Skip to comments.Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Posted on 06/24/2003 3:49:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
click here to read article
Hey is that you on that tv show putting ferrets down your pants! Cause I really really like that show. Is there something else I can help you with here Skippy, cause I want to go watch it
You mean aside from
you either don't understand Orthodox theology as well as you would like others to think you do, or you do know the historic Orthodox position but yet you obscure it in an attempt to (as if it were possible) counter the Catholic teaching on this age-old issue. (#179)
Maybe you don't attend the Divine Liturgy as you should, if you are, in fact, Orthodox. (#180)
Actually, you did not post a response to OP's #160 and #161. The link you gave above is to your #155 on this thread. In fact OP was responding specifically to the arguments made in your cut-'n-paste from the Catholic Encyclopedia article. I'd be very interested in seeing you address the specific points he raises.
You mean like Patrick's #155? Did you criticize him for this? Or is it simply a matter of whose ox is being gored? People from both sides make use of cut-'n-pastes. So what?
Okey dokey Skippy, put some pictures of them ferrets in there for us will ya, and the picture on the door in the bar, that has a little man with pants on, is where you want to do your business from now on, if you can find it
There is a huge difference when you cut and paste, do not link or name the source you are using and pass it off as your own writing. Many, many of the poster's (who I criticized) posts that I have read are obviously not his own words (I think after a while we know how one another writes) so I put half dozen or so words in quotes and do a google search. Never fails, I find someone else wrote what he posted. I just think it is sad because it almost seems that the person doesn't trust themselves to be able to explain what they believe.
I don't want to get into a pissing match over this stuff, so I have deliberately not pinged anyone else. Do a search... And, the person I criticized was very gratious. I meant nothing personal, but coming on a thread and not even bothering to offer a theological opinion on the subject and doing a hit and run is crummy. And then look what happened with that poster and another poster. Stupid.
Well, bind me to a stake and let the Jesuits burn my corpse...
Holy Trinitarian Relevancy, Batman, it's an actually cogent Romanist Argument.
Every other Romanist Argument I've ever encountered seems intent upon wiggling through a "linguistic loophole" which might, at the extreme borders of possibility, PERMIT an equivalence between PROTOTOKON ("first-born") and MONOGENE ("Only-Born")... like a Defense Lawyer who knows his client is guilty, he's just trying to get him off on a Legal Technicality (an example I may use again, but I thought your Post deserved first consideration).
You're actually arguing that, in this particular Case, PROTOTOKON might be preferable for Trinitarian (i.e., Anti-Mormon, Anti-Arian) Theology.
As you already said, am I going to agree with you? NO, OF COURSE NOT. "First-Born" is still the normative and organic interpretation of prototokon, which does not mean "Only-Born".
And as detailed in my #160-161, I have offered at least four Principal Arguments, each of which must be independently overthrown. And I think you must admit my reservation of the fact that, in terms of positive evidence, you have not overthrown ANY of my arguments.
But in terms of answering My Arguments -- that is, not disproving (which you have not done), but in terms of offering a Plausible Alternative (which I will graciously admit that you have) -- you have answered, if not overthrown, the "PROTOTOKON" vs. "MONOGENE" disputation.
PROTOTOKON really is NOT the appropriate Greek terminology for an "Only Son"; but in this particular case, you've undertaken to actually justify the possible rationale for the Roman Claim.
And I'll give credit where it is due. Rather than basically admit "linguistic Guilt" and attempt to get the Roman Case off on a Legal Loophole, Rather than attempt to exculpate the PROTOTOKON on a mere Linguistic Technicality (which is, IMHO, the usual Roman Argument), you're attempting to provide an actual Alibi for your Client as to *why* Prototokon might be preferable to Monogene in this unique case.
So have you overthrown my first Argument (that is, Disproved it?) No, you have not. You have merely answered it (that is, provided a Plausible Alternative).
But I gotta at least respect that. As Mr. Madrid said, an "A for Effort" -- AlguyA... you've gotta fine Linguistic Counter-Argument there on the "first-born" vs. "only-born" matter, and never let it be said that I won't admit a good Argument. (After all, if I could knock it down off the top of my head... I would).
All that said -- you've still got at least three more Principal Arguments to go (see #160 and #161).
Bon Mot, AlguyA.
To assist you in your confusion, I have here posted what I actually said. I did not say that the Theotokos was trivial. I said that one "thing in which the Orthodox church agrees with the RC church" was trivial.
I checked all of my posts for the day you specified and am unable to find any link I posted as you describe here. None of our Orthodox clergy have ever used the title of "pope". It is my understanding that the word originated from the Italians, so I am fairly certain that you are confused here.
