idolatry flag. The theology is more "God
> vs. man" rather than "man in God".
But the classic Protestant positon knows nothing of the implications
here made: 'Our Daughter Mary has been elected and chosen by our
eternal will as the only and singular one among all creatures, and she
is also the first in our delights."
The "only & singular". This is not the Reformers view of what it
means to be "in Christ." Here the author has placed Mary ahead of all
creation in the very same way that Jehovah (false) Witnesses place the
"angelic" Jesus at the head of creation. They use it as a
justification for the many references to Christ being worshipped and
Marianist do the same to justify their "veneration" of Mary.
And as to your final point, it is never man in God, but God in man.
God can never be added to. There is nothing novel to God.
>
> But you have to be very selective in your Scripture reading to come to this
> conclusion. Salvation becomes merely not going to hell, and heaven where
> Adoption is a word but not a reality.
You are far too presumptous. The Reformers view of grace elivates the
idea of adoption far beyond the perception of legalistic and
unauthorized RC priesthood.
>
> C.S. Lewis had a much richer concept when he said "we will all be kings and
> queens, glorious and mighty". Revelation talks of those who reign WITH the
> Lord, who will be priests (intercessors). Pretty strong stuff, that, on the
> theosis (deification) side of the debate.
We are not deified. We will never be deified. It is "all from Him,
through Him, and to Him." If the angels who are the Lords
administering spirit rebuke worship, then so too all creatures,
glorified or not. This includes Mary. This is contrary to the
practices of Marianist.
Loren
> <<> Except for the second half of the Hail Mary, I know very few Christians who
> > theologically could object to any of the rosary. I know Methodists who pray
> > the rosary, but only use the first half of the Hail Mary. "Hail, Mary, full
> of
> > grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
> > fruit of thy womb, Jesus." That would be a very ecumenical rosary.
>
> But in light of Protestant theology, even here it is wrongly supposed.
> To "hail" Mary is wrong because never are we called, encouraged,
> admonished to use a dead saint as an inter-mediary. >>
>
> Yes, and that's the point where Protestantism went into heresy. In their haste
> to root out idolatry, they went in the other direction and lost the fullness of
> the belief of the Creed in the "communion of saints." By basing ALL belief
> SOLELY on the Bible, they emaciated the richness of Christian belief dating
> back to the earliest days of the Church.
The Reformers understood the simple fact that if you have no absolute
standard by which to judge the doctrines of the Church, then the
"church" is absolute standard.
This can be, in part, attributed as the fruition of the RC
Aristotelian philosophies where it maintains deference to the doctrine
of total depravity. If you read your theologians who write
philosophical letters, you will note their teaching that the
"intellectual" aspect of man did not suffer at the fall, only the
sensitivities and volition.
Sola Scriptura is the only means which man has set before him to
arbitrate without confusion. Look up the great painting in the old
Swiss Supreme Court building, "Justice Lifts The Nation," by Paul
Robert. No authentic RC could have painted this mural. To quote
Schaeffer's explanation of this painting:
"To make his point (Paul Robert] so that it could not be missed, he
painted the title on the mural itself. It is on the stairway in the
old Supreme Court Building in Lausanne where the judge had to pass
each time before going to try a case. Robert wanted to remind them
that the place which the Reformation gave the Bible provided a basis
not only for morals but for law. Robert pictured many types of legal
cases in the foreground and the judges in their black robes standing
behind the judges' bench. The problem is neatly posed: How shall the
judges judge? On what basis shall they proceed so that their judgment
will not be arbitrary" Above them Robert painted Justice standing
unblindfolded, with her sword pointed not vertically upward but
downward toward a book, and on the [open] book is written, 'The Law of
God.' This painting expressed the sociological base, the legal base,
in northern Europe after the Reformation. Paul Robert understood what
the Reformation was all about in the area of law. It is the Bible
which gives a base to law."
Now as true as this is to the arbitration of societal law, much more
is it necessary to Religious Law. Instead of the black robes
representing civil judges, it *should* have represented the Reformed
RC priesthood. Again, it is a simple enough axiom. Memorize it and
meditate upon it.
"If you have no absolute by which to judge the Church, then the
"church" is absolute."
Simple yet as profound as the Reformation itself.
Loren
> She is also his Mother in spirit, despite His having existed
> before her, because he chose her as his mother, and
> obeyed and honored her as his mother according to his responsibilities
> of human nature. Furthermore, since our journey is to unite ourselves
> to Jesus in this life, she then becomes the spiritual mother of all the
> faithful, inasmuch as they are the faithful.
No, she has no part in the spiritual nature of Christ. This is why
Joseph was not involved. It is the man who was first created. It is
through the man that not only is the seed of physical procreation
given, but that of the spirit as well. God has rested from His
creation therefore it cannot be said that He creates a new spirit at
the time a new child of the human race at the time of procreation. It
is throught the man that the procreation of the spirit, as well as the
physical nature, is caused. Man was left out of the cycle of the
birth of the Messiah specifically because of this reason. Because the
cycle of the procreation of the spirit of Adam was interrupted, the
fallen nature of man was not passed on to the Messiah. Mary did not
produce the spirit of Messiah. She provided the physical heritage but
she in no way had anything to do with the spiritual nature as no woman
does. This is understood in the theological debate between
creationism vs traducianism, the later holding that it is the male who
procreates the spiritual nature of the child as well as the physical
nature.
Here is yet another example of how Marianism is based upon false
presuppositions.
Loren
>
> Yup. Some of those who go on about "the priesthood of all believers" tend to
> get a bit nervous if anyone takes it seriously.
Do you always base your doctrines by ripping your words out of the
context? We are a *heavenly* priesthood.
Heb. 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling,
consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.
Heb. 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in
the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things
themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
[NASB]
What the RCC has done is establish an unauthorized priesthood to
sacrifice yet another offering. No wonder it rejects sola scriptua.
It has too. The RC priesthood paradigm has no calling forth from the
either the apostles or the Epistles of the Church.
Loren
> It's amazing how many Nestoerians there are around these days.
Read :" A Study of History" by Arnold Toynbee, a Nestorian scholar
without peer, whom it was said dreamed in Greek and Latin.
To buttonhole the term "Nestorian" brings in a whole other set of
discussions. But I do like the presupposition that there is more here
than meets the eye. The Messiah was not Nestorian, but is
Chalcedonian. The God-man is one person. I think you have falsely
concluded that Nestorianism is being advocated.
Steve Hayes
>There is another danger that runs parallel to the danger mentioned,
>and is actually my greater concern. By identifying Mary as the mother
>of God, it sets up in the listener's mind that Mary is greater than
>God, even as our parents are over us and honored by us. This ties in
>with making Mary, "The Queen of Heaven," a co-ruler, a divinity in her
>own right.
If you think that's dangerous, you'll go quite doolally about "Joachim and
Anna, the righteous ancestors of God."
It seems to me that in this modern Nestorianism, the incarnation of Christ has
been dropped in favour of the "avatar" model, in both the Hindo and the
cyberspace connotations of the term. In this view, it seems, Mary is no more
than the mother of the avatar, in the same sense that a computer monitor is
the mother of the avatar that appears upon it.
It seems to go beyond old-fashioned Nestorianism, which at least acknowledged
that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, even if the flesh was kept behind
some kind of spiritual firewall. This new Nestorianism seesm to deny that he
came in the flesh at all, and couldn't possibly have had anythig so gruesomely
obscene as a mother - he probably shouldn't have been born at all, but should
have been decanted as were the babies in Aldous Huxley's "Brave new world".
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
-----
[In most cases it's not really Nestorianism. In the original debate
about /theotokos/, the issue was the reality of the Incarnation. In
that context one could reasonably suspect those who denied the
/theotokos/ of being Nestorian. But modern Protestants typically
object to the term "mother of God" because in practice it seems to be
associated with an attitude towards Mary that they object to. Some of
this has to do with the translation -- the original "God-bearer" is a
lot less liable to misunderstanding. Some of it has to do with the
fact that the issue being disputed has changed. Some may also be
ignorance of Church history.
Protestants have varying degrees of understanding of theology, just
as Catholics and Orthodox do. But if you look at the major Protestant
writers, I don't see any reason to suspect Nestorianism.
Similarly, it seems just as silly to see "mother of God" as saying the
Mary is above God. The problem with that argument is that it proves
too much. I find the Mariology of the 20th Cent popes appalling. But
even they clearly see Mary as subordinate to God. So anyone who reads
"mother of God" as putting Mary above God needs to go back and
rethink.
There are real disagreements here. But we need to cool the rhetoric
or both side are going to be tilting at windmills.
--clh]
Cunneen
of God, it sets up in the listener's mind that Mary is greater than
God, even as our parents are over us and honored by us. This ties in
with making Mary, "The Queen of Heaven," a co-ruler, a divinity in her
own right.>>
Only in the Protestant mind that is fixated on any cases of supposed idolatry.
Noone teaches that Mary pre-exists her birth, except as a plan in the mind of
God. If she is Queen of Heaven, it is because after her death God honored her
for care of Jesus and for her faith and devotion. It is an honor, not a right.
