Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, Elizabeth Mahlou, my fellow blogger from Blest Atheist, asked me one of those “big questions” which necessitate its own blog post. Here is the question:
I am a Catholic who upon occasion attends Orthodox services because of my frequent travels in Eastern European countries. The differences in the masses are obvious, but I wonder what the differences in the theology are. I don't see much. Is that something that you can elucidate?
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.
Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.I think this will do it for now. I invite my Orthodox Christian brethren to agree, disagree, or add your own. Without a doubt, - I am speaking as a Catholic again - what we have in common with the Orthodox Church is immense, but what keeps us apart is important, challenging, and not to be underestimated.
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.
9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.
10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”
11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.
12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.
Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.
Trust kosta50, or trust FF Bruce...
Here is the Wiki article on the Chester Beatty Papyrus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Beatty_Papyri
It is quite a bit more extensive than what you pictured.
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_Papyri
and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
Dating is variable, but some parts are from 150-200 AD, which would be 100-125 years after they were first penned. Everything I’ve seen indicates 95% reliability, with no doctrine in any question.
P46 dates to 175-225 AD, and contains the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians.
The post 317 is highly misleading.
P66 contains John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17. It dates to approximately 200AD.
Post 315 is highly misleading.
P75 has 36 folios (= 72 leaves, 144 pages) and contains Luke 3:18-22; 3:33 - 4:2; 4:34 - 5:10; 5:37 - 6:4; 6:10 - 7:32, 35-39, 41-43; 7:46 - 9:2; 9:4 - 17:15; 17:19 - 18:18; 22:4 - 24:53; John 1:1 - 11:45, 48-57; 12:3 - 13:1, 8-9; 14:8-29; 15:7-8.
Post 318 is very misleading.
In each case, the ‘fragment’ is much, MUCH more extensive than the pictures in the posts would suggest.
εν σαργανη εχαλασθην δια του τειχους και εξεφυγον τας χειρας αυτου καυχασθαι δει ου συμφερον μεν ελευσομαι δε εις οπτασιας και αποκαλυψεις κυριου οιδα ανθρωπον εν χριστω προ ετων δεκατεσσαρων ειτε εν σωματι ουκ οιδα ειτε εκτος του σωματος ουκ οιδα ο θεος οιδεν αρπαγεντα τον τοιουτον εως τριτου ουρανου και οιδα τον τοιουτον ανθρωπον ειτε εν σωματι ειτε χωρις του σωματος ουκ οιδα ο θεος οιδεν οτι ηρπαγη εις τον παραδεισον και ηκουσεν αρρητα ρηματα α ουκ εξον ανθρωπω λαλησαι υπερ του τοιουτου καυχησομαι υπερ δε εμαυτου ου καυχησομαι ει μη εν ταις ασθενειαις εαν γαρ θελησω καυχησασθαι ουκ εσομαι αφρων αληθειαν γαρ ερω φειδομαι δε μη τις εις εμε λογισηται υπερ ο βλεπει με η ακουει εξ εμου και τη υπερβολη των αποκαλυψεων διο ινα μη υπεραιρωμαι εδοθη μοι σκολοψ τη σαρκι αγγελος σατανα ινα με κολαφιζη ινα μη υπεραιρωμαι υπερ τουτου τρις τον κυριον παρεκαλεσα ινα αποστη απ [εμου]
and here's all of 12:9, which obviously is not on the papyrus but is from another source.
και ειρηκεν μοι αρκει σοι η χαρις μου η γαρ δυναμις εν ασθενεια τελειται ηδιστα ουν μαλλον καυχησομαι εν ταις ασθενειαις μου ινα επισκηνωση επ εμε η δυναμις του χριστου
Its 2 Cor 11:33-12:9...with a "few" words missing. The Greek lettering used is, I'm sure this will come as no surprise, archaic.
There is indeed no OT on the altar during the TLM, but there is no NT either. This is evidently another substantial difference between the two rites. In the TLM there is only one book on the altar: the missal. This book contains all the prayers of the mass and all the readings in one big volume - very practical!
What is true is that since the post Vatican II revisions it is now standard for the laity to read the first and second readings. However, the involvement of the laity in liturgical matters has had the unfortunate effect of diverting their attention from the mission, proper to their state, of sanctifying the secular sphere.
It remains the fact that the scripture has numerous instances pointing to the communion of saints. Sometime, like in Transfiguration, they take a form of a visible conversation, sometime, they are called witnesses in a way that suggests supernatural contact rather than physical observation, sometime, they are named and sometime they are not named but only their prayers are mentioned as being delivered. Sometime, the intercession takes place during the life of the saint and sometime after his or her passing on to eternal life. I don’t see how the diversity of methods of how the communion of saints takes place points away from its existence any more than the diversity of ways we communicate in this life points away from the existence of physical communication.
