Council of Constantinople

[gitlance]

From the 2nd council of Constantinople (AD 553):

If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, or says that she is so only in some relative way, considering that she bore a mere man and that God the Word was not made into human flesh in her, holding rather that the nativity of a man from her was referred, as they say, to God the Word as he was with the man who came into being; if anyone misrepresents the holy synod of Chalcedon, alleging that it claimed that the virgin was the mother of God only according to that heretical understanding which the blasphemous Theodore put forward; or if anyone says that she is the mother of a man or the Christ-bearer, that is the mother of Christ, suggesting that Christ is not God; and does not formally confess that she is properly and truly the mother of God, because he who before all ages was born of the Father, God the Word, has been made into human flesh in these latter days and has been born to her, and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.


Such then are the assertions we confess. We have received them from


holy Scripture, from
the teaching of the holy fathers, and from
the definitions about the one and the same faith made by the aforesaid four holy synods.
Look at where authority for doctrine is received from according to that last canon.

The seven ecumenical councils are absolutely binding for those who uphold the Catholic faith -- in fact, in the Anglican Church's claim of Catholicity, there is a direct implication that the Church will adhere to and uphold the canons of the councils.

What do you think of the above canons?

[PaladinValer]

Good canons.

Denying that St. Mary the Theotokos is the Mother of God means a denial of the Divinity of Jesus.

[svdbygrace]

I would agree to 99.9% :thumbsup:

[gitlance]

Not only do they say that Mary is Mother of God, but they also say that she is ever-Virgin!!!!

[AngCath]

good stuff!

[higgs2]

There is a mention in the 1979 BCP calendar of saints days of "James, Brother of Christ!" Which would speak to the ever-virgin thing, I would think.

[PaladinValer]

James can be a full brother of Jesus while St. Mary the Theotokos can still be ever-virgin.

How?

Hebrew social Law states quite clearly that if a widow or a widower marries again, any future children are equal to any existing children as if they were full-blood siblings.

St. Joseph was a widower according to Holy Tradition. He would have most likely had previous children, one of them possibly being St. James. According to Hebrew social Law, St. James would then be a full sibling of Jesus.

Therefore, it is easily reconciliable.

[Aymn27]

There is a mention in the 1979 BCP calendar of saints days of "James, Brother of Christ!" Which would speak to the ever-virgin thing, I would think.
also,
Jesus would have never given away his mother to John (while on the cross) if he had any blood brothers/sisters - it would have been against Jewish custom and would have been understood that his brother (ie James) would have taken care of her...

[Fish and Bread]

also,
Jesus would have never given away his mother to John (while on the cross) if he had any blood brothers/sisters - it would have been against Jewish custom and would have been understood that his brother (ie James) would have taken care of her...

That's an excellent point. Once upon a time, I used to assume that James was most likely a biological sibling of Christ, until someone brought up the fact that he told John to take care of Mary. That changed my mind and now I tend to think that Jesus and James were more likely to be cousins, or brothers by marriage.

John

[Filia Mariae]

That's an excellent point. Once upon a time, I used to assume that James was most likely a biological sibling of Christ, until someone brought up the fact that he told John to take care of Mary. That changed my mind and now I tend to think that Jesus and James were more likely to be cousins, or brothers by marriage.

John

Incidentally, even if they were step-brothers, legally, Jesus would have had to give James to Mary and vice versa, so its more likely they were cousins.

[Fish and Bread]

Incidentally, even if they were step-brothers, legally, Jesus would have had to give James to Mary and vice versa, so its more likely they were cousins.

I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for me filling me in. Based on that, I tend to agree that James was most likely Jesus' cousin. :)

John

[higgs2]

also,
Jesus would have never given away his mother to John (while on the cross) if he had any blood brothers/sisters - it would have been against Jewish custom and would have been understood that his brother (ie James) would have taken care of her...
But James wasn't there at the time, was he?

[gitlance]

There is a mention in the 1979 BCP calendar of saints days of "James, Brother of Christ!" Which would speak to the ever-virgin thing, I would think.

James, adelphos of Christ... it is the Greek word for "cousin".

[Aymn27]

But James wasn't there at the time, was he?
But the point is that Jesus would have had no need to give her to anyone if James were in fact his blood brother...it would have been an automatic assumption by everyone that he would take care of her..

[Filia Mariae]

But the point is that Jesus would have had no need to give her to anyone if James were in fact his blood brother...it would have been an automatic assumption by everyone that he would take care of her..

Right. And not only would there have been no need, it would have been illegal.

[SirTimothy]

James, adelphos of Christ... it is the Greek word for "cousin".

No, my friend, that's not strictly speaking accurate. The greek word "Adelphos" in modern greek is used to mean brother. However, in koine greek, the word can be used to mean "brother" or "close male relative" such as half-brother, step-brother, cousin, second cousin, etc.

Timothy

[gitlance]

No, my friend, that's not strictly speaking accurate. The greek word "Adelphos" in modern greek is used to mean brother. However, in koine greek, the word can be used to mean "brother" or "close male relative" such as half-brother, step-brother, cousin, second cousin, etc.

Timothy

The New Testament was written in koine Greek. If you look at the context of adelphos as used in the New Testament in reference to the "brothers" of Christ, you will see what I mean.

[gtsecc]

If you are going to believe the folks that say Jesus was God, and rose from the grave - why not believe them when they say his mother was perpetually a virgin. It makes no sense to believe the supernatural stuff and doubt the other struff.

[SirTimothy]

The New Testament was written in koine Greek. If you look at the context of adelphos as used in the New Testament in reference to the "brothers" of Christ, you will see what I mean.

Indeed. It however doesn't only mean brother, for it's also used in the Bible to mean literal brother/sister. It's a generic term, which could just as easily mean cousin as brother, however most translators choose to translate it brother, since that would have been fairly common usage at the time, as far as I can tell. If Contra reads this thread, he can probably explain better than I...

Timothy

[Fish and Bread]

If you are going to believe the folks that say Jesus was God, and rose from the grave - why not believe them when they say his mother was perpetually a virgin. It makes no sense to believe the supernatural stuff and doubt the other struff.

I think it is mostly sola scriptura folks who aggressively don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Actually, I shouldn't even say sola scriptura, because Martin Luther believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. :)

Anyhow, I think larger than either the groups for or against the perpetual virginity of Mary is the group which thinks it's theologically irrelevant and doesn't give it a second thought. :) I'm tempted to fall into that group from time to time. It's not always clear to me how or why Mary being a virgin or not being a virgin after the birth of Jesus should affect my faith one way or the other. :)

John

[SirTimothy]

Anyhow, I think larger than either the groups for or against the perpetual virginity of Mary is the group which thinks it's theologically irrelevant and doesn't give it a second thought. I'm tempted to fall into that group from time to time. It's not always clear to me how or why Mary being a virgin or not being a virgin after the birth of Jesus should affect my faith one way or the other.

I fall into that group. Mary is great, she obeyed God, great example to us all, without her obedience, we could not be saved! But apart from that I just ignore her...

Timothy

[gitlance]

I fall into that group. Mary is great, she obeyed God, great example to us all, without her obedience, we could not be saved! But apart from that I just ignore her...

Timothy

Ignore her? But she's your mother! Do you not honor her and call her blessed? Honoring and blessing someone requires action... you can't just say it if you don't practice it.

[gtsecc]

Anyhow, I think larger than either the groups for or against the perpetual virginity of Mary is the group which thinks it's theologically irrelevant and doesn't give it a second thought.
John

It is important because it has to do with what is your authority.
You either accept what the Church says, or you don't.
Once you start picking and choosing what you believe from the Church you have real problems, such as why do you believe one thing they say, but not the other thing. How then do you decide which is true and which isn't true?