But we also think the fixation on idolatry causes Protestants to miss an
important truth of the faith: we are even now being formed into adopted Sons
and Daughters of God. We will ALL be Kings and Queens of Heaven, reigning with
the Lord. Augustine said, "the Son of God became human, so that humanity might
become Sons (and Daughters) of God." The Eastern Christians call this
"theosis" or "deification"; the classic Catholic term is "sanctifying or
deifying grace."
So the saints in heaven participate in the Divinity of God because they are IN
JESUS. "How can the saints hear our prayers?" Because Jesus does, and they
are IN JESUS. As for Mary, once Jesus was IN MARY as he grew in her womb. Now
He returns the favor, for His mother is complete IN HIM. When we go to Mary,
we go to Jesus. When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus. There's nowhere
else for us to go, because they are all IN JESUS.
Matthew Johnson
wrote:
>po...@aol.com (Richard Alexander) wrote in message news:<XL5V9.55456$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
>> Translating God-bearer as "mother of God" is dangerous, because it is liable
>> to misinterpretation. But clearly no one, not even the most
>> diehard Marian fan, believes that God has his origin with Mary.
>
>There is another danger that runs parallel to the danger mentioned,
>and is actually my greater concern. By identifying Mary as the mother
>of God, it sets up in the listener's mind that Mary is greater than
>God, even as our parents are over us and honored by us.
What? Really? Once you hear "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord. Be it
unto me as thou hast said (Lk 1:38)" that thought should endanger you
no more.
> This ties in
>with making Mary, "The Queen of Heaven," a co-ruler, a divinity in her
>own right.
And since when are King and Queen co-rulers? That would be a modern
innovation, nothing like the imagery to be expected of Gospel or
Medieval times. So that makes your concerns very much a straw man
argument.
[snip]
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.
Steve Hayes
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It may also have been the experience of many of the Protestant reformers
>that
>> there was a lack of genuine piety in the monasteries, which may in turn
>have
>> been caused by a prevailing assumption that any serious Christian would
>enter
>> the monastic life, and thus there might have been many monasteries that
>has
>> lots of people who were not really called to the monastic life, but
>dfrifted
>> in by accident.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the forced closure of monasteries by Protestant rulers like
>> Henry VIII of England is the main reason for the lasck of any significant
>> Protestant monasticism for nearly 300 years.
>
>You have right here the clue as to why monasticism is rare in Protestant
>denominations.
>
>Henry's decision to destroy the monasteries was, by most historical
>accounts, widely popular. Why? Because the various monasteries and abbeys had
>abused their power and privileges, exacting crippling economic burdens
>on the communities in which they were located.
>
>These kinds of abuses were exactly what lay at the root of the Protestant
>Reformation.
And obviously why monasticism has never really been popular in Protestantism.
I'm not sure that the dissolution was all that popular, though, other than
among Henry's cronies who had a share in the spoils. It proved to be a bit of
a two-edged sword, and there are many parallels with Mugabe's confiscation of
land from commercial farmers in Zimbabwe today.
England felt the downside soon afterwards:
Hark, hark, the dogs do bark
the beggars are coming to town
some in rags, and some in tags
and one in a velvet gown.
For all their abuses and corruption, the monasteries did play an important
role in succouring and caring for the rural poor. One result of the
dissolution was that the beggars went to town, with a consequent rise in the
crime rate.
The corruption of monasticism at one period in history can explain the
Protestant aversion to it. But there have been similar proteasts against
abuses (e.g. the dispute between "possesors" and "non-posessors" in Russia)
without monasticism as such being abandoned.
Books like Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Life together" show that among some
Protestants, at least, there is a a desire for monasticism, or something like
it.
The following might be relevant to some of the comemnts that have been made
about this:
Monks and ascetics.
Source: Oleksa 1992:73-75.
Asceticism - prayer, fasting and the like, are required of
all Christians, but monastics seek to live a life of prayer in
order to become prayer. They renounce pleasures, not because
they are evil in themselves, but to demonstrate the Christian
perfection is attainable in this world. It is the development
of a merciful heart and compassion for all. "And what is a
merciful heart? The burning of the heart on account of all
creation, on account of people and birds and animals and
demons, and for every created being." There is no escapism
here, no denunciation of the world or hatred of society or of
sinners, but only compassion, patience and love. Prayer is an
essential component of this spiritual struggle."
Daryl
> Protestants to miss an
>important truth of the faith: we are even now being formed into adopted Sons
>and Daughters of God. We will ALL be Kings and Queens of Heaven, reigning
>with
>the Lord.
Would you have me then pray to my dear departed wife (I know where she is now)
as Susan, Queen of Heaven, just as you might to Mary? Would you join me in such
a prayer?
> When we go to Mary,
>we go to Jesus. When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus.
Why not just go to Jesus? Is he too busy? Perhaps Mary will understand better?
I can't figure this one out.
>There's nowhere
>else for us to go, because they are all IN JESUS.
Yet they are not Jesus. We are supposed to be IN JESUS as well, would you have
us pray to each other? Paul, nor Peter, nor John ever pray to Stephen; though
there is strong evidence he went straight to heaven. Why should we ever take
our focus from Christ, His grace (and that alone) will suffice.
Daryl
Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. Psalm 127:1
(remove nopax for e-mail)
Steve Hayes
Pooua was clearly advocating Nestorian teachings, as do many others. I don't
know about Toynbee, though.
The Messiah is neither Nestorian nor Chalcedonian, if anything is blasphemous
it is the suggestion that he belonged to a party that pronounced on his own
nature. But the Church has accepted that what the Council of Chalcedon said
about him was more accurate than what Nestorius and Pooua say about him.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> The Catholic Church at least ... would say that Mary is Jesus's mother
> (and the mother of all of Jesus, human and divine) in a greater sense
> than having bore Him in her womb.
It would be convenient for me if I had the authoritative word of the
Roman Catholic Church that this is what they believe, for this is what
they are accused by Protestants of believing. This is one of the
greatest points of division between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Usually, Roman Catholics try to downplay the significance of these
points, or explain them away. Not so this time, I think.
> She is also his Mother in spirit, despite His having existed before her,
> because he chose her as his mother, and obeyed and honored her as his
> mother according to his responsibilities of human nature.
I do not see how your conclusion derives from your statements. You are
telling me that if a person
1) chooses his mother
2) obeys and honors his mother according to his responsibilities of
human nature
that the one chosen as mother is then mother of both body and spirit.
How can that follow, unless one believes that ordinary women are ever
capable of being the mother of one's spirit? Even so, what is the
connection between the actions of the son and the state of the mother?
I deny there is one, and your statements frankly sound like
mumbo-jumbo, a desperate attempt to offer a rationale for an odd
doctrine.
> Furthermore, since our journey is to unite ourselves
> to Jesus in this life, she then becomes the spiritual mother of all the
> faithful, inasmuch as they are the faithful.
OK, this just gets weirder all the time. None of this Christianity. It
is a type of mysticism, I'll grant you that, but it does not derive
from the God of the Bible.
[snip]
Loren
> <<This is a critical division between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
> Roman Catholics have elevated Mary's status to that of a goddess.>>
>
> No, Protestants have reduced Mary and the saints at best to the status of
> bystanders. We believe that the saints are IN JESUS and therefore share in His
> power; you believe that they are dead.
You claim that Protestants falsely charge RC's in worshipping Mary.
Well, here you falsely charge the Protestant understanding of the
believer who dies physically. I don't know any conservative
Protestant who believes that they are "dead", whatever definition you
assign to that word. We believe that the believer is with Christ but
he is not glorified until the Church is raptured and the Judgment Seat
of Christ takes place. After that the Church Age saints are then seen
as being glorified.
Conservative Protestants believe the dead in Christ are with Christ.
The dead OT saints are in paradise also. We believe that Christ's
story about Lazarus and Dives is not a parable but a true
characterization of the actual fact. True believers can never die.
Ed Prochak
> This is a critical division between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
> Roman Catholics have elevated Mary's status to that of a goddess.
>
That may be your opinion. We Catholics do not see it that way.
True that we honor her, but we do not worship her. And that greater honor was
granted her by God. It is the fulfillment of the words the angel spoke: "blest are
you among woman".
--
Ed Prochak
running: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
family: http://web.magicinterface.com/~collins
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost
Matthew Johnson
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:FYrV9.1097$IZ5...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:50:06 GMT, "Denver Fletcher"
>> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>....
>> > some of which are
>> >not well received by any of you, but the most plain one is the denial by
>> >Christ Himself of the incipient marianism of the train of thought
>initiated
>> >by His admirer in verse 27 of Luke chapter 11.
>>
>> There is _no_ denial of 'incipient marianism' here. After all, she
>> _was_ one of those who hear the word of God and keep it.
>
>
>
>Of course there is.
>
>Tell me Matthew, what do YOU think that "Yea, rather ..." means?
