Posted on 09/25/2003 9:18:42 AM PDT by Greg Luzinski
And you're not reading mine apparently. Chrysostom says "She is Called Mother of James". Now, as I've already shown from other quotes, Chrysostom believes that Mary was "Ever Virgin". So what does this one quote of yours mean? Does it mean he thought she wasn't a virgin? No. As I've said before, the Eastern Fathers-of whom Chrysostom was probably the greatest and most well known-believed that St. Joseph was a widower when he married Our Lady, and that he had other children, including James, from a previous marriage. Now, why would Chrysostom stress that "she is CALLEDMother of James?". Because she was his step-mother. If my mom dies and my dad remarries, I very well may introduce his second wife as "my mother". She would be, in a legal sense. But she didn't give me birth to me.
More likely, however, is that Chrysostom may not even be referring to the Blessed Mother here. The vast majority of fathers and early witnesses do not believe that Mary, the Mother of James and Joses, was the Blessed Mother. And I don't believe that a single scholar today holds that view. So Chrysostom is on his own here,if that is what he is saying(and it's by no means the clearest sentence I've ever read;it's fairly ambigious). And he states his belief in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother elsewhere.
And to top things off, he's the author of the Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholic Liturgy, which calls Mary "Ever Virgin", "Theotokos,ie,God-Bearer" and "sinless" over and over again. Sounds like a Catholic to me.
Sorry, but your position is the one that has to be proven. The vast majority of the Early Fathers(with the exception of Tertullian, who became a heretic) believed that Mary was "Ever Virgin". That is the early witness of the Church. Even Luther and Calvin didn't dare break with that tradition. Modern Protestants who despise the Blessed Mother have a burden to prove, not the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, not even the founders of the Protestant Reformation.
And the "sex is evil" crap is nonsense. Mary had the greatest dignity of any human being-she held God Incarnate in Her womb. Don't you think that makes her a little different than other women, than other wives? I know that Modern Protestant evangelicalism likes to think she was nothing more than a human incubator,and think that people like Spurgeon and Moody(good men, by the way) deserve more honors than the very person who gave flesh and blood to the God-Man. But the burden of proof is on your side.
Yeah, but remember, Chrysostom also said things like the quotes below. See what a problem it can be when you blindly accept what the church fathers have said without exercising the judgement that scripture provides us? Do you not acknowledge that perhaps Chrysostom was wrong at times?"I hate the Jews because they violate the Law. I hate the synagogue because it has the Law and the prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews."---"Homilies Against the Jews" in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)
"The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen."
---"Homilies Against the Jews" in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)
See my post 163. It sounds to me like Chrysostom had some serious errors in his thinking. I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in everything he said or wrote.
Who challenged the authority of the Emperor of Rome and what happened to those who did ?
The Romans coopted and synthesized religions for the sake of empire.
The "vast majority?" Whatever happened to the "unanimity of the Fathers" that is so important to formulating Catholic doctrine (whatever it happens to be at a given point in time). Are you telling me that the fathers weren't unanimous? Funny, that's exactly what I've been telling you!
Luther was an anti-semite as well. He wrote a tract called "The Jews And Their Lies", and advocated burning down synagogues. I won't bother posting the quotes for "shock effect"; a Google search will turn them up without a problem. Calvin was also anti-semitic. Again, try Google. What does any of that prove? Nothing, at least not about the subject at hand.
Chrysostom's anti-semitism is troubling(and he's not the only Father who said these kinds of things). The only thing it proves is that, like all men, some of the Fathers of the Church were sinners.It certainly doesn't prove that the Early Church believed in Reformed Theology. When you can find quotes than can prove that, get back to me.
No wonder you like James White so much. You're following his debate playbook. You lose on the main issues, so the "shock" effect is needed. Lame. Really lame.
Ok, except for Tertullian(who was a heretic even by Protestant standards) it was "unanimity", ok? You really should try a new playbook.
No, Chrysostom was a sinner. He held the same views on the Jews that Luther and Calvin, the founders of your religion, did.
In 190 A.D., the Church was being persecuted by Rome and had nothing to do with the government. Better go back to history class.
The Roman Emperors exercised authority and crushed their enemies (if they weren't assasinated first). The Romans were a cruel and hard people, an iron fist if you would.
They co-opted the religions of conquered nations over time and synthesized them so they were not a threat to the Empire. Almost the entire Empire consisted of Gentiles whose religious cultures were completely incompatible with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was natural for them to try to take aspects of what the Jewish Apostles taught and modify it to fit their world(s).
What book of the Bible did he write ?
Yeshua kept the Passover and instructed his disciples to do the same and remember him when they did it.
It was too simple a request and the Gentiles synthesized it.
None. Put please tell me the relevance of all that you're quoting here. Rome didn't recognize Christianity until Constantine in the Fourth Century. What you're saying is all of the usual Jack Chick "Catholicism is a Pagan Cult" nonsense that has been totally discredited historically and biblically. Again, what is the relevance of what you're posting?
And the next time I see a Catholic worshipping a statue of a feminine deity, I'll tell them to stop. How's that?
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.