[gitlance]

It is important because it has to do with what is your authority.
You either accept what the Church says, or you don't.
Once you start picking and choosing what you believe from the Church you have real problems, such as why do you believe one thing they say, but not the other thing. How then do you decide which is true and which isn't true?

Exactly. We have enough "cafeteria" Christians/Catholics today.

[gtsecc]

Let's see...
I'll have the Virgin Birth,
the resurection,
no perpetual Virginity,
only these books from the OT,

[Yahweh Nissi]

I absolutely agree with the points being directly addressed in those portions posted.

As to the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I am not sure. I am certainly one of the "sola scripture folks", but what extent I think tradition and patristic writings should be given in interpreting it - again, I am not sure.

Love YN.

[gtsecc]

I absolutely agree with the points being directly addressed in those portions posted.

As to the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I am not sure. I am certainly one of the "sola scripture folks", but what extent I think tradition and patristic writings should be given in interpreting it - again, I am not sure.

Love YN.
Are there ANY patristic writings which deny the perpetual virginity?

[Fish and Bread]

It is important because it has to do with what is your authority.
You either accept what the Church says, or you don't.
Once you start picking and choosing what you believe from the Church you have real problems, such as why do you believe one thing they say, but not the other thing. How then do you decide which is true and which isn't true?

How do you know there are seven ecumenical councils that count, given that some will claim it is as few as four and some claim more the twenty? The Anglican Communion doesn't take a formal stance on this issue, so you're deriving your conclusion from human reason and not from the authority of the Church. If we say that we can no longer use reason or scripture and must rely simply on the authority of the Church to make all determinations than we'd need a stronger authority than what the Anglican Communion offers.

John

[DarthDigger]

i dont understand this!

[gtsecc]

How do you know there are seven ecumenical councils that count, given that some will claim it is as few as four and some claim more the twenty? The Anglican Communion doesn't take a formal stance on this issue, so you're deriving your conclusion from human reason and not from the authority of the Church. If we say that we can no longer use reason or scripture and must rely simply on the authority of the Church to make all determinations than we'd need a stronger authority than what the Anglican Communion offers.

John
Right, we have to take a narrow and high church view - be Anglican, but look to undivided Chruch, Rome and the EO for guidance.

[karen freeinchristman]

i dont understand this!
DarthDigger, This thread has to do with whether or not the Virgin Mary remained a virgin even after she gave birth to Jesus Christ (perpetual virginity). Some people here claim that she did, and some do not. Most of us don't know, and a lot of us aren't too concerned about it. In order to decide for yourself, DD, you would have to read lots of books about early church history, in addition to (or in order to) knowing exactly how to interpret the scriptures. Although I think it is a good thing to educate ourselves in terms of the early church, it is a pretty complicated subject, and personally, like John (Fish and Bread), I think the issue of whether or not Mary remained a virgin is not that crucial to our faith.

[gitlance]

How do you know there are seven ecumenical councils that count, given that some will claim it is as few as four and some claim more the twenty? The Anglican Communion doesn't take a formal stance on this issue, so you're deriving your conclusion from human reason and not from the authority of the Church. If we say that we can no longer use reason or scripture and must rely simply on the authority of the Church to make all determinations than we'd need a stronger authority than what the Anglican Communion offers.

John

Orthodoxy is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Which councils do all of the apostolic churches accept?

The first 7.

[Fish and Bread]

Orthodoxy is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Which councils do all of the apostolic churches accept?

The first 7.

The Anglican Communion has no formal position on whether we accept church councils and, if so, how many we accept. So are we going to take a vote, 2 of 3 churches approve at least 7 coucils, so that proposition wins 2-1? But only one approves of over 20 councils, so that proposition loses 2-1? Is Christianity a democracy? Anglo-Catholicism needs a stronger sense of where it's views come from, in my view. Otherwise, it risks becoming no more than a form Protestantism that puts tradition on par with scripture, but leaves it to everyone individually to reason it out, just like the sola scriptura folks. If we believe in a visible Church, it's got to be defined so we know what to follow.

The problem that's inherent with the idea that Church is visible until 1088 and infallible and then ceases to exist is that the gates of hell would have prevailed. Either the Church was always defined by invisible bonds through baptism and communion and church councils are just straw polls, thus meaning the visible breakup had no effect on the true Church, or the Church was defined visibly and continues to be defined visibly. The visible becoming invisible just doesn't hold water to me -- it's one thing or the other, eternally.

Obviously, if the Church is visible than aspects of the church still exist outside of the Church, but if the Church is visible, one body is the Church. Otherwise, the Church must be invisible. To me at times Anglo-Catholics who hold to the idea that the united Church was the visible Church that is now invisible, and consider it infallible, are trying to find a middle ground between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy that simply can't exist.

John

[CSMR]

From the 2nd council of Constantinople (AD 553):

Look at where authority for doctrine is received from according to that last canon.

The seven ecumenical councils are absolutely binding for those who uphold the Catholic faith -- in fact, in the Anglican Church's claim of Catholicity, there is a direct implication that the Church will adhere to and uphold the canons of the councils.

What do you think of the above canons?
They are wrong because denying that Mary remained virgin is not a heresy and is not incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore it cannot be a requirement for any church to be part of the Holy Catholic Church.

[gitlance]

The Anglican Communion has no formal position on whether we accept church councils and, if so, how many we accept. So are we going to take a vote, 2 of 3 churches approve at least 7 coucils, so that proposition wins 2-1? But only one approves of over 20 councils, so that proposition loses 2-1? Is Christianity a democracy? Anglo-Catholicism needs a stronger sense of where it's views come from, in my view. Otherwise, it risks becoming no more than a form Protestantism that puts tradition on par with scripture, but leaves it to everyone individually to reason it out, just like the sola scriptura folks. If we believe in a visible Church, it's got to be defined so we know what to follow.

The problem that's inherent with the idea that Church is visible until 1088 and infallible and then ceases to exist is that the gates of hell would have prevailed. Either the Church was always defined by invisible bonds through baptism and communion and church councils are just straw polls, thus meaning the visible breakup had no effect on the true Church, or the Church was defined visibly and continues to be defined visibly. The visible becoming invisible just doesn't hold water to me -- it's one thing or the other, eternally.

Obviously, if the Church is visible than aspects of the church still exist outside of the Church, but if the Church is visible, one body is the Church. Otherwise, the Church must be invisible. To me at times Anglo-Catholics who hold to the idea that the united Church was the visible Church that is now invisible, and consider it infallible, are trying to find a middle ground between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy that simply can't exist.

John

The united Church of the first 1000 years is by no means invisible. She is purely visible: fully existant in Rome, the East, England, and all the other Apostolic Churches. There is no lack of visibility.

As for structures of authority, Anglo-Catholics have repeated that many times. There are four marks of the Catholic Church: and all such Churches as possess these four marks are part of the visible Catholic church. The Anglican Communion has called herself Catholic, has proclaimed herself as part of the Catholic Church, and does in fact uphold these four marks: along with Rome, the East, the Old Catholics, etc.



The Four Marks of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church


1. The Apostolic Ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons with the inherited, unbroken Succession directly descended from Christ and His holy Apostles.
(John 20:19-23; Matt. 28:18-20)

2. The Holy Sacraments instituted by Christ and given to His Church through the power of the Holy Spirit, the two greatest being necessary for salvation.
(John 3, 6:52-56; 1 Cor. 11; Acts 2, 8; 1 Peter 3:21)

3. The ancient and unaltered Faith of the Church, as transmitted from Jesus through the Apostles and their successors in the Holy Tradition, embodied in the historic Creeds of Nicaea and the Apostles.
(Matt. 24:14, 26:13; Mark 8:35, 16:15)

4. The complete canon of the Holy Scriptures as authorized by the Church through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
(Mark 15:28; Luke 4:21; John 7:38; Council of Nicaea, 325 AD)

“If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim. 3:15

[gitlance]

They are wrong because denying that Mary remained virgin is not a heresy and is not incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore it cannot be a requirement for any church to be part of the Holy Catholic Church.