Forget what 'yea, rather' means. He didn't _say_ 'yea, rather'. He
said 'menoun', which (as Liddel & Scott report) means:
men oun is freq. used with a corresponding de, so that
each Particle retains its force, Od.4.780, Pi.O.1.111,
S.OT244, 843; Ph.359, D.2.5, etc.: but freq. also abs.,
so then, S.Ant.65; tauta men oun paraleips D.2.3 ;
esp. in replies, sts. in strong affirmation, pantapasi men
oun Pl.Tht.158d ; komid i men oun ib.159e; panu men
oun ib.159b; anank men oun ib.189e; also to substitute
a new statement so as to correct a preceding statement,
nay rather, kakodaim n; Answ. barudaim n men oun!
Ar.Ec.1102; mou pros t n kephal n apops wipe your
nose on my head: Answ. emou men oun . . nay on mine,
Id.Eq.911, cf. A.Pers.1032 (lyr.), Ag.1090 (lyr.), 1396,
S.Aj. 1363, El.1503, OT705, Ar.Ra.241, Pl.Cri.44b,
Grg.466a, 470b, Prt. 309d, etc.; also men oun d S.Tr.153 ;
kai d men oun Id.OC31 ; cf. oumenoun: in NT menoun
and menounge, to begin a sentence, yea rather,
Ev.Luc.11.28, Ep.Rom.9.20, etc., cf. Phryn.322,
Hsch.--In Ion., men nun is used for men oun, Hdt.1.18, 4.145, etc.
Contrary to your interpretation, the 'correction' of the preceding
statement need _not_ be a _contradiction_ of it. Here, it is not.
Rather, it is a contrasting clarification: she is blessed _not_
because she bore Him and gave Him suck, but because she obeyed the
will of God and submitted to this very dificult role, that of being
the Theotokos.
>And in spite of many many others being hearers and doers of the word, ONLY
>Mary is worhsipped as "Queen of Heaven" by a particular church.
And other posters have already explained how you are
'overintrepreting' this title, 'Queen of Heaven'.
>So, what was the reason, again?
Reason for what? Perhaps if you had not snipped so much without even
the common courtesty of indicating where you snipped, your referent
would be clear.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> But we also think the fixation on idolatry causes Protestants to miss an
> important truth of the faith: we are even now being formed into adopted Sons
> and Daughters of God. We will ALL be Kings and Queens of Heaven, reigning
> with the Lord.
Though there is a sense in which your statement could be understood
that would be correct, I would prefer to avoid using terms that come
directly out of idolotry. The Christian is never called a king or
queen of heaven; only the pagans used that terminology. I would rather
this not be confused with the fact that Christians are being conformed
into children of God, and shall rule with God.
> Augustine
Augustine was a smart man, an ancient philosopher, a convert from
gnosticism to Christianity, but I do not recognize him as an authority
figure. Whatever opinions he had are of mere academic curiosity to me.
[snip]
> So the saints in heaven participate in the Divinity of God because they are IN
> JESUS. "How can the saints hear our prayers?" Because Jesus does, and they
> are IN JESUS.
What man can add to the work of God? If Jesus hears our prayers, why
would it matter if the saints do?
> As for Mary, once Jesus was IN MARY as he grew in her womb. Now
> He returns the favor, for His mother is complete IN HIM. When we go to Mary,
> we go to Jesus.
No, that is another error in Roman Catholicism.
> When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus. There's nowhere
> else for us to go, because they are all IN JESUS.
You could go to Jesus, instead of fooling yourselves that your
doctrines are Christian.
Denver Fletcher
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 03:23:01 GMT, "Denver Fletcher"
> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >....
> >> > some of which are
> >> >not well received by any of you, but the most plain one is the denial
by
> >> >Christ Himself of the incipient marianism of the train of thought
> >initiated
> >> >by His admirer in verse 27 of Luke chapter 11.
> >>
> >> There is _no_ denial of 'incipient marianism' here. After all, she
> >> _was_ one of those who hear the word of God and keep it.
> >
> >Of course there is.
> >
> >Tell me Matthew, what do YOU think that "Yea, rather ..." means?
>
> Forget what 'yea, rather' means. He didn't _say_ 'yea, rather'. He
> said 'menoun', which (as Liddel & Scott report) means:
SNIP!
> Contrary to your interpretation, the 'correction' of the preceding
> statement need _not_ be a _contradiction_ of it. Here, it is not.
Hmmm?
Does this follow from the other?
Or is it mere assertion?
I didn't say that He contradicted her, that was your interpretation. As you
and many others constantly point out, the angel DID say that she was
blessed, and so did this particular woman. I would not expect Christ to
contradict His own messenger. Would you?
But he DID put very plainly before her what was to be considered as the
object of any veneration, or worship, or service. you may not be aware, or
may choose to ignore, the necessary connection between these words, bot not
all of us may do so.
What He thus referred to had no part in any mere human, no matter how
honourable or blessed, and this meaning is very plainly visible in His
words.
> Rather, it is a contrasting clarification: she is blessed _not_
> because she bore Him and gave Him suck, but because she obeyed the
> will of God and submitted to this very dificult role, that of being
> the Theotokos.
Indeed.
But any man or woman who submits to the will of God will be similarly bless
ed.
See, for example, just about the entire bible.
And are you not the one who claims that none of us HAVE any such choices to
make, but that Gods will is all that is involved?
How then does Mary acquire such profound merit from submitting to that
which could never in any case be denied?
> >And in spite of many many others being hearers and doers of the word,
ONLY
> >Mary is worhsipped as "Queen of Heaven" by a particular church.
>
> And other posters have already explained how you are
> 'overintrepreting' this title, 'Queen of Heaven'.
Well, that is their opinion.
I believe that the title itself is an over-interpretation.
Since it appears nowhere in scripture, nor has any positive evidence
therein (but has a great deal of negative evidence opposed to it) I have no
urge whatsoever to change this opinion.
If you feel like trying to do so, you will need to marshall somewhat
superior argumentation to that already assayed on the matter.
> >So, what was the reason, again?
>
> Reason for what? Perhaps if you had not snipped so much without even
> the common courtesty of indicating where you snipped, your referent
> would be clear.
Nice try, but there was nothing snipped between those two; the one followed
naturally from the other.
What was the reason that Mary is referred to as "Queen of Heaven"?
It has not yet been shown to have any merit, scripturally speaking.
I await a cogent argument.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> Pooua was clearly advocating Nestorian teachings, as do many others.
There are several problems with understanding your statement.
1) What do you believe Nestorianism is? What beliefs do you believe
they hold?
2) What evidence do you have that several others on this forum
advocate Nestorianism?
3) What did I write, in my brief statements, that could positively
identify myself as Nestorian?
4) Why does it matter to you whether I am Nestorian or not?
These questions matter much more to you than they do to me, for I am
unintimidated by labels. My concern is that my beliefs are in perfect
agreement with Scripture. Unless you can show me from Scripture that I
am certainly in error, I do not care what you call me. However, as an
academic interest, I note that my beliefs are not Nestorian, despite
the howls of the wounded pride on this forum.
[snip]
> if anything is blasphemous
> it is the suggestion that he belonged to a party that pronounced on his own
> nature.
Haven't Roman Catholics pronounced on Christ's nature?
> But the Church has accepted that what the Council of Chalcedon said
> about him was more accurate than what Nestorius and Pooua say about him.
Oh, now *that's* persuasive! If "the Church" has accepted an idea,
then we all must accept it, I suppose? If so, how did we get
Protestants? Maybe Protestants won't find your argument to be
convincing?
----
[The major Reformers accepted Nicea and Chalcedon. That doesn't mean
that you will -- you have a right to consider for yourself what
Scripture means. But at least it should be suggestive.
I'm by no means clear that everyone accused of Nestorianism here is
guilty of it. Nestorius is accused of making too sharp a distinction
between God and man in Christ, so that the Incarnation looked sort of
like inspiration. He and others with similar views rejected
/theotokos/, preferring to say that Mary as the bearer of Christ
rather than the bearer of God. Acceptance of the /theotokos/ became
a kind of test for whether someone took the Incarnation seriously.
However I would argue that in the current context people may reject
it either because the term "mother of God" suggests things that are
wrong (and which the original Chalcedonians didn't mean), and because
they see it in the context of debates about Mary.
It may in fact be that some of our correspondents are Nestorian --
it's not an uncommon heresy. But I'd want to see more detail on what
they think about the Incarnation before making the judgement.
--clh]
Eric Bohn
<snip>
> > When we go to Mary,
> >we go to Jesus. When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus.
>
> Why not just go to Jesus? Is he too busy? Perhaps Mary will understand better?
> I can't figure this one out.
What aspect of Christ do we see in Mary? What did the disciples see
in Mary? What do we see in the saints? Would it not be better to
know first whom we are praying to before offering our prayer? Does
not there need to be something planted that the Spirit might water? I
believe people are canonized because they have lived well some
important function in the body of Christ. Not are necessarily the
mouth, not all the hand, not all feet, etc... Additionally, at
different times in our own walk, we tend to identify with different
aspects of the Holy Family.