It is possible to interpret any scripture in a number of ways. Certainly, the phrase about Mary “reveling thoughts” can be interpreted, perhaps, differently. My job here is to present the interpretation consistent with Catholic Mariology. Regarding the mutual adoption of Mary and John, surely there is nothing in the scripture to substantiate the hypothesis that it was exclusive to John. but I can easily substantiate my position: Mary appears with all the disciples in Acts 1, and fights on behalf of all of them in Rev. 12.
Of course the ideal existed. It was a thousand year Golden age of Christianity, 4c - 13c. We are still coasting on its cultural achievements, poor orphans.
Some more info:
“When all 5,250+ manuscripts are compared, a total of about 100,000 variants are found. At first glance 100,000 seems like a large number, but this includes misspellings, changes in word order of a sentence, the omission or inclusion of the Greek definite article with proper names, and other minor variants. When all the minor variants are eliminated that do not affect the sense of meaning of a passage, we are left with only 235 variants of any significance. Of these there are only 5 which bring into question the genuineness of a part of the text. Here is a list of the 5 passages in question: Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:20, 22:43-44, 23:34, and John 7:53-8:11. (4)
(http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/NTrely.html)
Mark 16.9-20 (ESV):
[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20.]
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
9[[Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
Jesus Appears to Two Disciples
12 After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13 And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
The Great Commission
14Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
19So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.]]
Luke 22.20: “20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Luke 22.43-44: “43And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”
Luke 23.34: “34And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.”
John 7/8: “The Woman Caught in Adultery
53[[They went each to his own house, 1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]”
The only doctrinally important passages have parallel texts elsewhere.
For the text of FF Bruce’s “THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS
Are they Reliable?”, see http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
Book of Enoch in a Codex is "no doctrine in question?" Absence of pericope adulterae is proof that older copies are forgeries. C. Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as "canon." And one of oyur source with "no doctirne in question" has Hebrews right after Romans
Besides, we know very well that the Church as a hwole has theological and doctirnal issue in the 2nd and 3rd and 4th centuries and even later than that, so how can you claim that some of the codices used didn't have them? The Orthodox Curch of Ethiopia to this day considers the Book of Enoch as inspired.
There has never been a time, ever since Paul came on stage, that the Church, or the writings of the Church were free from internal doctrinal issues.
You said that from the papyri predating the 4th century, specifically the Chester Beatty Library papyri, we could assemble the whole NT.
Your own source proves this is not true!
The oldest fragments, taken together, are not sufficient for that task and that, notably, there is much variation among them.
Cutting and pasting is good for a collage in art classes, but not good enough when it comes to something that is supposed to be the pristine word of God.
As far as I am concerned, you can believe in pink unicorns on Jupiter. Just don't claim they are true unless you can back it up with more than shabby evidence, or worse, your own evidence that proves you wrong.
Not even the Gospels?
What is true is that since the post Vatican II revisions it is now standard for the laity to read the first and second readings
But that's not the point. You are avoiding the question: why are the first 2 readings read by laity, and at least during one (Epistles) everyone is sitting, while the Gospel is read only by the ordianed, while everyone is standing, if all of it is "verbum Domini" the same word of the same God?
However, the involvement of the laity in liturgical matters has had the unfortunate effect of diverting their attention from the mission, proper to their state, of sanctifying the secular sphere.
Your own Church seems to disagree with that. It was, after all, your own Church that implemented those changes. Are you saying the Church is wrong?
I think that says it all. Thank you Kolo.
Of course, but these simply describe concupiscence: the inclination to sin that is our inheritance. The Catechism, too, speaks of our "wounded" condition. They do not imply actual sin. There is no augustinianism in the encyclical.
You write: “ You said that from the papyri predating the 4th century, specifically the Chester Beatty Library papyri, we could assemble the whole NT. Your own source proves this is not true!”
What I wrote (which was a quote):
“From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.”
Notice the difference between what I quoted, and you said I claimed?
Any research into the various texts shows they include non-biblical texts as well, including some pagan writings. How does that harm anything I wrote? And what is the doctrinal significance of where Hebrews is placed?
As for doctrinal disputes - I have many with Catholics, but neither side has any desire to rewrite scripture.
Nor is there much difference between the various texts - 98% agreement, and most of the 2% has been provided for you to see in my previous posts.
Your arguments have no validity. You can blow smoke and squirt ink if you wish, but that is a poor substitute for facts.
“It remains the fact that the scripture has numerous instances pointing to the communion of saints.”
You have threaded together a disparate group
of unrelated events which do not teach veneration
and in every case are not what you advocate
Christians practice. Based on that collection of
unrelated events, you are trying to support
a doctrine or belief. You have that right, but
the source of it is not the Bible.
“Regarding the mutual adoption of Mary and John, surely there is nothing in the scripture to substantiate the hypothesis that it was exclusive to John”
... except the plain words spoken directly to the Apostle
John. It is no hypothesis, it is what it says. If you
can show a legitimate reason to demonstrate it means
something other than what it says, I would like to hear it.