So those Christians who lived and died for the faith, guarded the unity of the Church, and gave you the creeds were wrong? You accept the other statements of 2nd Constantinople as they apply to Christ, the Godhead, or the Holy Spirit. What gives you the authority to pick and choose? Who gave you power to be more knowledgable than they? Where does your divine gift of truth come from? Has God revealed to you the secrets of the truth which he did not reveal to those first Christians? Do we, in a time of theological confusion, somehow know better than those who helped form the Church in her infancy? Do we know better than those who walked in Jesus' steps, who knew his apostles, who learned from their writings? Have we become so arrogant as to think that we know better than those Christians who suffered and died for their faith? Are we? Are we?

And lest one say that "we have the Scriptures," refer to the close of the canons of this council. The Fathers said that (first and foremost) they received this doctrine from the Scriptures.

Let him who denies the faith of the Catholic Church -- as received in its fullness from Christ and His Apostles -- be anathama. Or so the Fathers have said.

[Fish and Bread]

The united Church of the first 1000 years is by no means invisible. She is purely visible: fully existant in Rome, the East, England, and all the other Apostolic Churches. There is no lack of visibility.

The Church is by definition ONE as in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of the Nicene Creed. If what is visible can be defined as Church, it must therefore also be one visibly. If it is invisible, then it can be one invisibly. :)

As for structures of authority, Anglo-Catholics have repeated that many times. There are four marks of the Catholic Church: and all such Churches as possess these four marks are part of the visible Catholic church. The Anglican Communion has called herself Catholic, has proclaimed herself as part of the Catholic Church, and does in fact uphold these four marks: along with Rome, the East, the Old Catholics, etc.

I must admit, I have my doubts on that front. If the Church is meant to be a visible instituation, it almost by definition has to be Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Only if it is invisible can Anglicanism stand on it's own two feet as possessing the fullness of the faith (as part of a larger whole).

John

[Fish and Bread]

Let him who denies the faith of the Catholic Church -- as received in its fullness from Christ and His Apostles -- be anathama. Or so the Fathers have said.

If the council is binding, then it is up to bishops to enforce that canon and priests who are under their direct supervision and instruction and can act in their name, not the laity.

John

[Simon_Templar]

Ok..

FIRST.. looking at the actuall canons.. with the added emphasis aside. Not one of them ever says that it is required to call or admit that Mary is ever virgin, nor ever says that people who will not do so are anethema. The fact that the canons use the term is strong support for believing it, obviously. If you actually carefuly read what they say, however, none of them make it a required statement.
Every one of the canons (except the last statement about where their rulings were derived from) speaks abotu ONE issue and one issue only, the divinity of Jesus Christ.

the first one.. if anyone denies that Jesus had two nativities, one his eternal betting by the Father and one as a human child through Mary... is anethema.. Why? because if you deny the first you deny the Jesus is God.. if you deny the second you deny that he came in the flesh and was a man.
This has to do with Mary only tangentially because in denying her giving birth to Christ, you deny Christ.

Likewise with the second.. If anyone denies that Mary is the Mother of God he is anethema why? Because in denying that Mary is the God Bearer you deny that Jesus was concieved and born as God almighty and in this specific case the heresy addressed is that Jesus became divine, became the christ by annointing only after he was born.

In both cases the issue is denying Jesus and Mary is only tangentially related because denying her in those specific ways, denies that Jesus was who he claimed to be, and who he was.

Denying the eternal virginity of Mary does not deny Jesus in either of the ways addressed, which is also why neither of the canons say "if a man says that Mary is not ever-virgin, he is anathema".

this is the problem with both the Orthodox and Catholic churches.. they have taken doctrines which may be true.. and may be good, but are not absolute requirements in order to be a believer, and have made them requirements based on which they have cast people out of the church and ultimately caused the division of the church.


I'm still in flux somewhat as I come from a totaly protestant background... but I'm leaning towards the belief that Mary was ever virgin, for many reasons. But I would not require that belief from anyone, even if I would encourage it.. and I certainly wouldn't divide the church over it or play holier than thou with it.

To believe that Mary was not ever virgin is not only not an attack or denial on Jesus.. it isn't even an attack on Mary. The belief that virginity makes one more righteous or more holy is contradicted by scripture. Furthermore, motherhood (of the natural variety not just the supernatural) is highly praised in scripture. Mary would not be less holy if she bore other children.


Lastly the final canon listed which states that the council made its decision based on
#1 scripture
#2 earlier fathers of the church
#3 Synods (ie other church councils)

This does not mean that all of the things listed are "authoritative" or "infallible". It can just as easily be interpeted to mean that the early fathers and the councils were used as guides because they were reliable and respected. I don't see many people making the argument that every early church father was authoritative and/or infallible.. yet the early fathers are listed in higher presedence than are councils.

[CSMR]

What gives you the authority to pick and choose?
This is one of the worse arguments of Roman Catholics. Everyone picks and chooses. If there is any rightness to this picking and choosing it is by the grace of God, who gives us his truth by which we can judge what is true. But right or wrong, we choose anyway.
Where does your divine gift of truth come from?
The answer is (correctly) presumed in the question!
...more knowledgable than they?
Has God revealed to you the secrets of the truth which he did not reveal to those first Christians?
Do we know better than those who walked in Jesus' steps, who knew his apostles, who learned from their writings? Have we become so arrogant as to think that we know better than those Christians who suffered and died for their faith?
Well in a sense I claim less knowledge than they did since I do not know whether Mary was ever virgin. I suppose I confidently know that this is not necessary for salvation. To one one gift, to another another. I do not put myself above another Christian in knowledge of truth because the absolute truth is beyond anyone and is received only in faith, and this is a work of God which cannot be nullified by human mistakes.

Are you thinking you know better than me? Are you thinking you know better than those early or late Christians who disagree with you? Are you better than those modern Christians who walk in Jesus' steps, who know his apostles, who learn from their writings, who suffer and die for their faith? Not that I would want to flatter modern or ancient Christians! Your argument creates too many infallible people, and instead of giving a special honour to a group of people we should give honour to the gospel of God.

Must we, when we speak to glorify God, glorify ourselves by being puffed up with knowledge? If so it is not a fault of the words we speak; and your criticism will only apply to me and not what I say.
Let him who denies the faith of the Catholic Church -- as received in its fullness from Christ and His Apostles -- be anathama. Or so the Fathers have said.
Which is my argument, because the faith of the Catholic Church which is faith in Jesus Christ does not entail this historical belief about Mary, and so the anathema should not be applied.

[karen freeinchristman]

To believe that Mary was not ever virgin is not only not an attack or denial on Jesus.. it isn't even an attack on Mary. The belief that virginity makes one more righteous or more holy is contradicted by scripture. Furthermore, motherhood (of the natural variety not just the supernatural) is highly praised in scripture. Mary would not be less holy if she bore other children.

:thumbsup:

Great post, Simon!

[karen freeinchristman]

Are you thinking you know better than me? Are you thinking you know better than those early or late Christians who disagree with you? Are you better than those modern Christians who walk in Jesus' steps, who know his apostles, who learn from their writings, who suffer and die for their faith? Not that I would want to flatter modern or ancient Christians! Your argument creates too many infallible people, and instead of giving a special honour to a group of people we should give honour to the gospel of God.

Must we, when we speak to glorify God, glorify ourselves by being puffed up with knowledge? If so it is not a fault of the words we speak; and your criticism will only apply to me and not what I say.

Honestly, this stuff is really important for us all to remember, IMHO. :)

[Yahweh Nissi]

Are there ANY patristic writings which deny the perpetual virginity?

I do not know - I have never looked into it because I do not think that it is particularly important, for the same kind of reasons that CSMR, Simon-Templar and Fish and Bread have mentioned in their good posts.