Consider that as the world changes, the Church and the Kingdom are
also evolutionary. In praying to the saints, we might receive our
answer directly from them, or we might ask for their intercession in
order that they might go before the Lord on our behalf. Perhaps they
might understand how best to present us to the Lord because they know
even better than we do what we are faced with.
I think it is important to realize that we don't know when or how our
prayers will be answered, but we know they will be.
Chris Smith
> Chris Smith <cds...@twu.net> wrote in message news:<BYrV9.1082$IZ5...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The Catholic Church at least ... would say that Mary is Jesus's mother
> > (and the mother of all of Jesus, human and divine) in a greater sense
> > than having bore Him in her womb.
>
> It would be convenient for me if I had the authoritative word of the
> Roman Catholic Church that this is what they believe, for this is what
> they are accused by Protestants of believing.
I'm afraid we have a miscommunication here. I was responding to the
distinction set up between "God-Bearer" and "Mother of God" as
translations of Theotokos... which seemed to come with the implication
that just because Mary bore God in her womb doesn't mean that she was
fully God's Mother.
I don't mean that Mary was the mother of God in any greater sense than I
call my own mother such... I simply mean that just as I consider my
mother to be that for a greater reason than her having bore me in her
womb, Mary is the mother of God in ways much more important than having
been through a pregnancy.
> How can that follow, unless one believes that ordinary women are ever
> capable of being the mother of one's spirit?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I didn't say "mother of spirit". I
said "mother in spirit". I simply meant fulfilling all of the role and
purpose of a mother; not just that of having born a child in her womb
but never loved or cared for the child as a mother.
> > Furthermore, since our journey is to unite ourselves
> > to Jesus in this life, she then becomes the spiritual mother of all the
> > faithful, inasmuch as they are the faithful.
>
> OK, this just gets weirder all the time. None of this Christianity. It
> is a type of mysticism, I'll grant you that, but it does not derive
> from the God of the Bible.
You disagree that our journey on earth is to unite ourselves with
Christ? If so, I'll stop here and continue if/when you actually read
the Bible... esp. so many of the NT epistles that deal in detail with
exactly that subject.
--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
Richard Alexander
> I know no shortage of Protestants that think the occasional utterance
> of Jabez to score some weekend cash constitutes a prayer life.
I don't know what that means. I've heard of the "Prayer of Jabez," and
I've noticed a recent fad with it (and the accompaning sudden influx
of related items for sale in "Christian Book Distributors,"), but I've
never heard of getting cash for saying the Prayer of Jabez.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> It seems to go beyond old-fashioned Nestorianism, which at least acknowledged
> that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, even if the flesh was kept behind
> some kind of spiritual firewall. This new Nestorianism seesm to deny that he
> came in the flesh at all, and couldn't possibly have had anythig so gruesomely
> obscene as a mother - he probably shouldn't have been born at all, but should
> have been decanted as were the babies in Aldous Huxley's "Brave new world".
What did I say that sounded like I did not believe that Jesus is come
in the flesh? Why did you introduce that idea?
I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, with God since eternity past,
and with God in eternity future. It is through Jesus Christ that God
created the worlds. When the time came, Jesus Christ was born of a
human virgin named Mary, entirely through the action of the Holy Ghost
bringing about a miracle. Jesus had human flesh and human blood,
hungered and thirsted as any mortal would. But, though his body was
the same as that possessed of any other man, He was always the Son of
God. Of these matters, I would be dogmatic.
Now, I also believe that I am not my body. I live through this flesh,
but I am not limited to my flesh. Though my body be destroyed, I shall
live. If I believe that of myself, why would I not believe that of
Jesus?
Of Mary, I consider her to be one of the righteous, just as Noah,
Abraham, Sarah and Rebecah were righteous. Mary is no more and no less
than any of these others, fully human, born a sinner as is all
humanity, and lived with the same burdens as aflicts all humanity.
Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior for Mary, as He is for me. Mary
needed a Savior just as I need a Savior.
I do not care what label you attach to my beliefs, but I will defend
my beliefs and challenge yours.
Loren
> >Tell me Matthew, what do YOU think that "Yea, rather ..." means?
>
> Forget what 'yea, rather' means. He didn't _say_ 'yea, rather'. He
> said 'menoun', which (as Liddel & Scott report) means:
>
> men oun is freq. used with a corresponding de, so that
> each Particle retains its force, . . . . . .
SNIP
>
> Contrary to your interpretation, the 'correction' of the preceding
> statement need _not_ be a _contradiction_ of it. Here, it is not.
> Rather, it is a contrasting clarification: she is blessed _not_
> because she bore Him and gave Him suck, but because she obeyed
> the will of God and submitted to this very dificult role, that of being
> the Theotokos.
Oh, I think you are being very selective in your interpretation of the
data here and not entirely truthful. First of all, "de" is not use
here with "men" but rather "menoun" stands along as "de" is not
directly linked to it but rather (pun intended) "autos de eipen." BAG
correlates Rom 9:20 with Lk 11:28 and clarifies that it usage's is
contrary to classical usage. They link "menoun" and "menoun ge" as
being pointedly contrasting fact. This is certainly the
interpretation of Rom 9:20.
Even if one waters this down to allow the use to only that of
emphasis, not contrast (which is the better use), then the emphasis is
such that the greater so outweighs the later so as to make the later
insignificant. Here too, any idea of Mary being set-apart-special, is
refuted. Either way, either accepting contrast or emphasizing
emphasis, the point being made is to minimize the role of Mary as
being His physical mother. Those who are related to Him spiritually
are infinitely of more worth than the physical relationship of Mary as
pertaining to His physical birth so much so that the fact of Mary
being His biological mother is of no import in the larger scoup of
things.
Lenski advocates contrast and it seems that BAG does as well. Your
interpretation is forced and unnatural and even (mai genoto)
eisegetical. It doesn'y look good what you've done here inorder to
gain what you seem to be advocating.
>
> >And in spite of many many others being hearers and doers of the word,
> >ONLY Mary is worhsipped as "Queen of Heaven" by a particular church.
>
> And other posters have already explained how you are
> 'overintrepreting' this title, 'Queen of Heaven'.
And other posters have said that there is more to this "Queen of
Heaven" title than meets the eye. Is it just circumstantial that
"Queen of Heaven" has specific reference in Scripture? Is it of no or
little import that this title has had previous religious application
and that application is parallel in Roman history and in outward
expression? For instance. what of the coins minted by the RCC which
use the exact same symbolic representations for Mary as the "queen of
heaven" as did the ancient mystery religions coins and plates used
down through history upto and including the time of Rome? Say what
you will about "Two Babylon's" but just the sheer amount of the
documented parallels between the mystery religions and those of the
RCC, call attention to the fact that there just might be a case be
made here.
You have ridiculed me in the past for pursuing this for over 25 years
as if it took so long then I must either be stupid or there mustn't be
anything to the charges. De munoun! On the contrary, like Hislop, I
have found so much information and so many historical and symbolical
parallels that it is quite overwhelming. But then again, as I had
stated before, some of the difficulty comes in the lack of
availability of the required reference material. Here again you
ridiculed me because I was referring to such old reference work and
yet time and again, you yourself do nothing but quote from the
"fathers." What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Again, if one was going to show discernment and discretion, would not
the spiritual fathers of the church have refrained from using such a
title when the history of it was so well understood at the time?
Rather, it is one more instance documenting the fact that many of the
pagan rites were absorbed by the state organized church. To further
augment this is the fact that down through history it can be shown to
be a common practice within the RC paradigm of infiltrating a culture.
The clearest example is its indoctrinization of many of the mysteries
of both So. American culture and Latin American culture. All one has
to do is visit one of the RC churches in Mexico city or one of outer
cities and see how they have be inclusive rather than exclusive in
regards to cultural paganisms.
Cunneen
is a type of mysticism, I'll grant you that, but it does not derive
from the God of the Bible.>>
Let's take it slowly. First, here's what we know about Jesus:
1. He is the preexistent Son of God, True God from True God. "The Father and
I are one."
2. He is truly human, so that Jesus Christ is both completely God and
completely human, but is only one Person.
3. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and therefore is mother of he who is
both God and human. She bore God in her womb. She is therefore the mother of
God.
4. We Christians are incorporated into Christ and form One Body of Christ. We
put on Christ and become one with him.
5. Therefore His mother is our mother, too. At the foot of the cross, Jesus
have his mother to John and indirectly to us. "Behold your mother."
6. Revelation 12 also supports this, when it speaks of the other children of
the mother of the Messiah, and the dragon who makes war "against the rest of
her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus."
Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God since she bore God in her womb. She is
also our mother because we are in Christ, when we keep the commandments and
bear witness to Jesus.
Cunneen
capable of being the mother of one's spirit? Even so, what is the
connection between the actions of the son and the state of the mother?
I deny there is one, and your statements frankly sound like
mumbo-jumbo, a desperate attempt to offer a rationale for an odd
doctrine.>>
What does all this have to do with Protestant Monasticism???
Cunneen
> He returns the favor, for His mother is complete IN HIM. When we go to Mary,
> we go to Jesus.