Please be kind enough to clear this up for me, in the interests of accuracy and to avoid slander of my church.
I don't remember the name of the website and I didn't bookmark it, but the name stayed with me as it began with "Pope" and that surprised me.
I don't know how you could think I am trying to slander your Church? I wouldn't ever do that.
I am done here. The peace of Christ be with you.
I find no Biblical basis for the notion that Mary was without sin. Even if she was, that ceratainly is no reason to believe she was a perpetual virgin.
She may be a little confused. The head of the Coptic church is called "Pope", but the Coptic church is a Monothelete church, and is not in communion with the Orthodox churches.
I know I've seen references to "the Pope of Rome" which were not needlessly redundant.
Sorry, gospel of Thomas is not Scripture. I give it no weight.
So in the future, keep your snide comments about my failures to document things with absolute proof to yourself, or practise what you preach. Thanks.
"the Eastern Orthodox leaders are the patriarchs rather than the popes"
I am not and have not insulted or maligned anyone's faith or the Church they belong to.
This is pitiful, really.
Funny, it wasn't pitiful for you to bring up something I posted in error, what last year?, on this very thread, yet AGAIN, and in a very snide manner too.
But if I hold you to the same standards, it is "pitiful".
Not long ago (like in 2003) you used a non-existant "New York Catechism" to "prove" untruths about the Catholic Church. You insisted that the "New York Catechism" existed and in fact were going to try to find one. I never heard about it from you again. In fact, until your last post to me, I didn't even know you admitted that you posted things from the "New York Catechism" in error.
I used no bogus resources. I never insulted the Orthodox Church. I have not called you snide.
All this over the Dormition of the Theotokos. So sad.
You can continue with this silliness, I don't want to as I honestly believe it is an occasion of sin.
Hail Mary! Full of Grace!
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
It's quite clear that Colleen saw a website from a "Coptic Orthodox Church" which calls their leader a "Pope."
And like I said, I know the phrase "Pope of Rome" is not necessarily redundant.
Neither she nor I were aware that this "Coptic Orthodox" is not under your definition of "Orthodox." So, it was just a simple misunderstanding.
She did not mean to "slander" your Church. It was just not realized that this "Coptic Orthodox" was not actually "Orthodox."
No harm, no foul.
In other words, we honor her for giving birth to Christ but we stop short of making her into a fourth member of the Holy Trinity.
There has been much discussion in the Catholic church and on this forum about declaring Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" with Jesus Christ.
While it may be clear to some Catholics what exactly that means, I think it's fair to say that other denominations would see that as declaring her a fourth member of the Holy Trinity (as if such a thing could be).
It would be nice if Colleen would be willing to accept the misunderstanding as "no harm, no foul" also.
I'm still trying to figure out how post 175, which started some of this, was anything but an out of the blue slap at Orthodox Christians for no reason I could see.
The link had a listing of papal quotes on it, to which the FR RC objected. One of those quotes looked like it originated in a book entitled Roman Catholicism. But more than that, this quote is everywhere on the internet, pages and pages of sites are using this quote.
I was unable to locate the source of the quote, though I attempted to track it down. So that means I am deliberately using bogus resources.
And yet, Colleen has been untruthful and changed her story on this very thread. She first posted that she followed a link I had posted the day before. When I said I was unable to find it, she then said well maybe it was another link from a link I posted. And she has yet to show me evidence of eastern patriarchs seeking meetings with the pope as she stated in her post. Additionally she was incorrect about us having popes.
I am leaving for the Olympic Peninsula this weekend and will not be back on the thread after this - so you can all safely return to your discussion. :-)
That one was a bit of a "hey aren't we on the same side" thing, as I see it. But the follow up:
Maybe you don't attend the Divine Liturgy as you should, if you are, in fact, Orthodox.
Is entirely uncalled for.
Untruthful? Changed my story? I found the link from your original link "The Orthodox Church in America" (which I stated from the get-go). Sorry I can't remember exactly the correct links I followed after starting with your link!!! My gosh! Half the stuff I read on the Internet I can't remember exactly where I found it! Why is that "untruthful?" Who cares anyway since nothing I posted was a slur, an untruth or misleading.
BTW, I stated that not all the Orthodox are as opposed to meeting with the Pope as you are. There are hundreds of articles and sites on the web which detail those meetings. You can find them if you want to.
I'm sure Our Lady is most edified by these posts.
I'm probably misunderstanding the hatred the author of the statement has for the Catholic Church, too.