[gtsecc]

HERE is why it is IMPORTANT:



I think folks are missing the point I am making.
I don't think Mary was a perpetual Virgin becasue it makes her more Holy or some other such nonsense.
I accept it because that is what the Church has always taught.

I don't want to sit where I am, 2,000 years later, and try to piece together what really happened based upon historical evidence and reason.
If you do that, then it makes no sense to then not apply that reasoning to ALL the Church teachings - and if you do, Jesus being the Son of God is the first one of the first teachings that you would have to reject as suspect.

As a Christian, you are relying upon the witness of those who went before you.
You are relying on them for things that cannot be proved, and which are quite fanciful.
You need to trust them or not trust them. If you pick and choose, you are no different than folks who say Jesus was just a great fellow and teacher, but not God.

[gitlance]

It all boils down to authority. Either you are in charge, or the Church is in charge. Some nonsense about God being in charge won't work, because apparently the God that everyone is invoking is telling everybody different things. We have the witness of an undivided Church for 1000 years. 1000 years! Can you imagine that length of time?

We accept the Creeds as dogmatic. Why? Because the undivided Church said they are.

We accept the Scriptures as truth. Why? Because the undivided Church said they are.

We practice Sacraments as necessary to salvation. Why? Because the undivided Church said they are.

No matter how you look at it, it all boils down to authority. Either you are in charge, or the Church. What baffles me is how people can think that they know better than an institution that survived for 1000 years through plagues, persecutions, imprisonments, wars. They saw kingdoms and empire rise and fall, and yet the Church remained. They saw the birth of the world's second largest religion, and yet the Church remained. They were driven from their homes, beaten, killed, and yet the Church remained. And not only did she remain, but she remained one. If they saw it as necessary to the faith to include in one of their ecumenical councils that Our Lady is ever-virgin, who are we to presume to know better?

We are not smarter, nor are we "more spiritual" than they. Now, if you want to put all your authority in yourself, and what you think God is telling you, go right ahead -- that's an awfully slipperly and dangerous course to walk.

However, if you want to put your authority in that which God's Son created and gave the authority of truth to -- that which has been witness to the truth throughout countless generations -- then you are doing the work of a Christian by denying yourself and taking up the Cross to follow Jesus and His Church.

Saying that everyone picks and chooses, therefore it must be ok, is a strawman argument. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. And yes, I pick and choose: I pick all of the councils, decisions, and dogma of the undivided Church and choose to believe them. Why? Because I refuse to dishonor their name by deluding myself into thinking that I am more knowledgable than they.

[higgs2]

So those Christians who lived and died for the faith, guarded the unity of the Church, and gave you the creeds were wrong? You accept the other statements of 2nd Constantinople as they apply to Christ, the Godhead, or the Holy Spirit. What gives you the authority to pick and choose? Who gave you power to be more knowledgable than they? Where does your divine gift of truth come from? Has God revealed to you the secrets of the truth which he did not reveal to those first Christians? Do we, in a time of theological confusion, somehow know better than those who helped form the Church in her infancy? Do we know better than those who walked in Jesus' steps, who knew his apostles, who learned from their writings? Have we become so arrogant as to think that we know better than those Christians who suffered and died for their faith? Are we? Are we?

And lest one say that "we have the Scriptures," refer to the close of the canons of this council. The Fathers said that (first and foremost) they received this doctrine from the Scriptures.

Let him who denies the faith of the Catholic Church -- as received in its fullness from Christ and His Apostles -- be anathama. Or so the Fathers have said.

I don't think it's arrogant to think that our understanding can grow and change. I have to admit it seems really bizarre to keep referring back to the church parents for sol guidance about everything. I think we have learned a few things over the centuries.

[gtsecc]

I don't think it's arrogant to think that our understanding can grow and change. I have to admit it seems really bizarre to keep referring back to the church parents for sol guidance about everything. I think we have learned a few things over the centuries.
Did you read my post?

[higgs2]

Did you read my post?
yes.

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't want to sit where I am, 2,000 years later, and try to piece together what really happened based upon historical evidence and reason.
If you do that, then it makes no sense to then not apply that reasoning to ALL the Church teachings - and if you do, Jesus being the Son of God is the first one of the first teachings that you would have to reject as suspect.
OK, I am not one to say that the early church has got it all wrong, because the books I've ordered haven't arrived yet, and so I am still ignorant apart from what some of you have taught us about the church fathers. :)

However, I have to disagree with what you have said in the quote above, gtsecc, because I can look at scripture and see quite easily that Jesus is the Son of God, and so would not reject that as suspect even not having read any of the writings of the early church fathers.

[gtsecc]

However, I have to disagree with what you have said in the quote above, gtsecc, because I can look at scripture and see quite easily that Jesus is the Son of God, and so would not reject that as suspect even not having read any of the writings of the early church fathers.

:doh:

Why do you believe Scripture is the Word of God?

[karen freeinchristman]

:doh:

Why do you believe Scripture is the Word of God?
Obviously because the church chose which writings to include in scripture!
Oy, we're going in circles here! :scratch:

[gtsecc]

I don't think it's arrogant to think that our understanding can grow and change. I have to admit it seems really bizarre to keep referring back to the church parents for sol guidance about everything. I think we have learned a few things over the centuries.
But what they report is all we have.

For example, there is not any new medical evidence on Jesus's DNA and paternity.

There is not any new medical evidence on Mary's perpetual Virginity.

To a large degree, we have to accept what was reported to us about the events that happened and what they mean.

When we pick and choose which events we believe, we undermine the authority that handed us those events.

If someone tells you that this guy appeared, and was the Son of God, and died, and was resureced, and you are going to believe them - why not believe EVERYTHING they say?

Like we are going to believe that far fetched stuff, but then if they say he had a green tunic, we are going to say oh no - I am no sucker. I can't believe that sort of tall tale.

[gtsecc]

Obviously because the church chose which writings to include in scripture!
Oy, we're going in circles here! :scratch:
No, you are picking and choosing which stuff the chuch tells you as true and don't realize it.

[Fish and Bread]

No, you are picking and choosing which stuff the chuch tells you as true and don't realize it.

*Ahem*. I think that could describe more than one person here. :) It makes no logical sense whatsoever for there to be solid lines of church authority until the 11th century and then for there to be none. Either it ended with the Apostles or it continues still today in the form of either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

John

[higgs2]

[QUOTE=Fish and Bread It makes no logical sense whatsoever for there to be solid lines of church authority until the 11th century and then for there to be none.
John[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

[Simon_Templar]

Gitlance and Gtsecc,

One of the major problems for your points here is inherent in your own comments both of you have made a significant point that the undivided church survived for 1000 years.. an amazing feat... but that also means that the undivided church died 1000 years ago.

IF the church councils are taken to be authoritative, then the authority they have must derive from the fact that they were the product of the entire, unified church. "THE CHURCH" can only be held to have spoken on something if the entire church is undivided on the issue... thus the authority that you are speaking of with the church, provided it ever existed at the level you propose, died 1000 years ago.

Unless you are Orthodox, or Catholic and believe that your little corner of christendom is the "True" church and everyone else is not... then there is no visible and undivided church anymore, and the authority vested in such an entity is gone with it. That is at least part of the point Fish and Bread was trying to get at.

Furthermore, the authority of the church is not equal to the task of creating scripture. This authority was vested only in the first 12 apostles and there is no indication (quite the opposite in fact) that it was ever passed on to anyone else or to any other entity. Thus any later ruling of the church, or writing of church fathers.. no matter how trustworthy, reliable and wise it may be, is not on par with scripture, because it is not scripture, and we do not have confidence that it was directly revealed by God.