No, that is another error in Roman Catholicism. >>
Which part is an error? Do you deny that Mary was Jesus' mother? Do you deny
that she is in heaven? Do you deny that she, like all saints, now lives in
Jesus? So when we ask for Mary's prayers, she hears them in Jesus? (How else
could she hear them? She's not God.)
I'm not sure which of these statements you consider THE error....
Cunneen
>we go to Jesus. When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus.
Why not just go to Jesus? Is he too busy? Perhaps Mary will understand better?
I can't figure this one out.>>
What's so hard to figure out? Do you ask others to pray for you? Heck, I do
all the time. When I have a problem, I'll ask my friends to pray for me. You
do, too, don't you?
It's called "intercessory prayer" and we find it all over the bible, old and
new testaments.
The saints are alive in the Lord. So we ask them to pray for us, too. James 5
says that the prayers of a holy person are very effective, so we have reason to
believe that the prayers of the saints will be helpful, too.
If you ask me to pray for you, should I answer back, "Don't come to me; I'm not
Jesus. Don't you trust your own prayers to Him directly???" No, I answer,
"I'll be glad to pray for you." God is pleased that we pray for each other and
ask each other to pray for us. It's being part of the Body of Christ and the
communion of the saints.
Cunneen
>important truth of the faith: we are even now being formed into adopted Sons
>and Daughters of God. We will ALL be Kings and Queens of Heaven, reigning
>with
>the Lord.
Would you have me then pray to my dear departed wife (I know where she is now)
as Susan, Queen of Heaven, just as you might to Mary? Would you join me in such
a prayer? >>
Absolutely. If you're absolutely sure she's out of the mudroom of heaven by
now?
Susan, a queen in heaven, pray for us.
Cunneen
> else for us to go, because they are all IN JESUS.
You could go to Jesus, instead of fooling yourselves that your
doctrines are Christian.>>
We ARE going to Jesus. There is no separation between Jesus and His saints.
Or do you deny that the saints are in Jesus?
It's important to understand that we say they are IN Jesus, but they are NOT
Jesus. When we pray directly to Jesus, we use words like "have mercy on us."
When we go to the saints, we use words like "pray for us." The difference is
critical: we never ask the saints to do what only God can do. But we do ask
them to do in heaven what we would have asked them on earth: pray for us.
Cunneen
The dead OT saints are in paradise also. We believe that Christ's
story about Lazarus and Dives is not a parable but a true
characterization of the actual fact. True believers can never die.>>
To live is to do. If they are with Christ and they are in Christ, then they
are working through Christ. Otherwise you reduce them to bystanders, and
therefore not truly in Christ.
Revelation makes it clear that the saints who have died reign with Christ.
They are priests, which means they are intercessors.
Cunneen
Abraham, Sarah and Rebecah were righteous. Mary is no more and no less
than any of these others, fully human, born a sinner as is all
humanity, and lived with the same burdens as aflicts all humanity.
Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior for Mary, as He is for me. Mary
needed a Savior just as I need a Savior.>>
Agreed. We would even go so far as to say that we are all conceived as
sinners. There is a weakness in our nature that makes it practically
impossible for us not to sin. We call that Original Sin. The only humans that
lacked this weakness were our first parents, and that didn't stop them from
sinning anyhow. Even if we like them came into being without Original Sin, we
would still be capable of sinning and would need a savior, because for anyone
who is not God, turning against God is always possible.
In a sense, all of us have an excuse. If we sin, part of the fault is in our
inheritance. A certain amount of failure is built-in.
That wasn't true for the sin of the angels or for that matter, the sin of our
first parents. They had all the natural strength and perfection that God
ordained for them, and yet they still rebelled.
The result of that rebellion propagated through the whole human race. Even the
great heroes of the Old Scriptures, Abraham and Moses and David, Miriam and
Judith, mixed great holiness with great sinfulness. They spoke to God but
could not hear His voice clearly, because of their sinfulness.
Jesus is going to be born. He is to be truly born of woman, but he will be
born without the curse. He will come from her egg, be nourished by her life,
grow in her womb.
Could the Lord of the Universe come to be human in the womb of a sinner? His
egg would be just another of her eggs, her cells. Could his mother be under the
curse, or should his mother be a new Eve, so that he can be the new Adam?
We have early evidence (Irenaeus for one) that the early Christians saw Mary as
the new Eve and therefore one who by a special grace was freed from the curse,
too. She could still sin, but the sin would not be inevitable. In her, Jesus
would find a perfect human temple in which to grow. From the moment of her
conception, Jesus was in her potentially, awaiting the quickening of the Holy
Spirit. She could say what only she could say, "Not I alone but Christ in me."
None of this makes her a goddess or one who doesn't need a savior. She was as
much in need of grace as anyone. But she received a special burst of grace at
the beginning of her existence, so that the fiat that she made was a totally
human act, just as Eve's surrender to the serpent was a totally human act.
Mary, like Eve, would have had no excuse if she had turned her back on God.
Her yes to the angel, a yes that would probably result in her rejection by
Joseph, of stoning for fornication, of rejection by her family and her people,
was a totally free and human yes made in complete faith. As Irenaeus put it,
Mary's faith was the antidote to Eve's sin.
Steve Hayes
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<wGKV9.2208$IZ5....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>
>[snip]
>
>> It seems to go beyond old-fashioned Nestorianism, which at least acknowledged
>> that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, even if the flesh was kept behind
>> some kind of spiritual firewall. This new Nestorianism seesm to deny that he
>> came in the flesh at all, and couldn't possibly have had anythig so gruesomely
>> obscene as a mother - he probably shouldn't have been born at all, but should
>> have been decanted as were the babies in Aldous Huxley's "Brave new world".
>
>What did I say that sounded like I did not believe that Jesus is come
>in the flesh? Why did you introduce that idea?
Because you said that the idea that he had a mother was blaspemous.
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
----
[He said it was blasphemous to say that God has a mother. We're
getting into a very peculiar area of language. I would argue
that as Christians we have to say that God died and the God had
a mother. But when we do so, we are stretching language. Otherwise
we would have to conclude that God is dead and that there was a time
when he was not. I think there are good reasons for stretching
language in this way. But it is not clear to me that someone
is heretical because they want to use language in its usual way.
Before making that judgement, I think you would want to see whether
he actually has a substantial disagreement with Chalcedon, or just
is not used to the peculiarly paradoxical way in which Christian
theologians speak. --clh]
Steve Hayes
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<oyLW9.24492$xx4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Pooua was clearly advocating Nestorian teachings, as do many others.
>
>There are several problems with understanding your statement.
>
>1) What do you believe Nestorianism is? What beliefs do you believe
>they hold?
The doctrine that there were two separate persons in the incarnate Christ, the
one divine and the other human, as opposed to the orthodox doctrine that the
incarnate Christ was a single person, at once God and Man. It was
characterised by the rejection of the term "Theotokos".
>2) What evidence do you have that several others on this forum
>advocate Nestorianism?
Rejection of the terms "Theotokos" or "Mother of God".
>3) What did I write, in my brief statements, that could positively
>identify myself as Nestorian?
That the term "Mother of God" was blasphemous.
>4) Why does it matter to you whether I am Nestorian or not?
It matters to me that others should not mistake the Nestorian views you have
expressed for orthodox Christology.
Kathy Moser
(in reference to prayer to various saints)
> Why not just go to Jesus? Is he too busy? Perhaps Mary will understand better?
> I can't figure this one out.
> Yet they are not Jesus. We are supposed to be IN JESUS as well, would you have
> us pray to each other? Paul, nor Peter, nor John ever pray to Stephen; though
> there is strong evidence he went straight to heaven. Why should we ever take
> our focus from Christ, His grace (and that alone) will suffice.
Given that prayer to a saint is generally simply asking them to pray for us,
how is that any different than asking our friends, family, and others to
pray for us? Why don't people just go directly to Jesus instead of asking
someone else to go to Jesus for them? Taking this to its logical conclusion,
there is no point in praying for other Christians since they are perfectly
capable of going directly to God themselves, and don't need a "middle-man".
On the other hand, there is strong evidence that not all prayer is created
equal. Acts 9:39-41 says, "And Peter arose and went with them. And when he
had come, they brought him into the upper room; and all the widows stood
beside him weeping, and showing all the tunics and garments that Dorcas used
to make while she was with them. But Peter sent them all out and knelt down
and prayed, and turning to the body, he said, 'Tabitha, arise.' And she
opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. And he gave her his
hand and raised her up; and calling the saints and widows, he presented her
alive."
Here is a story where it was the prayer of a particular person that
caused another to be restored to life. Those who called for Peter to come
were certainly Christians and therefore "saints" as well, but their prayer
did not restore Dorcas to life. It is obvious that God had blessed Peter
with the outpouring of His grace toward Dorcas, but not the others.