So far, you have not done so. Between you and I, it seems
that the Marionites started with a belief and then went to
the Bible to find some kind of support. I do it the opposite
way. I start with the Bible and ask what it teaches.
“but I can easily substantiate my position: Mary appears with all the disciples in Acts 1, and fights on behalf of all of them in Rev. 12”
Her appearance with the disciples does not in itself mean
Mary is the mother of all Christians. You are connecting dots,
but the dots aren’t anywhere contiguous to each other.
As to Revelation 12, no compelling reason to think it is
Mary, as I posted earlier.
I have absolutely no problem with you believing anything
you wish as to your personal faith. If venerating departed
Christians makes you feel somehow closer to God, that is
up to you. I don’t want to rain on your parade. That certainly
isn’t my purpose in inquiring on this thread.
best to you,
ampu
I am sorry if it came across as condescension.
The verse Kolokotronis posted was “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (John 21:25). The one I responded with was “To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand”, Luke 8:10.
There is nothing there to encourage us to pay attention to Mary. On the contrary, Jesus tells the woman to focus on God instead.
This is not what happened. Jesus did not stop the woman from venerating His mother, but instead He explained that the reason for venerating her is that she brought to us the Word, that is His own person. The woman's intention was to venerate her as the physiological mother of Jesus and He pointed out the spiritual dimension of the Incarnation instead. Firther, Jesus instructed us to likewise venerate all who keep the word of God, that is, all the saints.
No. See: http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=012
The woman in Rev. 12 is identified as mother of Christ directly in the text. That her involvement in the battle is allegorical of the struggle of the Chruch for our souls, and that both Israel and the Church is typified by Mary no one is denying.
Nothing in there about her becoming a mother to us all...
Like I said to aMorePerfectUnion, this trivialization of the last words of Christ is not consistent with the cosmic event that is unfolding, nor with other instances where Mary is shown with all the disciples. Also, there is no "home" in the original. However, if you want to ignore the spiritual meaning and see the ecomomic arrangement for the welfare of Christ's mother only, well, that would be your interpretation, and I am blessed with mine.
From Barnes
In short, Mary reveals the thoughts of many hearts. How she does it, is indeed by either receiving their love or their hatred, the theme also seen in the Rev. 12 where Satan spews a river of calumnies against her. The lively response that threads about Mary get at FR is a reflection of that fact, that is it impossible to separate the love for christ from the love for His blessed Mother.
And my response to that, aside from quoting +Luke back to Alex, was a line from the end of the Divine Liturgy which means, sort of, “Glory to You, our God, Glory to You.”
In an effort to avoid further unpleasantness, the RM has agreed that when we post in a foreign language we will post where the non English phrase is coming from, for example, a cite to whatever scripture or liturgical work or theological work is being quoted in the original Greek or perhaps in Slavonic, Arabic, Ge’ez, Coptic, Latin or Aramaic, the other languages in which Christian scripture can be mostly accurately expressed without the problems we see posed by English translations. This will allow the RMs to review the posts to make sure that they comply with FRs posting rules which was apparently a concern.
“I think that says it all.”
I thought you’d catch that, Kosta! Its one more reason why a working knowledge of Greek is so important when discussing Christian theology.
“Thank you Kolo.”
You are very welcome, Kosta.
I think I explained the scriptural substantiation for veneration of saints and of Mary amply. That interpretations exist that minimize or walk away from those, or refuse connection between them, I do not dispute.
However, you are correct that neither the Catholics or the Orthodox read ther scripture in order to find what to believe. We get our beliefs from the Church, from the liturgy, the homiletic teaching, and in a single package with the grace of the divine sacraments. While we read and love the scripture, and are familiar with the Protestant interpretations, we find them either inconvincing or at times in direct contradiction with the scripture. At the same time, as I explain in application to the veneration of Mary and the saints, there is nothing in our practice that is not in harmony with the scripture as written; it is your side that needs to ignore or minimize or trivilaize passages in order to fit your man-made theologies into the scriptural framework.
You can use your method, from scripture to faith, up to a point, but you need to read the scripture as written and ignore the commentary that tends to explain the scripture away. Anyone who reads the scripture without a preconceived theology will end up either Catholic or Orthodox.
“The woman in Rev. 12 is identified as mother of Christ directly in the text.”
If there is any book of the Bible lacking in perspicuity, it would have to be Revelations. Can you produce the quote? I can’t find it.
It looks to me like you interpret 12.5 “5She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days” as meaning the woman is Mary, but if so, then after the 7th seal was broken, she became pregnant and gave birth to Jesus. And after Jesus ascended, she would have fled into the wilderness.
Also, in Revelations 2 we read, “18”And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write...25 Only hold fast what you have until I come. 26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.”
So I’m not inclined to believe it is referencing Mary, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
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.