[Simon_Templar]

*Ahem*. I think that could describe more than one person here. :) It makes no logical sense whatsoever for there to be solid lines of church authority until the 11th century and then for there to be none. Either it ended with the Apostles or it continues still today in the form of either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

John

Speaking of the visible vs. invisible church. The church was meant to be both. It is invisible, but it is also supposed to be visible. Even the Roman Catholic church recognizes the invisible aspect of the church, which is why they hold that all people who recieve trinitarian baptism are christians and are part of the invisible church. They just don't recognize them as part of the visible church because they are "schizmatics".

the invisible church exists always and everywhere because it is binding together of all who believe through the Holy Spirit.

The visible church, however, is where the authority of the church is/was vested. The visible church did exist after the age of the apostles, but it has been so badly fractured in our day that it stretches logic and reason to say that any of the churches which exist today are the "true visible church". I don't think the fracture of the visible church means that there never was one, nor ever will be again. I think the current condition of the church is inline with statements Jesus made such as "when the son of man returns will he find faith in the earth" and Paul fortelling the great falling away etc etc.

[gtsecc]

*Ahem*. I think that could describe more than one person here. :) It makes no logical sense whatsoever for there to be solid lines of church authority until the 11th century and then for there to be none. Either it ended with the Apostles or it continues still today in the form of either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. John

I agree.
I am not sure what part of that you think I disagree with.
It does not tell us what to do with issues that came up after the 11th century which the church disagrees upon.
But, issues before 11th century - how can we 2nd guess?

[gitlance]

I don't think it's arrogant to think that our understanding can grow and change. I have to admit it seems really bizarre to keep referring back to the church parents for sol guidance about everything. I think we have learned a few things over the centuries.

There is a difference between understanding growing and people contradicting previous understandings. The perpetual virginity is not something that is going to change over further scrutiny... especially since it makes the most sense that those who were closest to her and her relatives would have been the ones to know most about her perpetual virginity.

[gitlance]

OK, I am not one to say that the early church has got it all wrong, because the books I've ordered haven't arrived yet, and so I am still ignorant apart from what some of you have taught us about the church fathers. :)

However, I have to disagree with what you have said in the quote above, gtsecc, because I can look at scripture and see quite easily that Jesus is the Son of God, and so would not reject that as suspect even not having read any of the writings of the early church fathers.

You can't look at Scripture and see that quite easily. Go talk to a Jehovah's witness or a oneness Pentecostal and ask them to show you Scripture proving their positions. They will be more than happy to. You accept that Jesus is the Son of God because the Church told you to believe that, and that belief does not contradict the Scriptures.

[gitlance]

Obviously because the church chose which writings to include in scripture!
Oy, we're going in circles here! :scratch:

So if you trust the Church's authority as it pertains to the selection of Scripture, why do you not trust the exact same Church's authority concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the necessity of Apostolic succession, etc?

[gitlance]

*Ahem*. I think that could describe more than one person here. :) It makes no logical sense whatsoever for there to be solid lines of church authority until the 11th century and then for there to be none. Either it ended with the Apostles or it continues still today in the form of either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

John

The lines of authority never ended! The lines broke unity with each other, yes, but they each continued visibly and with authority -- east and west.

[gitlance]

Furthermore, the authority of the church is not equal to the task of creating scripture. This authority was vested only in the first 12 apostles and there is no indication (quite the opposite in fact) that it was ever passed on to anyone else or to any other entity. Thus any later ruling of the church, or writing of church fathers.. no matter how trustworthy, reliable and wise it may be, is not on par with scripture, because it is not scripture, and we do not have confidence that it was directly revealed by God.

Go talk to any scriptural historian and they will tell you that we can't even verify that most of our New Testament was written directly by one of the apostles. A casual reading of some of the epistles will show you that there may have even been scribes involved. We can't even definitively date some of our epistles before the 2nd century.

Yet that doesn't bother me, because I trust the Church to have gotten it right.

The problem here is individualism. People think they can believe whatever is good for them. That is not how the early Church felt. Being a Christian is about obedience to Christ and to his representative on earth -- the Church.

Remember to whom he gave the keys -- not you.

[gtsecc]

Gitlance and Gtsecc,

One of the major problems for your points here is inherent in your own comments both of you have made a significant point that the undivided church survived for 1000 years.. an amazing feat... but that also means that the undivided church died 1000 years ago.

Yes - I agree.


IF the church councils are taken to be authoritative, then the authority they have must derive from the fact that they were the product of the entire, unified church. "THE CHURCH" can only be held to have spoken on something if the entire church is undivided on the issue... thus the authority that you are speaking of with the church, provided it ever existed at the level you propose, died 1000 years ago.

Yes - I agree.



Unless you are Orthodox, or Catholic and believe that your little corner of christendom is the "True" church and everyone else is not... then there is no visible and undivided church anymore, and the authority vested in such an entity is gone with it. That is at least part of the point Fish and Bread was trying to get at.


Again, I basically agree.




Furthermore, the authority of the church is not equal to the task of creating scripture. This authority was vested only in the first 12 apostles and there is no indication (quite the opposite in fact) that it was ever passed on to anyone else or to any other entity.

Acts 1
23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as. 24 And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.


Thus any later ruling of the church, or writing of church fathers.. no matter how trustworthy, reliable and wise it may be, is not on par with scripture, because it is not scripture, and we do not have confidence that it was directly revealed by God.

It does not make sense, to me, to accept teachings by the Church in the first few Centuries that these writings are the word of God, but not accept other teachings by the very same Church in the first few Centuries. On what basis can you reasonably accept one teaching as true and another as false?

[Fish and Bread]

I agree.
I am not sure what part of that you think I disagree with.
It does not tell us what to do with issues that came up after the 11th century which the church disagrees upon.
But, issues before 11th century - how can we 2nd guess?

Because if Jesus intended the Church to be visibly unified in faith by it's bishops and church councils, or by a Pope, or by all of the above; and granted it/them/him infallibility of some sort -- it would not have suddenly stopped in the 11th century. If He intended it, then it would have continued forever. If He did not intend it, then church councils and such are only the opinions of the faithful, which granted would hold more weight because of when they occurred, but would not be infallible.

John

[Fish and Bread]

The lines of authority never ended! The lines broke unity with each other, yes, but they each continued visibly and with authority -- east and west.

So, in your view the authority never ended, but continues in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches. Alright, if the Church lines of authority continue, what's the current position of the Church on the Imacculate Conception, for example? The Roman Catholics say yes, the Eastern Orthodox say no, and the Anglicans say maybe. Should we take a straw poll? ;) Bear in mind that 80% of the world's bishops were Arians at one point.

John

[gitlance]

Because if Jesus intended the Church to be visibly unified in faith by it's bishops and church councils, or by a Pope, or by all of the above; and granted it/them/him infallibility of some sort -- it would not have suddenly stopped in the 11th century. If He intended it, then it would have continued forever. If He did not intend it, then church councils and such are only the opinions of the faithful, which granted would hold more weight because of when they occurred, but would not be infallible.

John

It did continue, and continues to this day. Why do you think we Anglo-Catholics have not left over women's ordination, Gene Robinson, etc? Because we trust the decisions of the Church. Cyprian taught something called a federated Episcopacy: he concluded that every individual bishop has all the authority of every other bishop. This means that the Anglican bishops can meet in council and proclaim truth, just as can the bishops of the East and Rome -- so long as such pronouncements do not contradict Scripture or the canons of the undivided Church. The Anglican Church has not officially made any statement in Lambeth that contradicts the rulings of the ancient councils.

[gtsecc]

Because if Jesus intended the Church to be visibly unified in faith by it's bishops and church councils, or by a Pope, or by all of the above; and granted it/them/him infallibility of some sort -- it would not have suddenly stopped in the 11th century. If He intended it, then it would have continued forever. If He did not intend it, then church councils and such are only the opinions of the faithful, which granted would hold more weight because of when they occurred, but would not be infallible.

John

Well, it is either one of the Churches with Bishops or all of them, right?