We ask each other to pray for us, and so we also ask those whom God has
particularly blessed to pray for us. James 5:16 says, "...The effective
prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." Why did it take Peter or
Paul to intercede for a person for their healing? Why didn't the prayers of
the person themself accomplish the same thing? Of their friends? God grants
His mercy as He chooses, and sometimes that mercy comes through the prayer of
a particular person whose relationship with God is such that God answers the
prayer. We believe that the Church is one, and that death is not a barrier
between us. Just because someone is no longer living in a physical body does
not mean that they cannot pray for us or that we should not ask them to do so.
Kathy Moser
Richard Alexander
> Richard Alexander wrote ...
> > Chris Smith <cds...@twu.net> wrote in message news:<BYrV9.1082$IZ5...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
[snip]
> > > Furthermore, since our journey is to unite ourselves
> > > to Jesus in this life, she then becomes the spiritual mother of all the
> > > faithful, inasmuch as they are the faithful.
> >
> > OK, this just gets weirder all the time. None of this Christianity.
[snip]
> You disagree that our journey on earth is to unite ourselves with
> Christ?
Don't play simple; you know very well what my objection is, and that I
am not objecting to the Christian uniting with Jesus.
> If so, I'll stop here and continue if/when you actually read
> the Bible... esp. so many of the NT epistles that deal in detail with
> exactly that subject.
I challenge you to provide any Scripture stating that Mary is the
spiritual mother of all the faithful.
FYI, I've read the Bible in its entirety several times.
Daryl
>Given that prayer to a saint is generally simply asking them to pray for us,
Alas, I have heard this many times and have seldom found it to be true. The
Roman Church does little to counter the deification of saints amoung its
adherents, attributing miracles to them, blessing statues of them etc. I am
reminded of mosques that insist Islam is a religion of peace while demanding
the total destruction of Israel.
>On the other hand, there is strong evidence that not all prayer is created
>equal.
-snip quote about Peter-
Peter did not pray to Stephen but to Christ. We have different gifts. Show me
one example of prayer in scripture to anyone but God. When I ask my neighbor to
pray for me I do not expect him to pray to Mary, I expect him to pray to
Christ. I do not know what the relationship of the dead in Christ is to God. I
would think that Mary's relationship is the same as ours, as redeemed to
Savior. I know how we were taught to pray, I know the examples of a great many
prayers in scripture, I know of none that mention anyone other than God.
Perhaps you know of one I have overlooked.
>James 5:16 says, "...The effective
>prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
I have seen this myself
>Why did it take Peter or
>Paul to intercede for a person for their healing?
>God grants
>His mercy as He chooses
God did the healing not Peter, I would not pray to Peter for healing, nor do I
think he would approve of me doing so. He was used by God to further the
kingdom, whom He chooses, remember, not that there was anything intrinsically
more potent in Peter's prayers, but that God choose to answer those.
>His mercy as He chooses, and sometimes that mercy comes through the prayer of
>a particular person whose relationship with God is such that God answers the
>prayer.
as likely a sinner as a saint; the rain falls on......
>We believe that the Church is one, and that death is not a barrier
>between us.
> Just because someone is no longer living in a physical body does
>not mean that they cannot pray for us or that we should not ask them to do
>so.
Strange, I can think of many, you are treading dangerous ground that can lead
multitudes into grevious error, far better to steer clear entirely, even if
your beliefs are true, you ought to see the reality of the pantheon people with
a less sophisticated understanding of offical dogma create around Mary and the
"saints". Do you honestly think the masses carrying a statue of "Our Lady of
Guadalupe" are focused on Christ?
Daryl
Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. Psalm 127:1
(remove nopax for e-mail)
Daryl
>Absolutely. If you're absolutely sure she's out of the mudroom of heaven by
>now?
>
>Susan, a queen in heaven, pray for us.
>
Cunneen,I have to admit I find that touching.
Cunneen
spiritual mother of all the faithful.
FYI, I've read the Bible in its entirety several times.>>
Rev. 12:17: "the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war
Denver Fletcher
news:BtpX9.1732$sp3...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> <<Conservative Protestants believe the dead in Christ are with Christ.
> The dead OT saints are in paradise also. We believe that Christ's
> story about Lazarus and Dives is not a parable but a true
> characterization of the actual fact. True believers can never die.>>
>
> To live is to do. If they are with Christ and they are in Christ, then
they
> are working through Christ. Otherwise you reduce them to bystanders, and
> therefore not truly in Christ.
No, you only place in them where they actually are, which is dead, in the
grave.
They are "DEAD in Christ" in case yu hadn't noticed this.
Meaning that they WILL live in Christ when He comes to resurrect them.
But not before.
> Revelation makes it clear that the saints who have died reign with
Christ.
> They are priests, which means they are intercessors.
No, it makes it clear that they WILL.
The dead in Christ "will rise" (making it clear that they have not been in
heaven, for that which comes from heaven comes "DOWN from God out of
heaven").
Where will they rise from?
Your alternative is either purgatory, which is distinctly anti-scriptural
in any number of ways, or the witness of scriptures, which is that they go
to their graves and remain there until resurrected.
In the interim, praying to any dead person is not only blasphemous, in that
we are instructed to pray only to God, but would be pointless in any case,
since they can neither hear nor intercede.
Denver Fletcher
....
> The saints are alive in the Lord.
No, they are "dead in Christ".
> So we ask them to pray for us, too.
So your prayers are dubious at best.
> James 5
> says that the prayers of a holy person are very effective, so we have
reason to
> believe that the prayers of the saints will be helpful, too.
Firstly, "the saints" are not some special subset of believers. All
believers are saints.
Secondly, the particular saints you're talking about are dead. They may
well be "dead in Christ" (I don't know, I never met any of them, and even
if I had, I probably still wouldn't know) but they are still dead.
> If you ask me to pray for you, should I answer back, "Don't come to me;
I'm not
> Jesus. Don't you trust your own prayers to Him directly???" No, I
answer,
> "I'll be glad to pray for you." God is pleased that we pray for each
other and
> ask each other to pray for us. It's being part of the Body of Christ and
the
> communion of the saints.
If I asked you to pray for me, and you told me that rather than praying to
God you were going to pray to a dead person, in direct contradiction of
God, then I would withdraw the request.
Not only would it be offensive to me, but I would not want to be any
occasion for more sin.
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<vyLW9.24512$xx4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 03:23:01 GMT, "Denver Fletcher"
>> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> >Tell me Matthew, what do YOU think that "Yea, rather ..." means?
>>
>> Forget what 'yea, rather' means. He didn't _say_ 'yea, rather'. He
>> said 'menoun', which (as Liddel & Scott report) means:
>>
>> men oun is freq. used with a corresponding de, so that
>> each Particle retains its force, . . . . . .
>SNIP
>>
>> Contrary to your interpretation, the 'correction' of the preceding
>> statement need _not_ be a _contradiction_ of it. Here, it is not.
>> Rather, it is a contrasting clarification: she is blessed _not_
>> because she bore Him and gave Him suck, but because she obeyed
>> the will of God and submitted to this very dificult role, that of being
>> the Theotokos.
>
>Oh, I think you are being very selective in your interpretation of the
>data here and not entirely truthful.
And I think it is those who use Lk 11:27 as 'evidence' against
'incipient marianism' who are 'being very selective in your
interpretation of the data here and not entirely truthful'.
> First of all, "de" is not use
>here with "men" but rather "menoun" stands along as "de" is not
>directly linked to it but rather (pun intended) "autos de eipen."
Already you have missed the point of L&S's words. They sayd 'freq.
with de', they did _not_ say that the 'de' even modifies the meaning.
> BAG
>correlates Rom 9:20 with Lk 11:28 and clarifies that it usage's is
>contrary to classical usage.
Loren, Loren: you have a bad habit of claiming things like 'clarifies
. contray to classical...' without offering ANY supporting evidence.
Just at BAG citation is not convincing, _especially_ right after you
clearly showed that you misunderstood the L&S citation!
> They link "menoun" and "menoun ge" as
>being pointedly contrasting fact. This is certainly the
>interpretation of Rom 9:20.
Now I have to wonder if you even read my post before responding. I
_did_ say it was contrasting. But the _contrast_ does not have to be
_contradiction_. Because of this, Lk 11:27 _cannot_ be used to 'deny
incipient marianism', no matter how many times biased ideologues
repeat this groundless claim.
>Even if one waters this down to allow the use to only that of
>emphasis, not contrast (which is the better use),
But this is just a red herring, since I _did_ allow it to mean
'contrast'.
> then the emphasis is
>such that the greater so outweighs the later so as to make the later
>insignificant.
No, not at all. And again, you make this claim and offer _no_
evidence.
> Here too, any idea of Mary being set-apart-special, is
>refuted.
No, it is not refuted. You seem to have jumped to this false
conclusion by assuming that 'contrast' means 'contradiction'.
> Either way, either accepting contrast or emphasizing
>emphasis, the point being made is to minimize the role of Mary as
>being His physical mother.
No, her role is _not_ being 'minimized'. Rather, the point being made
is that it is the obedience she showed by _agreeing_ to become His
physical mother that is significant. Do you see the difference now?
For your point to hold water, it would have to be possible for her to
step into that role without the obedience. But it was not. So you are
speculating about impossibles, which is a cheap way to disguise
syllogisms with false premises.