Instead of questioning whether a person attends their liturgy or whether they are, in fact, what they say they are is rude. If someone presents themselves as a member of religion X, it is bad manners to say "well, if that is what you really are."
We are (generally) adults here trying to share faith. To question another in this way seems to be a basic denial of the others "good faith" effort to communicate about important matters. It is not as if this is a teen chat room and you are worried that the hot 16 year old blond girl might actually be a 40-year old man.
Know what I mean?
To sum up, saying "haven't you noticed in the liturgy that..." is a good way to talk.
Saying "if you actually attend Liturgy and aren't just lying about your religion..." isn't.
Differences from Roman Catholics.From an article linked on orthodox net.
"We neither accept the universal jurisdiction claimed by the Pope over the whole of Christendom since the Hildebrandine period of the papacy, nor the claim to infallibility defined by Vatican 1, however qualified. We reject the "filioque" addition to the Nicene Creed not just because of its unilateral imposition by the Latin Church but also because it effectively subordinates the position of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Also, by creating a dyarchy of origin, (however qualified), for the Holy Spirit (proceeding from the Father and Son) under the false premise that the Son is thereby distanced from Arianism, the Trinity itself is radically unbalanced and the Holy Spirit reduced to an incomprehensible, impersonal afterthought. We accept much of St. Augustine's teaching but reject his contribution to the filioque development in which he embraced the psychological analogy of the Trinity and the associated understanding of the Holy Spirit as the "bond of love" between the Father and the Son. We reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as based on a faulty understanding of original sin largely perpetuated by St. Augustine who regarded the primal rebellion against God as a "sexually transmitted disease." Although we believe in the assumption of Our Lady to heaven at her Dormition, nonetheless this is not to be overdefined as public dogma as it has never been part of the public preaching of the Church but rather an essential part of the Church's inner life which we have no business defining as if it were a saving truth in the public domain. (We do not rank truths according to their alleged importance; we distinguish them according to their appropriateness). We do not think it necessary to define "everything under the sun" in order to make the Church's teaching either more rational, systematic or clear cut. We accept that there are truths firmly to be believed but embedded in the mystery of God. The most appropriate language for such truths is poetry and hymnody, not the legalistic and defective analytical language of the scholastic theologian or canon lawyer. We reject the notion that the end of saved humanity consists only in the Beatific Vision or mere reconciliation. The end of humanity is the resurrection life of Christ where we shall be transformed by the divine energies of the Trinity from one degree of glory to the next. In this we shall be divinised, made whole and perfect as an iron glows red in the fire. We thereby reject, (after Anselm who defined the idea), that redemption consists ONLY or PRIMARILY in the satisfaction of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice. The resurrection is as much part of the salvation process as the Cross. The full and rich biblical salvation metaphors need all to be included, not just the ones that emerged from feudal medieval Europe."
Do Roman Catholics
kneel on Sunday? We don't.
Commune infants? We do.
Use leavened bread and wine together? We do.
Accept original sin? We don't.
Fast on Sat or Sun? We don't.
Have primarily married clergy? We do.
Worship toward the east only? We do.
Have clergy with beards? We do.
Accept the doctrine of purgatory? We don't.
Have a pope? We don't.
Celebrate as a major feast the Blessing of the Waters? We do.
Have their homes blessed yearly? We do.
Allow second marriages in the church? We do.
Receive communion while standing? We do.
Have Holy Oil annointings every year during Holy Week and as needed for illnesses? We do.
Use statues? We don't allow them.
Use icons? We require them.
Have monastic orders? We don't.
Use the filioque? We don't.
Allow for human reason in knowing God? We don't.
Believe in transubstantiation? We don't.
Practise chrismation separate from baptism? We don't.
Believe the faithful ( not the priest) bring the Holy Spirit down during the Epiklesis or even use it? We do.
View the sacraments as necessary for salvation? We don't.
Add water to the wine in memory of the water Christ shed on the cross? We do.
Believe in doctrinal development? We don't.
Use Slavonic or Koine in the liturgy? We do.
Accept the pope's role or infallibility? We don't.
Use liturgies from St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil? We do.
Celebrate Pascha, and as the main feast of the year? We do.
Celebrate Pascha based on the Jewish calendar? We do.
Have a confirmation? We don't.
Make the sign of the cross with three fingers ( never with an open hand)? We do.
Make the sign of the cross from right to left? We do.
Consider Holy Saturday as one of the holiest days of the year? We do.
Fast about 1/2 of the year? We do.
And this is leaving out the major differences in theology and legalism.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.