[gtsecc]

So, in your view the authority never ended, but continues in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches. Alright, if the Church lines of authority continue, what's the current position of the Church on the Imacculate Conception, for example? The Roman Catholics say yes, the Eastern Orthodox say no, and the Anglicans say maybe. Should we take a straw poll? ;) Bear in mind that 80% of the world's bishops were Arians at one point.

John

That is why we need reunification.
And, why whenever we act, we have to be mindful as to whether this is going to help reunification or hinder it.

[Fish and Bread]

It did continue, and continues to this day. Why do you think we Anglo-Catholics have not left over women's ordination, Gene Robinson, etc? Because we trust the decisions of the Church. Cyprian taught something called a federated Episcopacy: he concluded that every individual bishop has all the authority of every other bishop. This means that the Anglican bishops can meet in council and proclaim truth, just as can the bishops of the East and Rome -- so long as such pronouncements do not contradict Scripture or the canons of the undivided Church. The Anglican Church has not officially made any statement in Lambeth that contradicts the rulings of the ancient councils.

Do the bishops who meet at Lambeth consider themselves to be meeting in a local church council? Do they consider their own declarations binding? How often is the old Lambeth declaration on, say, birth control, upheld nowdays? If they truly have the full authority of the Church and so do the Roman Catholics and so do the Eastern Orthodox; how can they all contradict each other? Either we're all muddling along as best we can, with Christ our only true spiritual authority, or there is one Church organization with authority and the other two "apostolic" churches are outside of the fullness of the faith.

John

[Fish and Bread]

Well, it is either one of the Churches with Bishops or all of them, right?

Either the Church is the same everywhere or it isn't, and if continued earthly authority is an intregal part of the Church, then authority must have continued after the Great Schism and for any to possess the fullness of the faith it must be recognized. If bishops do not recognize each other's authority, then they can not by definition be part of the same visible organization. A Church defined as invisible and without binding authority of doctrine in the present day is to me a necessary view unless one wishes to become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodoxy. If the Church is a visible organization, and the Church is one, it can not be all of them, it must be one of them.

John

[Simon_Templar]

Go talk to any scriptural historian and they will tell you that we can't even verify that most of our New Testament was written directly by one of the apostles. A casual reading of some of the epistles will show you that there may have even been scribes involved. We can't even definitively date some of our epistles before the 2nd century.

Yet that doesn't bother me, because I trust the Church to have gotten it right.

The problem here is individualism. People think they can believe whatever is good for them. That is not how the early Church felt. Being a Christian is about obedience to Christ and to his representative on earth -- the Church.

Remember to whom he gave the keys -- not you.

First, I've spent most of my life studying history. I'm well aware of the different opinions historians have on the dates for the new testament books (Both gospels and epistles). The problem for the historians who give late dates and non traditional authors for the new testament books, and for the argument that one must believe in the authority of the church in order to believe in scripture is very simply the historical evidence, and common accepted historical methodology.

The fact is that much of the new testament books, whether there are early manuscripts or not, can be reconstructed, or verified simply from the fact that they were quoted repeatedly by early christian writers. With ANY OTHER historical document, if you find it repeatedly quoted by contemporary or near contemporary writers, and attributed to a given author.. that is accepted as historical proof. This is the case with virtually every manuscript of classical literature. There are no extant copies, of most of the works of classical literature within 500 sometimes a thousand years of the original work, yet no one doubts that they existed, or doubts who the author was.. why? simply because other writers referred to them and quoted them and attributed them to specific authors. There is far more, and better evidence for the new testament texts both in extant documents and in quotes and refrences from ancient writers than either the works of plato, or Caesar, and yet not a single credible historian doubts the authenticity of Plato's and Caesar's works.

Thus there is no historical reason to doubt that the new testament books were written by who they were attributed to, at the time they were attributed to. In fact there are many reasons, other than the authority of the church to believe it.
Even in the councils which established the canon of scripture, they use the same reasoning.. they don't say "we by the authority vested in the church declare these books to be scripture".. what they say is "we recognize that these books have always been recognized by the generations of believers before us back to the apostles, as scripture, therefor we hold them to be scripture." that is not an appeal to the authority of the church to establish scripture, it is an appeal to the historical tradition that shows these books to have been established by the apostles.


Secondly... remember to whom he gave the keys.. Peter, or at most The 12 apostles. Not the thousands of bishops in the intervening time between them and us. There are twelve thrones in new Jerusalem and Twelve GATES (what are keys for??? to open doors.. or gates??) in New Jerusalem.. not thousands upon thousands, one for each bishop in succession.

[Simon_Templar]

Acts 1
23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as. 24 And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.


strangely enough I was just in a conversation regarding this yesterday... I honestly don't know what to think about it. The person I was talking to was putting forth the idea that this act by the apostles was pre-emptive of God's will and that Paul was actually Jesus' choice to replace Judas.. There are alot of elements of this that make sense when you begin to think about it... I'm not really sure what I think about it though.



It does not make sense, to me, to accept teachings by the Church in the first few Centuries that these writings are the word of God, but not accept other teachings by the very same Church in the first few Centuries. On what basis can you reasonably accept one teaching as true and another as false?

The problem is that the teachings most people talk about and have trouble with do not arise in the first few centuries... they arise after five or six hundred years... If the teaching wasn't required or necessary for the first 500 years.. why is it necessary now? I havn't read all the church fathers from the first 300 years yet.. but so far I havn't seen anything from them resembling the doctrine of magisterium that is proposed by the Catholics and Orthodox and that we are currently discussing.
In the first few centuries you have a focus only on the very basic necessities of christian truth.. the nicean creed being the culmination of what the first three centuries felt to be necessary... The nicean creed is very basic compared to what the magesterium has since developed... in the first few centuries you have the basic issues clarified.. from that time it begins to become interpetation of interpetations of interpetations and so on, almost ad infinitum.

Now... from my point of view, the church lost its magisterial authority (if such a thing ever existed) and that is why the church fractured. I do not believe the loss of authority was the result of the split, I believe it was the cause of the split. The question for me then is how far back did the church leave the path and begin to let the ego's and wills of men get in the way of the Holy Spirit's leading.

A final note.. I do believe that the church had a magisterial authority of a kind. I believe that the Apostles passed on the magisterial authority to teach and to preserve/protect doctrine. I don't believe that the Apostles passed on the authority to establish scripture. That is why the canon closed at the end of the apostolic age (a fact recognized by every church including the early church).

[karen freeinchristman]

You can't look at Scripture and see that quite easily.

:sorry: Yes, I can.

[gitlance]

So, in your view the authority never ended, but continues in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches. Alright, if the Church lines of authority continue, what's the current position of the Church on the Imacculate Conception, for example? The Roman Catholics say yes, the Eastern Orthodox say no, and the Anglicans say maybe. Should we take a straw poll? ;) Bear in mind that 80% of the world's bishops were Arians at one point.

John

I would say we should first consider the fact that Scripture does not forbid such a doctrine. There are no conciliar pronouncements that forbid such a doctrine. The ARCIC has stated that the Immaculate Conception is a belief that may be upheld by Anglicans due to the fact that it does not contradict past Church teaching. Martin Luther believed in it. The Church Fathers repeatedly ruled concerning Mary's "purity" and "sanctity". I would say that we should seriously consider the Immaculate Conception in light of such things, but until our bishops make an official ruling one way or the other, we are allowed freedom in this matter.

[gitlance]

First, I've spent most of my life studying history. I'm well aware of the different opinions historians have on the dates for the new testament books (Both gospels and epistles). The problem for the historians who give late dates and non traditional authors for the new testament books, and for the argument that one must believe in the authority of the church in order to believe in scripture is very simply the historical evidence, and common accepted historical methodology.