> Those who are related to Him spiritually
>are infinitely of more worth than the physical relationship of Mary as
>pertaining to His physical birth so much so that the fact of Mary
>being His biological mother is of no import in the larger scoup of
>things.
>
>Lenski advocates contrast and it seems that BAG does as well. Your
>interpretation is forced and unnatural and even (mai genoto)
>eisegetical. It doesn'y look good what you've done here inorder to
>gain what you seem to be advocating.
Then look again. But this time, remember that 'contrast' does not
equal 'contradiction'. Perhaps then you will finally see.
[snip][
>You have ridiculed me in the past for pursuing this for over 25 years
No, what I criticized you for was reaching the _wrong_ conclusion in
this 25 years of 'study' and then shouting these wrong conclusions at
the top of your lungs in this forum, ignoring all attempts to warn you
of your error.
And you _persist_ in your error. You refuse to even _listen_ when
anyone tries to explain to you the _real_ idea behind Maryology,
prefering to listen to rabid anti-catholic propaganda instead.
Yet again: Maryology rests on two pillars: 1) commemoration of the
great moment in the history of our salvation, when the pre-eternal
Word of God became a little child 2) gratitude for all she has done
for us by praying for the whole world, which has produced many wonders
throughout these 2000 years of Christianity.
No doubt you will deny that these wonders too place, and stoop to the
same infidel methods as the atheist critics of _all_ christianity use.
You really should be ashamed of such stooping, but I expect you will
do it anyway.
[snip]
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.
Daryl
writes:
><snip>
>> > When we go to Mary,
>> >we go to Jesus. When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus.
>> Why not just go to Jesus? Is he too busy? Perhaps Mary will understand
>better?
>> I can't figure this one out.
>What aspect of Christ do we see in Mary? What did the disciples see
>in Mary? What do we see in the saints?
Did Mary not require a Savior? Did not the saints. What I see in Mary and in
the saints are forgiven sinners covered by the blood of Christ, as am I, and
you. Do I know Francis of Assisi better than I know my Master? If so I would
worry. I do not think we know any other person, really God knows what is/was in
their hearts, we can only guess. Christ we can know directly "He walks with me,
and he talks with me"
> Would it not be better to
>know first whom we are praying to before offering our prayer?
Do you know Mary better than the Holy Spirit?
>Does
>not there need to be something planted that the Spirit might water?
I don't see how this fits in.
>I
>believe people are canonized because they have lived well some
>important function in the body of Christ.
You are welcome to your belief, I believe that Christ is able to use us despite
out shortcomings. Is in fact able to use the weakest of us best, not the
righteous, but the most sin filled, not the "perfect" but the imperfect,
granted only that they submit to his sovereign will. That these have the most
important function in the body of Christ, because they can share with others
with the same weakness.
>Additionally, at
>different times in our own walk, we tend to identify with different
>aspects of the Holy Family.
Strange, I tend to identify with the Prodigal Son, but never with either
Joseph (of whom we know little) or Mary.
>In praying to the saints, we might receive our
>answer directly from them, or we might ask for their intercession in
>order that they might go before the Lord on our behalf.
>Perhaps they
>might understand how best to present us to the Lord because they know
>even better than we do what we are faced with.
They know better how to present our case than the Holy Spirit, who is
specifically mentioned doing just that in scripture? The Lord is unaware of
some aspect of our case that one saint or another can enlighten him about? Are
we not sons and daughters that we should not go boldly before the throne of
God? Would our Father recieve us better if we sent someone else in our stead?
Unbeliveable!!!
>I think it is important to realize that we don't know when or how our
>prayers will be answered, but we know they will be.
How are we taught to pray? Of all the many prayers in scripture which focus
away from our Father, in any direction?
Ben Echols
Could you elaborate more on both the Nestorian and Orthodox view.
Honestly, the whole subject is hazy to me. I think of the body as what we
receive from the mother and the soul or spirit as what we receive from the
father. I know that the Divine cannot fully enter the natural for the heat
of love and wisdom in its pure form would burn away the natural. This was
why the ancients were afraid to see the face of God. As such, I believe
that by means of temptations, the Lord purified his natural in effect
putting it off, and putting on a Divine Human. What this means I don't
really understand. I do know that the body that Jesus received from Mary
was necessary in order that the hells could tempt God, since God in his
Divinity is above temptation. It was through the natural that Jesus
received that the hells could act, and it was through His battles with the
hells that God put the hells into order, and made it possible for all men to
fight against evil.
Regards, Ben
Chris Smith
> > > > Furthermore, since our journey is to unite ourselves
> > > > to Jesus in this life, she then becomes the spiritual mother of all the
> > > > faithful, inasmuch as they are the faithful.
> > >
> > > OK, this just gets weirder all the time. None of this Christianity.
>
> [snip]
>
> > You disagree that our journey on earth is to unite ourselves with
> > Christ?
>
> Don't play simple; you know very well what my objection is, and that I
> am not objecting to the Christian uniting with Jesus.
Okay, my apologies. When you said "None of this is Christianity", I
assumed you were disagreeing with the premise; that in being the
faithful of Christ, we become united with Christ... that is, part of his
Body, one flesh with him through the marriage of Christ with his Church.
Do you disagree with that? If not, and if you truly acknowledge Mary as
the mother (the full mother, in all sense of that word) of God, then
where is it that you disagree?
Richard Alexander
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 04:46:59 GMT, po...@aol.com (Richard Alexander) wrote:
>
> >haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<oyLW9.24492$xx4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> >> Pooua was clearly advocating Nestorian teachings, as do many others.
> >
> >There are several problems with understanding your statement.
> >
> >1) What do you believe Nestorianism is? What beliefs do you believe
> >they hold?
>
> The doctrine that there were two separate persons in the incarnate Christ, the
> one divine and the other human, as opposed to the orthodox doctrine that the
> incarnate Christ was a single person, at once God and Man. It was
> characterised by the rejection of the term "Theotokos".
You are trying to argue that one point of simularity proves all points
of simularity. Indeed, you are trying to argue any points of
simularity, when there have been none. The original discussion was
over the phrase, "Mother of God," not, "theotokos" (God-bearer). My
objection to the use of the term, "Mother of God" was both clear and
ignored by you in your eagerness to accuse me of a stigmatic label.
So, you have thus committed at least three logical fallacies: arguing
from specific to general, strawman, and poisoning the well. Then,
there is the matter that "theotokos" isn't even in Scripture; the term
is discussed now because some theologians used it to express their own
ideas.
This debate today is not over the nature of Jesus Christ, but over the
nature of Mary. Your disagreement with Nestorianism concerns the
nature of Jesus Christ. Thus, you are introducing a new element into
this discussion.
> >2) What evidence do you have that several others on this forum
> >advocate Nestorianism?
>
> Rejection of the terms "Theotokos" or "Mother of God".
"Theotokos" is not literally the same as "Mother of God." It actually
means, "God-bearer," a termed coined to signify that Jesus was truly
God. You, however, are trying to advocate dogma on the slim basis of a
single word that isn't even in Scripture.
> >3) What did I write, in my brief statements, that could positively
> >identify myself as Nestorian?
>
> That the term "Mother of God" was blasphemous.
If Nestorius said such a thing, he was correct.
> >4) Why does it matter to you whether I am Nestorian or not?
>
> It matters to me that others should not mistake the Nestorian views you have
> expressed for orthodox Christology.
It looks to me like it matters much more that you can label me with
the name of heresy, rather than actually having to evaluate my
statements on their own merits.
Roman Catholics regularly abdicate the responsibility that God gave to
Christians to discern the truth, and, instead, choose the lazy way out
of relying on the words of their priests.
BTW, I believe that Jesus Christ was one person, at once God and man,
the divine person having taken on the flesh of man. I understand that
Nestorius occassionally made similar statements, though that is not
the basis of the RCC denunciation of him.
Ed Prochak
>>cun...@aol.com (Cunneen)writes:
[]
>
>>When we go to Mary,
>>we go to Jesus. When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus.
>
>
> Why not just go to Jesus? Is he too busy? Perhaps Mary will understand better?
> I can't figure this one out.
Perhaps this will help. Have you ever asked a friend to pray for you during a
difficult time? You minister?
If yes, then would their prayers be any less if they had passed away? If they
were alive in Christ in this world, how much more are they alive in Christ in
the next world!
This is the communion of saints, living and dead.
(Or do you believe as some do that between death and resurrection there is
nothing?)
> Yet they are not Jesus. We are supposed to be IN JESUS as well, would you have
> us pray to each other? Paul, nor Peter, nor John ever pray to Stephen; though
> there is strong evidence he went straight to heaven. Why should we ever take
> our focus from Christ, His grace (and that alone) will suffice.
Not prayer in terms of worship. But the apostles certainly asked for prayers
FROM each other and from the church.
Consider how we pray to Mary. The first part is a quote of the words of the
angel to Mary at the annunciation: "Hail Mary! ... and blessed is the fruit of
your womb". I'm sure you know the whole verse.
The Center of the prayer, the next word to be exact, is "Jesus".
the last part is our request,
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
Do we pray to the Father this way?
No it would be silly to ask God to pray for us.
Do we pray to Jesus this way?
No.
Do we speak to our fellow Christians this way
Yes! At least many Christians I know ask for supporting prayers from each
other. So in a sense we do "pray to each other" to use your phrase.
So the real issue is why do you not ask for pray from Mary and the rest of the
saints? Why abadon the possibility of their aid if you are willing to accept
the prayers of your friends and minister? What's wrong with asking prayers
from Mary and the Saints in Heaven?
It makes me a little sad. Some Protestants miss out on so much the Lord and
the Church has to offer.
--
Ed Prochak
running: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
family: http://web.magicinterface.com/~collins
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost
Cunneen
Honestly, the whole subject is hazy to me. I think of the body as what we
receive from the mother and the soul or spirit as what we receive from the
father. >>
No, we receive the body from father and mother, and the soul from God.
Denver Fletcher
news:iVKX9.2674$Hz....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
...
> Perhaps this will help. Have you ever asked a friend to pray for you
during a
> difficult time? You minister?
Often.
In all cases, they were alive at the time.
> If yes, then would their prayers be any less if they had passed away? If
they
> were alive in Christ in this world, how much more are they alive in
Christ in
> the next world!
How do you know?
> This is the communion of saints, living and dead.
It is the PRESUMPTION ... etc ...
> (Or do you believe as some do that between death and resurrection there
is
> nothing?)
Yes, I do.
Because that is what the bible actually teaches.
But even if your theory had merit, I am still at something of a loss to
discern how it is that YOU came by the knowledge of who is in heaven and
who isn't?
Can you explain this to me, please?
Cunneen
over the phrase, "Mother of God," not, "theotokos" (God-bearer). My
objection to the use of the term, "Mother of God" was both clear and
ignored by you in your eagerness to accuse me of a stigmatic label.>>
The issue of "Mother of God" was covered at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The
Christian Church decided that to claim that Mary was only the mother of Jesus
and not the mother of God was to break the inherent unity in Christ between his
human and divine nature. Jesus Christ is one Person, and Mary held in her womb
and nurtured that one Person, the eternal Son of God. Therefore Mary is the
mother of He who is God. Mary is the mother of God.
To deny this you have to deny some portion of the argument. Do you deny that
Jesus Christ is one Person? That's Nestorian (or at least what the Nestorians
were accused of). Do you deny that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God? That
Arian or worse.
You're left with the affirmation that Mary was the mother of God; Jesus, the
Lord.
Richard Alexander
The woman is never identified as Mary in Revelation. Naturally, the
Roman Catholic Church, in her obsession with Mary, sees Mary at every
opportunity, but that does not mean that any particular woman is Mary.
All the non-RCC scholars I have ever heard or read commenting on
Revelation 12 identify the woman as symbolic of the Church. Certainly,
that is the position of Matthew Poole, Albert Barnes and
Jamison-Fausset-Brown. The sun represents the Gospel, the moon
represents Judaism, the stars the patriarchs.
"The woman cannot mean, literally, the virgin mother of Jesus; for she
did not flee into the wilderness and stay there for 1,260 days, whilst
the dragon persecuted the remnant of her seed."
(Jamison-Fausset-Brown)
Richard Alexander
> <<> When we go to St. Anthony, we go to Jesus. There's nowhere
> > else for us to go, because they are all IN JESUS.
>
> You could go to Jesus, instead of fooling yourselves that your
> doctrines are Christian.>>
>
> We ARE going to Jesus.
No, you are going to the saints.
> There is no separation between Jesus and His saints.
The saints are not Jesus. Jesus is not the saints. Hence, there is
immediately a separation of identity.
> Or do you deny that the saints are in Jesus?
No, I deny that you can confuse one for the other. Taking your logic a
bit further, one could say that worship of saints is worship of Jesus,
for the saints are in Jesus.
> It's important to understand that we say they are IN Jesus, but they are NOT
> Jesus. When we pray directly to Jesus, we use words like "have mercy on us."
> When we go to the saints, we use words like "pray for us." The difference is
> critical: we never ask the saints to do what only God can do. But we do ask
> them to do in heaven what we would have asked them on earth: pray for us.
OK, but you are not going to Jesus; you are going to someone else.
Praying to the departed is unbiblical and futile. Those who are in
Heaven are resting from their earthly concerns, as Jesus said on
various occassions. We have no example in Scripture of any person on
Earth praying to a disciple who has left this Earthly life.
I do not pray to angels or to saints, but to God alone.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> Okay, my apologies. When you said "None of this is Christianity", I
> assumed you were disagreeing with the premise; that in being the
> faithful of Christ, we become united with Christ... that is, part of his
> Body, one flesh with him through the marriage of Christ with his Church.
>
> Do you disagree with that?
No.
> If not, and if you truly acknowledge Mary as
> the mother (the full mother, in all sense of that word) of God, then
> where is it that you disagree?
I acknowledge Mary as the earthly mother of Jesus, similar to my
acknowledgement of Joseph as the earthly father of Jesus. Joseph, of
course, was purely positional as father, having had no direct
involvement in conception of Jesus. Mary's position as mother entailed
her bearing the body of Jesus.
I believe that the statement that Mary is the mother of God is
misleading at best, and is apt to be used blasphemously.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> Jesus is going to be born. He is to be truly born of woman, but he will be
> born without the curse. He will come from her egg,
How do you know that Jesus will come from Mary's egg? I don't read
that in Scripture! What I read is that the Holy Ghost would overshadow
Mary, so that she would give birth to a child. I am not required to
believe that any cell of Mary was taken, and I certainly would
hesitate to base a doctrine on such a belief.
> be nourished by her life, grow in her womb.
>
> Could the Lord of the Universe come to be human in the womb of a sinner?
Yes. Your question makes as much sense as asking if the divine could
take on human flesh and suffer.
> His egg would be just another of her eggs, her cells. Could his mother be
> under the curse, or should his mother be a new Eve, so that he can be the
> new Adam?
Adam wasn't born of Eve, so there is a limit to the analogy in any
case. And, you are reasoning by analogy, the weakest form of argument,
and one most prone to error in reasoning.
> We have early evidence (Irenaeus for one) that the early Christians saw Mary
> as the new Eve and therefore one who by a special grace was freed from the
> curse, too.
More importantly, we don't have any evidence that any writer of
Scripture held such views. The early Christians held a number of wrong
views, and were often rebuked in Scripture.
[snip]
Cunneen
Alas, I have heard this many times and have seldom found it to be true.>>
??? And how would you know differently? Have you studied in detail the
official prayers of the Church?
The Catholic prayers are VERY specific on this point. Official invocations of
the saints and Mary in the Liturgy (litanies; memorial prayers) are ALWAYS to
end, "pray for us." Any invocations of the Lord, and invocations of the Father
or the Spirit, any invocations of the Trinity, NEVER end, "pray for us."
Instead, you will see "have mercy on us", "spare us, O Lord", "grant us peace,
O Lord", and so on.
Chris Smith
> Protestants and catholics use words differently, which
> results in failure to communicate.
>
> To a Protestant, a parent pre-exists a child, so to say
> Mary is the mother of Jesus sounds like denial of
> Jesus' pre-incarnation existence.
Perhaps, and which it's clearly not intended to be. After all, we
profess in our Creed that Jesus is "eternally begotten of the Father".
However, I don't think it's correct to say that ALL protestants think
this way. More importantly, this doesn't amount to the most important
disagreement. A protestant who disagrees on this ground can simply be
told that this isn't the meaning, and if that person is generally open
to discussion instead of mere argumentation they will stop objecting.
The real issue is over the disagreements among those who bother to
inform themselves, yet still disagree.
> Also, Jesus is only one of the three persons of God, so
> to say mother of Jesus = mother of God sounds like
> denial of the existence of Father-God and Holy Spirit.
Here, you're a bit closer to a real disagreement. It's correct to say
that Jesus is one of the three Persons of God... but you're taking that
to mean that Jesus is "some of God" or "a part of God"... the fullness
of divinity resides in the Person of Jesus Christ, as in the other two
Persons. To stand in relation to Christ IS to stand in relation with
God. Thus, "mother of Jesus" expresses truth, but doesn't go far
enough. "mother of God" also expresses truth, and a far more meaningful
truth.
> All of which makes the statement that "Mary is the
> mother of God" sound anti-Christian, to some ears.
Let's be honest... the statement sounds anti-Christian mostly because
it's been condemned and used as an attack against the Catholic Church by
hostile protestant congregations, starting from early childhood onward.
The theology behind it is another matter, but a matter that is best
discussed only when you go beyond the level of something "sounding anti-
Christian."
> Change the wording to "Mary is the mother of the
> incarnation of Jesus" and I think both Catholic and
> Protestant can agree.
Yes, we could agree. So what? We could also agree that most milk comes
from cows, but it's not significant. Of *course* Mary is the mother of
the incarnation of Jesus... but she is also the mother of God.