The fact is that much of the new testament books, whether there are early manuscripts or not, can be reconstructed, or verified simply from the fact that they were quoted repeatedly by early christian writers. With ANY OTHER historical document, if you find it repeatedly quoted by contemporary or near contemporary writers, and attributed to a given author.. that is accepted as historical proof. This is the case with virtually every manuscript of classical literature. There are no extant copies, of most of the works of classical literature within 500 sometimes a thousand years of the original work, yet no one doubts that they existed, or doubts who the author was.. why? simply because other writers referred to them and quoted them and attributed them to specific authors. There is far more, and better evidence for the new testament texts both in extant documents and in quotes and refrences from ancient writers than either the works of plato, or Caesar, and yet not a single credible historian doubts the authenticity of Plato's and Caesar's works.

Thus there is no historical reason to doubt that the new testament books were written by who they were attributed to, at the time they were attributed to. In fact there are many reasons, other than the authority of the church to believe it.
Even in the councils which established the canon of scripture, they use the same reasoning.. they don't say "we by the authority vested in the church declare these books to be scripture".. what they say is "we recognize that these books have always been recognized by the generations of believers before us back to the apostles, as scripture, therefor we hold them to be scripture." that is not an appeal to the authority of the church to establish scripture, it is an appeal to the historical tradition that shows these books to have been established by the apostles.


Secondly... remember to whom he gave the keys.. Peter, or at most The 12 apostles. Not the thousands of bishops in the intervening time between them and us. There are twelve thrones in new Jerusalem and Twelve GATES (what are keys for??? to open doors.. or gates??) in New Jerusalem.. not thousands upon thousands, one for each bishop in succession.

1. Should we therefore include the Book of Enoch in our canon, since St. Jude quoted it in his epistle? Should we include the Mishnah, since Jesus quoted it?

2. Where do the bishops receive their authority? From the apostles. As Jesus was sent by the Father, the Apostles were sent by Jesus -- and the bishops were sent by the Apostles.

[gitlance]

The problem is that the teachings most people talk about and have trouble with do not arise in the first few centuries... they arise after five or six hundred years... If the teaching wasn't required or necessary for the first 500 years.. why is it necessary now? I havn't read all the church fathers from the first 300 years yet.. but so far I havn't seen anything from them resembling the doctrine of magisterium that is proposed by the Catholics and Orthodox and that we are currently discussing.
In the first few centuries you have a focus only on the very basic necessities of christian truth.. the nicean creed being the culmination of what the first three centuries felt to be necessary... The nicean creed is very basic compared to what the magesterium has since developed... in the first few centuries you have the basic issues clarified.. from that time it begins to become interpetation of interpetations of interpetations and so on, almost ad infinitum.

Read St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Tertullian, St. Clement of Rome, St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Origen. All of them, from the first 300 years of the Church, considered the authority of Bishops and the infallibility of the Church to be absolutely essential to Christianity. The Apostolic Succession was referred to by them as the "distinguishing feature of the Body of Christ".

Now... from my point of view, the church lost its magisterial authority (if such a thing ever existed) and that is why the church fractured. I do not believe the loss of authority was the result of the split, I believe it was the cause of the split. The question for me then is how far back did the church leave the path and begin to let the ego's and wills of men get in the way of the Holy Spirit's leading.

So Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth has failed? So the Church is no longer the pillar and ground of the truth? So the gates of hell have prevailed?

A final note.. I do believe that the church had a magisterial authority of a kind. I believe that the Apostles passed on the magisterial authority to teach and to preserve/protect doctrine. I don't believe that the Apostles passed on the authority to establish scripture. That is why the canon closed at the end of the apostolic age (a fact recognized by every church including the early church).

Scripture was indeed "established" by the Church. The books in your New Testament were selected and proclaimed scripture by the Church, operating in the charism of truth given by Christ to his apostles and their successors. The writings of the apostles were not even called Scripture as such for until the middle 2nd century at the earliest. They were usually referred to as the "memoirs of the apostles" (St. Justin Martyr). There were other books circulating at the time, which some considered scripture and others didn't. Several of these were attributed to the apostles. The Church's bishops selected texts out of that mass conglomeration and, being led by the Holy Spirit, declared some of them to be scripture.

The Church did not, as 19th-century evangelicals assert, "recognize" the true books as Scripture. They proclaimed the books that matched the tradition and dogma of the Church as Scripture.

[karen freeinchristman]

So if you trust the Church's authority as it pertains to the selection of Scripture, why do you not trust the exact same Church's authority concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the necessity of Apostolic succession, etc?
To be totally honest, gitlance, I am not sure that I do trust the Church's authority as it pertains to the selection of Scripture. The fact is that what the Church has given us is all we now have in terms of the Scripture that is accepted. I know from personal experience and what I might term 'spiritual enlightenment' that the Gospels speak of the truth of God revealed to us in Christ Jesus, and that is what I trust. If I didn't have any of my own perception of that truth, and I simply had to trust the Church, I would not be a believer today. Part of the reason why I don't trust the Church's authority regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary is for the simple reason that it doesn't have any bearing on the revelation of God's purposes for mankind in this world (or in the next), as far as I can tell.
And as far as Apostolic succession is concerned, I do believe it is a great benefit for the Church, something to be treasured, and I also believe that women are totally legitimate in terms of Apostolic succession when ordained by a Bishop from a church that is in accordance with the succession.

[gitlance]

To be totally honest, gitlance, I am not sure that I do trust the Church's authority as it pertains to the selection of Scripture. The fact is that what the Church has given us is all we now have in terms of the Scripture that is accepted. I know from personal experience and what I might term 'spiritual enlightenment' that the Gospels speak of the truth of God revealed to us in Christ Jesus, and that is what I trust. If I didn't have any of my own perception of that truth, and I simply had to trust the Church, I would not be a believer today. Part of the reason why I don't trust the Church's authority regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary is for the simple reason that it doesn't have any bearing on the revelation of God's purposes for mankind in this world (or in the next), as far as I can tell.
And as far as Apostolic succession is concerned, I do believe it is a great benefit for the Church, something to be treasured, and I also believe that women are totally legitimate in terms of Apostolic succession when ordained by a Bishop from a church that is in accordance with the succession.

How you view Mary determines how you view Her Son. Believe it or not, but things like the perpetual virginity and the Immaculate Conception make a difference when used as lenses to look at Jesus Christ.

[karen freeinchristman]

How you view Mary determines how you view Her Son. Believe it or not, but things like the perpetual virginity and the Immaculate Conception make a difference when used as lenses to look at Jesus Christ.Right then. I am willing to listen to an explanation (in plain English) of exactly how you believe using Mary as a lens makes a difference in how I (or we) view Jesus. So far, I haven't read anything in this thread where this is specifically answered. You began this thread by stating that anyone who doesn't believe it is in the wrong, but as far as I can remember (and that's not very far, unfortunately for me ;) ), this specific morsel has not yet been offered up for chewing.

[Simon_Templar]

Read St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Tertullian, St. Clement of Rome, St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Origen. All of them, from the first 300 years of the Church, considered the authority of Bishops and the infallibility of the Church to be absolutely essential to Christianity. The Apostolic Succession was referred to by them as the "distinguishing feature of the Body of Christ"..

Admittedly I havn't read everything by all of those mentioned above, I have read all of some of them and some of most of them. I have seen lots of talk about the authority of bishops.. which I agree with. The clear teaching of these writers, and the church of their time, however, was that a bishop was given authority over one flock, generaly one city and he did not have authority over any other. I have yet to see any refrences to a corperate authority of the church on par with that of the original apostles or scripture. In fact every time I've seen refrences to scripture or apostolic succession it has been used to establish the authority of bishops and the church (I'm not denying that the church has authority, I"m disagreeing with you about what authority.. or what kind of authority it has/had).. not the other way around. In fact the apostolic succession was used in most of those writers, not as a stamp of authority but as a stamp of authenticity.. Most of them didn't say "you know we have authority because the apostles gave it to us" What most of them say is "you know we are telling you the truth because we have received the truth in direct line from the apostles (in a couple of cases directly from the apostles themselves). " Those are distinctly different claims.



So Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth has failed? So the Church is no longer the pillar and ground of the truth? So the gates of hell have prevailed?.


Here again, this promise was made to whom? to the Apostles. The Holy Spirit did guide the Apostles into all truth which is why they were able to write the scriptures.. and incidentaly why we are not able to write the scriptures.. why no one, none of the fathers, bishops, no one since the apostles has been able to write scripture.
Incidentally the gates of hell have not prevailed because the battle isn't over yet. The battle belongs to the Lord.. and its outcome is not in doubt.. but it is still going on.




Scripture was indeed "established" by the Church. The books in your New Testament were selected and proclaimed scripture by the Church, operating in the charism of truth given by Christ to his apostles and their successors. The writings of the apostles were not even called Scripture as such for until the middle 2nd century at the earliest. They were usually referred to as the "memoirs of the apostles" (St. Justin Martyr). There were other books circulating at the time, which some considered scripture and others didn't. Several of these were attributed to the apostles. The Church's bishops selected texts out of that mass conglomeration and, being led by the Holy Spirit, declared some of them to be scripture.

The Church did not, as 19th-century evangelicals assert, "recognize" the true books as Scripture. They proclaimed the books that matched the tradition and dogma of the Church as Scripture.

I'm sorry but this simply isn't accurate. You can say that the scriptures weren't called scripture until the middle of the second century but what does this really mean? There were almost no writings other than the scripture until the middle of the 2nd century. The didache, Ignatius, and Polycarp are about the only writings which exist from before the middle of the second century and they were at the beginning of the second century. If you read these men, wether or not they used the word "scripture" it is clear that they and their audiences regarded the books in question as inspired. Including Justin who cites them again in terms of historical sources as validation of the authenticity of their beliefs.
All that this evidences is that the primary concern of these writers was not to prove authority, but rather to prove authenticity.. to show that their claims and teachings were the original teachings of the apostles.

You can say that the councils didn't "recognize" scripture but that is infact what the councils themselves said.

As for extra books which were not included. There are a couple of books that had limited acceptance among the believers that were not included in the canon. They were never accepted by the majority of believers. This does not include the gnostic writings, of modern popularity, which were always roundly condemned by church from the days of the Apostles themselves.

[gtsecc]

The particular teaching is not so important.
However, accepting the Authority of the Church is that important.

Does Mary's Virginity affect my salvation?
No.

Does my acceptance of Church teaching affect my salvation?
Absolutely.

[karen freeinchristman]

The particular teaching is not so important.
However, accepting the Authority of the Church is that important.

Does Mary's Virginity affect my salvation?
No.

Does my acceptance of Church teaching affect my salvation?
Absolutely.
OK, I will accept that if you are including today's Church, and not just the early Church! We are in the Anglican Church. I can say right now without any hesitation that I accept the teaching of the Anglican Church as it is today.

Actually, I need to re-state that as the Church of England's teaching, because I am not too sure that the ECUSA or the other members of the Anglican communion all have the same teaching as the Church of England, and it is the C of E that I am familiar with.

[Simon_Templar]

The particular teaching is not so important.
However, accepting the Authority of the Church is that important.

Does Mary's Virginity affect my salvation?
No.

Does my acceptance of Church teaching affect my salvation?
Absolutely.

I don't really have a problem with this.. but consider the idea that perhaps the church is in error by causing people to stumble over doctrines that are not really central. If the church is willing to exclude people and possibly even cost people salvation over an issue that is at best tangential... I think that church is in serious error.
If I am willing to condemn my brother because he doesn't believe a doctrine that isn't essential and has no effect on how he views the Godhead, or the incarnation, and has no effect on righteous living.. then I would consider myself to have fallen under the verses in John's epistles which say that if I say I love God, but hate my brother.. I am a liar. I think that is a serious problem for much of the traditional church.

[Naomi4Christ]

What I would like to know is where is all this church teaching going on and how is the church authority getting to the average Joe Parishioner?

We do not mention Mary at all unless she is one of the characters in the particular bible readings (obviously, she will have a mention during Advent and Christmas), and then we will stick to what it actually says in the bible about her.

We do not use tradition to add to biblical facts, only to support them. To me, it does not matter to my faith whether Mary was a virgin her entire life or not - but my gut feel was that she was not.

It seems to me that theories about Joseph's being a widower and James' being Jesus' cousin came about only after the idea of the perpetual virginity gathered momentum.

[karen freeinchristman]

What I would like to know is where is all this church teaching going on and how is the church authority getting to the average Joe Parishioner?

We do not mention Mary at all unless she is one of the characters in the particular bible readings (obviously, she will have a mention during Advent and Christmas), and then we will stick to what it actually says in the bible about her.

Same here in my church (my home church, that is. At the placement church, Mary is given much more attention, and it was clear to me at the Bible study that most people there are not very familiar with scripture, thus leading me to infer that they do what they do out of their sense of tradition and because they receive that type of teaching from their priest).

[Thomas2618]

Same here in my church (my home church, that is. At the placement church, Mary is given much more attention, and it was clear to me at the Bible study that most people there are not very familiar with scripture, thus leading me to infer that they do what they do out of their sense of tradition and because they receive that type of teaching from their priest).

I would love to know what made you think that they are not very familiar with scripture...I would venture to say that that is a first impression that is probably not very true. And one must remember that not all tradition is written down as scripture, for the scripture is a product of the tradition and is the portion of that tradition that happens to have been written down. Both are as many like to say "inspired" for Jesus promised that the Church would be led into all truth.

[Simon_Templar]

I would love to know what made you think that they are not very familiar with scripture...I would venture to say that that is a first impression that is probably not very true. And one must remember that not all tradition is written down as scripture, for the scripture is a product of the tradition and is the portion of that tradition that happens to have been written down. Both are as many like to say "inspired" for Jesus promised that the Church would be led into all truth.

This is an argument I've heard from time to time about the unwritten teachings of the apostles etc etc, un-written scripture passed on via tradition and so on. I understand the argument and to a point can agree, especially on issues of practice (how services should be run etc). However, the argument is also very weak in some ways. The fact is that the tradition is written, just as scripture is. The difference is when it was written and who it was written by. All of the "un-written scriptures" were written down at various points, but they have never been included in the canon.
The very existance of the canon of scripture shows that the early church did regard scripture as something above and beyond tradition in its authority and reliability. If this were not the case the canon would never have been closed and the traditions, and un written scriptures would have been added to it. The fact that it was closed, and was recognized as closed by the very early church fathers clearly indicates that they saw it is something above and beyond tradition, something that could not be added to, even by the Holy Tradition, or the authority of the church.

[karen freeinchristman]

I would love to know what made you think that they are not very familiar with scripture...I would venture to say that that is a first impression that is probably not very true. And one must remember that not all tradition is written down as scripture, for the scripture is a product of the tradition and is the portion of that tradition that happens to have been written down. Both are as many like to say "inspired" for Jesus promised that the Church would be led into all truth.
I admit that it is a first impression, and that it may not be true. The impression was gained through conversation in the Bible study, which included about 1/3 of the church's congregation. This Bible study is the first they have had in a few years, too, and I was told that they do not do regular Bible studies as a group. But apart from the placement church, I also think that there are quite a few people in my home church as well who do not study the Bible regularly.

[karen freeinchristman]

The very existance of the canon of scripture shows that the early church did regard scripture as something above and beyond tradition in its authority and reliability. If this were not the case the canon would never have been closed and the traditions, and un written scriptures would have been added to it. The fact that it was closed, and was recognized as closed by the very early church fathers clearly indicates that they saw it is something above and beyond tradition, something that could not be added to, even by the Holy Tradition, or the authority of the church.
Yes, I agree.